- Dropout never concerned me, it should be a valid option. Tacnets are quite a benefit for those who opt-in. Dropping out will cost you 3 dice compared to everyone else, on more than one relevant pool.
- Agent Smith is not good for defensive use, because any hacker will just spoof one of the numerous legitimate matrix IDs and be on the "do NEVER attack" list. Dog-brains. Offensive usage can be dealt with by granting a +1 dp on Firewall+Analyse per consecutive attack in the same timeframe. IC storms would be undesireable unless you noticed massive agents in a node (hackers would spoof), and therefore you´d not waste the ressources unless under agent attack.
- I would have preferred SOTA rules for hardware + "free" software. Something as simple as increasing the lifestyle cost per response 5 or 6 chip / more for nexi.
Full Version: Unwired: Not Happy
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 29 2008, 12:00 PM) 
First of all, a Vampire weapon character can get up to 5 dice from attributes, up to 5 dice from skill, up to 5 dice from the weapon, up to 5 dice from discipline and any of a number of dice from specializations, circumstantial bonuses, and backgrounds. You're lucky if a Vampire swordsman is "only" rolling 20d10.
But second of all, we aren't talking about rolling d10s or adding dice together, we're talking about rolling a handful of cubes and counting hits. You can use very small dice without damaging anything because the dice are cubes and both roll and land very nicely at any size. Since you're counting 5s and 6s rather than adding up the totals on the dice, determination of result is very fast. Indeed, since TNs are static in SR4, resolution speed is actually very fast for each individual test. Rolling 16 SR4 dice is much faster than for example rolling 8d6 and adding the results of each die, and it can be much smaller in your hand than even rolling 8d10s. You can get a block of 36 d6s for less than 8 dollars, so the whole thing ends up as one of the easiest engines to deal with logistically on the planet.
But second of all, we aren't talking about rolling d10s or adding dice together, we're talking about rolling a handful of cubes and counting hits. You can use very small dice without damaging anything because the dice are cubes and both roll and land very nicely at any size. Since you're counting 5s and 6s rather than adding up the totals on the dice, determination of result is very fast. Indeed, since TNs are static in SR4, resolution speed is actually very fast for each individual test. Rolling 16 SR4 dice is much faster than for example rolling 8d6 and adding the results of each die, and it can be much smaller in your hand than even rolling 8d10s. You can get a block of 36 d6s for less than 8 dollars, so the whole thing ends up as one of the easiest engines to deal with logistically on the planet.
I didn't say that was the max number of dice to use in Vampire, et al, I just said that having to use 10d10 was bad enough - do try and read what's written, not what you think I've written.
The fact that you think the price of dice has anything to do with the number of dice you roll is interesting, and indicates that you would consider writing each number that makes up Pi on a separate sheet of paper and carrying that around for use in mathematics an ok solution, because paper is very cheap and the sheer number of sheets of paper not an issue, and a calculator is more expensive.
This may come as a surprise to you, but how to read the dice has little to do with the number of dice used.
Physically having to roll 12+ dice to perform an action is just not the easiest of things to do [irrespective of how easy it is to read those dice and get a result - HERO does a better job for damage]...
...And used to be a very common thing to bitch about for Vampire, etc.
I roleplay to have fun, not to have to lug around 20+ dice, when I could carry around less than half-a-dozen...
...I've never really got my jollies by fondling large numbers of dice and counting numbers, or being obsessed with the minutiae of designing and building things using RPG rules [Traveller and HERO are much better for doing that, if you really want to], but I do hope it makes your life fulfilling.
I can reduce the basic SR mechanics to stat+skill+modifier or less on 2d6 [near enough], which doesn't give the same results statistically, but is a damn lot faster - which means my games are faster and more fun and don't require truckloads of dice just to get involved, which means me and my players do what we got together for [to have an enjoyable time].
Mr Trollman, I like some of the stuff you write, I like the fact that you write things up and change things when you think you can do better...
...But you're not me, and telling me that my dislike of rolling large numbers of dice is flawed because they're cheap and other games are worse is kinda missing the point.
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 29 2008, 07:14 AM)
Synner: People can and will carry multiple commlinks. They will turn all of them on with active personas accessed through AR. And they will load powerful Agents in them which are set to take orders from whatever Persona the character is actually using (this uses up a single subscription slot).
Cool, we agree on most of that. Miracles will happen.
The one issue that comes up is an important one. And it relates to that leap you're making in the final sentence: the assumption that "powerful agents" loaded into other personas taking orders from whatever persona the character is actually using don't fall qualify as "autonomous programs". I'm not sure what's behind that leap since there is no doubt in my mind that in such instances you are commanding the agent and not the persona. As long as an agent doesn't recieve direct commands from the specific persona it is loaded onto, it is intended to be treated as an autonomous program with all the relevant restrictions. It is, to use your words, "unsupervised" by the persona that it is loaded into and for all intents and purposes is on another node from the persona you are using (since it is loaded on a distinct persona, with a distinct OS, and has a distinct Access ID.) Bob could give me command of an agent loaded on to his persona on his commlink and it would be the same thing. I see no doubt in the fact that if an agent it is commanded to do anything by anyone other than the persona it is currently loaded into, then it is operating as an autonomous program to whatever persona issued the command.
To reiterate: what I have been saying, and specifically noted above, is that if you command an agent loaded onto a persona other than the one you are directly using its actions from that point on are treated as an autonomous program. The fact that it's loaded into an active persona doesn't change that, as long as the command didn't come from that persona. The agent is effectively based on a different piece of hardware, it is linked to a different persona, with its unique Access ID and if it is commanded by any other persona, it is effectively acting autonomously of a direct user interface.
Unless you are controlling/switching back and forth beteen both (or 10) persona at the same time and commanding the agents loaded on them directly, there is no mechanical difference between commanding an agent loaded on one of your other persona/commlinks, your toaster with no persona, Bob's persona/commlink, or Renraku's nexi—in all cases it is treated as an autonomous program. If you as persona A command an agent on persona B (assuming authorizations are in place) to hack something, persona B will just sit there and the agent will act autonomously. If it has to access a node it will present its software Access ID, not persona B's. If it has to move nodes to accomplish its task, it will be the agent moving not the persona.
As for running multiple persona ... While I wasn't lead developer on this project I do believe that Rob's intent was a one persona/individual rule (per the fiction on p.91), on the principle that multiple simultaneous simsense or AR feeds would be overwhelming (the one brain argument). However, since this didn't make it into the actual rules, we'll be looking into whether this requires errata (For the record I would personally favor a multitasking modifier in line with the multi-presence rules for simulatenously using multiple persona and the possibility of a Free Action to switch between active persona, however a simple one persona limit is a simpler solution - this will be discussed and any changes will appear in errata.) That said, there are (currently) no rules limits on the number of persona you can command, but—given that there is no provision in the rules for chaining actual user interfaces/persona, only hardware—each should be treated as distinct interface and handled separately (taking up separate Actions to control, Free Actions to swith between or subject to any modifiers the gamemaster sees fit for overlaying multiple persona user interfaces.)
Keep in mind that at this point agents are loaded onto specific persona, and if you want ten persona running, each has a separate interface and must be controlled separately. The gamemaster should feel free to impose any modifiers he thinks appropriate for multitasking 10 different persona interfaces simultaneously. You can have ten persona operating in your cluster, but each is a separate user interface and to the best of my knowledge there is no provision in the rules for chaining persona/user interfaces (only hardware). Each persona interface is linked to a distinct OS and Access ID.
Regardless of the above considerations, my initial point stands, agents loaded on persona are not under the command of any other persona, regardless of how your hardware is linked up, they are loaded into separate OS/persona interfaces and if commanded by another persona are treated as autonomous programs (they could be on Bob's commlink and it would be the same) with the inherent limitations that entails. Since programs loaded onto each persona including agents are specific to that persona, when they are commanded by any other persona (assuming authorizations are in place) they will act as autonomous programs (they're acting independently of direct command from the persona they are loaded into).
QUOTE
This means that your limits on Agents are not limits. It doesn't take time and money. It just takes money. And the money is less than 10 grand - the price of an additional link to run a persona and an Agent.
As I've mentioned above you're only half right. While a one agent/one commlink tactic is viable (and expensive) it does have serious limitations (independently of the considerations above). Unless you don't mind being traced there are additional costs in time and money to buying programs for all those commlinks and agents. If you do used cracked warez there is a constant overhead in time and/or money to program or find patches to keep your cracked software up to date. It takes time and/or money to patch your agent's access IDs if you opt to crack them.
it even takes time to manipulate several persona at the same time. For the record neither are the costs limited to buying extra commlinks and stocking up on agents. You have to buy programs (even if cheaply off the Cracker Underground). This is the sort of thing someone might do for a major hack, but its benefits are overkill for anything else. But it is neither cost or time-effective for most hacks. While an anti-corp or hacker group might decide to use this tactic as a one-time ewarfare attack, the minute an attack on this scale is detected the corp would launch one of its botnets, IC storms, or DDOS attack against the offenders.
QUOTE
The ideal set-up is to chain together a series of comms that are themselves either Clusters of commlinks or wired to peripherals such that they can each simultaneously run an acceptably large number of programs without slowdown. On each of these chain links you will also put a single Persona and loaded into that Persona you will put a single Agent. And then you will rock out with your cock out.
This is indeed possible, with the caveat that any agent not directly loaded into the persona you are commanding is subject to the autonomous program rules as soon as it is ordered to do anything.
QUOTE
The rules for clustering and stacking commlinks together are so incredibly generous that there is no reason to not do it. You can "be" dozens or hundreds of users all with their own Personas and their own otherwise identical program sets. And you would be a damn fool to not do this. Unwired was clearly written with the vision of everyone running a single commlink and giving a damn about program limits. But the optimum play strategy is to not do that. For just a couple month's high lifestyle you can cover your body with commlinks and agents, performing tasks as if you were literally a small army of high end hackers rather than a single person. Heck, you can do this with no appreciable Matrix skill, and you will slam dunk someone who bothered to spend 400 BP on making a single 'link hacker be all he can be.
It is certainly possible, but there are built in restrictions. As I mentioned above (repeatedly), as long as they are not loaded into the persona that you are controlling directly agents suffer the limitations of running as autonomous programs.
You do indirectly bring up an errata point, and I'm grateful for you pointing out the oversight- another thing to add to the list. We did forget to note how a cluster node impacts Access IDs.
How does the 'persona autonomous agent thing' work in terms of the rest of the matrix having some funky way of knowing how agents loaded into a persona get their orders.
I could
A) If I have 10 commlinks, which I am controlling vocally (I can even do that in the rules, carn't I?) attach 10 mics to them, run them all infront of me newsconference style and say 'hack into the server we identified last week and loaded into a script!' or 'Browse the intertubes for hilarious videos about kittens!'
B) I could email them all that
C) I could tell one agent to email all the other agents that]
But seriously, how does anyone else know what I've picked? You're saying that the rest of the matrix knows that I'm doing C vs A and responds differently to the agents. Whu? How do they know that? As fair as everyone else is concerned, I've got 10 persona's doing the same thing.
Also, you're completely wrong about it their being incremental costs aside from hardware. If I've already got one set of patched cracked programs, then I have as many sets as I want. Exception will be agents when you get around to errataing it, but that doesn't matter considering I have 10 personas.
I could
A) If I have 10 commlinks, which I am controlling vocally (I can even do that in the rules, carn't I?) attach 10 mics to them, run them all infront of me newsconference style and say 'hack into the server we identified last week and loaded into a script!' or 'Browse the intertubes for hilarious videos about kittens!'
B) I could email them all that
C) I could tell one agent to email all the other agents that]
But seriously, how does anyone else know what I've picked? You're saying that the rest of the matrix knows that I'm doing C vs A and responds differently to the agents. Whu? How do they know that? As fair as everyone else is concerned, I've got 10 persona's doing the same thing.
Also, you're completely wrong about it their being incremental costs aside from hardware. If I've already got one set of patched cracked programs, then I have as many sets as I want. Exception will be agents when you get around to errataing it, but that doesn't matter considering I have 10 personas.
QUOTE (Synner)
And it relates to that leap you're making in the final sentence: the assumption that "powerful agents" loaded into other personas taking orders from whatever persona the character is actually using don't fall qualify as "autonomous programs". I'm not sure what's behind that leap since there is no doubt in my mind that in such instances you are commanding the agent and not the persona. As long as an agent doesn't recieve direct commands from the specific persona it is loaded onto, it is intended to be treated as an autonomous program with all the relevant restrictions.
I'm going to stop you right there. There is no way to stop the commands from being "directly" from the Persona they are loaded onto. You just put up a node script to have the Persona "write" an exact copy of any agent orders to the Agent that is loaded onto it and then you subscribe to the Persona rather than to the Agent. As Cthulhudreams said, the Matrix can't "know" that the Persona only gave the instruction because the Persona was instructed to give the instruction, so it's not possible for it to be treated any differently.
But that's the foundation of why I'm making a clean break with the official Matrix rules. The material I write and play with from here on out reference nothing between pages 205 and 240 of the main book, nor will they reference Unwired. And the reason is because in the vision that is currently presented it actually functionally matters whether I have a node script set up to have Agent.Smith.Hackastackbox4a rewrite incoming messages so that the message that finally reaches the Agent "originates" on one node or another. It actually functionally matters whether I have taken time out of my busy schedule to make the Computer + Edit (1) test to modify the Black/White List for Access IDs on my various devices. It functionally matters which devices are peripherals, masters, slaves, and cluster components. It matters what physical hardware I have various programs stored and running in, and it matters which of those pieces of hardware are the ones with currently active antennae and which are fed into other devices with cables and it matters what order that cabling takes place in.
The Matrix Topology segment is so jacked that it actually makes us care about Matrix Topography. And when it gets that complicated, bad things happen. And you can errata that book a hundred times and bad things will still happen because Topographical positioning + arbitrary computational infrastructure == Madness and =/= Sparta.
-Frank
You're looking at the equation from the wrong end. The rest of the Matrix doesn't have to make any distinction, all every other node does is prompt the construct that is accessing the node to provide an access ID. What access ID is offered by the construct varies depending on what it is and how it is operating. In it simplist form a persona, an autonomous program, an AI, etc provides a its unique access ID (in the case of personas this is the commlink's hardware access ID, in the case of autonomous programs this is an embedded software access ID). As Frank has pointed out there are ways of mixing it up, for instance accessing a node using a persona with a loaded agent means that the agent doesn't have to offer its own access ID (this is only required if it is acting autonomously of the persona it is loaded on).
I'm pretty sure you're confusing agents (potentially autonomous software constructs) with persona (to put it simply the OS user interface in a commlink.) but I'll take a stab at answering your points:
a) if you have 10 commlinks lined up as described and are controlling them vocally, you are effectively running ten personas simultaneously each with its own (potentially different) program load, each with its own (potentially different) hardware, and each with its own (potentially different) node ratings. Personas are user interfaces, they do not execute and perform actions autonomously, they do not even run scripts. In order for a persona to hack a site, a user must execute specific programs loaded into it and fiddle with the code, parameters, and configurations to get the best result (as represented by the standard Hacking Tests)—which is where a Hacker's skill comes in (and why using multiple programs on multiple persona should incur modifiers). You are, however, correct in implying that you could potentially issue the same commands to 10 persona/commlinks set up as described. This in no way changes the fact that 10 different commlinks with 10 different access IDs all try to connect to the node you want hacked. That this means 10 distinct persona logging on to the node. And that under the rules, the Tests for each persona/commlink should be handled separately, since the results might be different (actively performing 10 simultaneous Hacking Tests should incur either a modifier or force you to divide your pool.) Should all the 10 hack attempts be successful, 10 personas with their individual program loads have now logged on to the hacked node on 10 separate accounts (linked to those 10 separate Access IDs).
(In the eventuality that by 10 commlinks/persona you actually meant ten agents, all of the above applies, but since you are commanding the agent to access other nodes outside the personas host node it is acting as an autonomous program and subject to the limitations on p.110, it may however run scripts.)
b) I'm not sure what you mean. Using software on a persona interface requires you to actively execute and tweak the software (hence the Hacking Test), seems to me like there's some confusion regarding the distinction between persona/user interfaces and autonomous programs/agents.
c) Yup, this is correct, you can send the same order to hundreds of different agents all loaded with the same script in a variety of different ways. They would then go about their business as autonomous programs (per the rules on p.110 and subject to the restrictions thereof - the main one being the limitation on identical Access IDs which means all those agents would have had to be legally bought and sport different access IDs, or would have to have had their Access IDs patched).
"Nobody" needs to know whether the agent is acting autonomously or not, but the agent itself will use its own access ID when prompted if it is not being directly commanded by the persona it is loaded on.
Frank, ultimately the point isn't actually whether the persona gave the instruction directly or if it was forwarded by a node script (this only affects whether an agent is acting autonomously of the persona or not).
Currently there are no rules for issuing scripted orders to persona (even with node scripts) because persona are simply user interfaces and don't have autonomous programming to do anything without the hacker actively initiating and participating in the action (which is why Tests use Hacking skills).
I could even argue that the node script trick you are describing is only possible on nexi (which allow you to run multiple persona on the same OS), since node scripts are by definition specific to a node and an OS, different commlinks (even chained) are separate nodes, have distinct OSs, persona, and access IDs. But then you'd argue that you could set up running node script on the "emitter" to repeat all commands from one commlink to another, and another running node script on the "reciever" to implement them and have the second (or fiftieth) persona perform them. To which I'd argue that the need for a Hacking Test implies that the hacker must take an active role in the user interface when a persona is involved and that its not just click and run. To which you might answer that the aforementioned node scripts could easily repeat any Hacker commands (possibly translating to a single Hacking Roll applying to all the chained commlinks.) To which I'd reply that adjustments need to be made that are specific to each Test/attempt and these may differ even between two identical systems using the same software simulatneously (as evidenced by the fact that Hacking Tests results can vary in those conditions.) And on and on and on.
So let's cut this short and agree to disagree. I wish you luck with your alternate rules.
I'm pretty sure you're confusing agents (potentially autonomous software constructs) with persona (to put it simply the OS user interface in a commlink.) but I'll take a stab at answering your points:
a) if you have 10 commlinks lined up as described and are controlling them vocally, you are effectively running ten personas simultaneously each with its own (potentially different) program load, each with its own (potentially different) hardware, and each with its own (potentially different) node ratings. Personas are user interfaces, they do not execute and perform actions autonomously, they do not even run scripts. In order for a persona to hack a site, a user must execute specific programs loaded into it and fiddle with the code, parameters, and configurations to get the best result (as represented by the standard Hacking Tests)—which is where a Hacker's skill comes in (and why using multiple programs on multiple persona should incur modifiers). You are, however, correct in implying that you could potentially issue the same commands to 10 persona/commlinks set up as described. This in no way changes the fact that 10 different commlinks with 10 different access IDs all try to connect to the node you want hacked. That this means 10 distinct persona logging on to the node. And that under the rules, the Tests for each persona/commlink should be handled separately, since the results might be different (actively performing 10 simultaneous Hacking Tests should incur either a modifier or force you to divide your pool.) Should all the 10 hack attempts be successful, 10 personas with their individual program loads have now logged on to the hacked node on 10 separate accounts (linked to those 10 separate Access IDs).
(In the eventuality that by 10 commlinks/persona you actually meant ten agents, all of the above applies, but since you are commanding the agent to access other nodes outside the personas host node it is acting as an autonomous program and subject to the limitations on p.110, it may however run scripts.)
b) I'm not sure what you mean. Using software on a persona interface requires you to actively execute and tweak the software (hence the Hacking Test), seems to me like there's some confusion regarding the distinction between persona/user interfaces and autonomous programs/agents.
c) Yup, this is correct, you can send the same order to hundreds of different agents all loaded with the same script in a variety of different ways. They would then go about their business as autonomous programs (per the rules on p.110 and subject to the restrictions thereof - the main one being the limitation on identical Access IDs which means all those agents would have had to be legally bought and sport different access IDs, or would have to have had their Access IDs patched).
"Nobody" needs to know whether the agent is acting autonomously or not, but the agent itself will use its own access ID when prompted if it is not being directly commanded by the persona it is loaded on.
QUOTE (Frank)
I'm going to stop you right there. There is no way to stop the commands from being "directly" from the Persona they are loaded onto. You just put up a node script to have the Persona "write" an exact copy of any agent orders to the Agent that is loaded onto it and then you subscribe to the Persona rather than to the Agent. As Cthulhudreams said, the Matrix can't "know" that the Persona only gave the instruction because the Persona was instructed to give the instruction, so it's not possible for it to be treated any differently.
Frank, ultimately the point isn't actually whether the persona gave the instruction directly or if it was forwarded by a node script (this only affects whether an agent is acting autonomously of the persona or not).
Currently there are no rules for issuing scripted orders to persona (even with node scripts) because persona are simply user interfaces and don't have autonomous programming to do anything without the hacker actively initiating and participating in the action (which is why Tests use Hacking skills).
I could even argue that the node script trick you are describing is only possible on nexi (which allow you to run multiple persona on the same OS), since node scripts are by definition specific to a node and an OS, different commlinks (even chained) are separate nodes, have distinct OSs, persona, and access IDs. But then you'd argue that you could set up running node script on the "emitter" to repeat all commands from one commlink to another, and another running node script on the "reciever" to implement them and have the second (or fiftieth) persona perform them. To which I'd argue that the need for a Hacking Test implies that the hacker must take an active role in the user interface when a persona is involved and that its not just click and run. To which you might answer that the aforementioned node scripts could easily repeat any Hacker commands (possibly translating to a single Hacking Roll applying to all the chained commlinks.) To which I'd reply that adjustments need to be made that are specific to each Test/attempt and these may differ even between two identical systems using the same software simulatneously (as evidenced by the fact that Hacking Tests results can vary in those conditions.) And on and on and on.
So let's cut this short and agree to disagree. I wish you luck with your alternate rules.
Synner I actually mean persona's loaded with agents (There are two methods for deploying agent in the book, one is to load them into a persona, the other into a node. So the first one of those options). Not either separately.
So while your chain scenario is quaint, I'm just using the persona's as carriers for an agent I'm loading into them. So, what I would do is bust out my 10 personas, load 10 agents, tell agents 1-9 to assist agent 10 in whatever he is doing when they get the 'go code' All the persona's are doing is acting as a vegative 'host' for the parasitic agent - which can act on orders generated via email or whatever.
So then I'd send an email to everyone with "Agent 10, exploit the node" and bust out my teamwork test for exploit with agents 1-9 (loaded in persona's 1-9) in support. Works fine as far as I can see. Agent smith is working great.
The only thing you are actually making difficult is relocating all the persona's once I have done something. The is no way to issue an order to move the containers (the personas) on mass to a new location. This doesn't matter in the defensive situation as I can move all the personas to the node at the front of my defense network, and then the agents can teamwork up on analyze or whatever. So corps can defend against hackers no problem.
It doesn't matter for things like browse, spoof and exploit that run from the 'home node' because again, I don't have to move the personas.
The only time it becomes really irritating is that when I've exploited in persona 10 - containing agent 10, he needs to edit the access list by himself (annoying) and then I need to ferry my remaining 10 personas in.
This is only a limitation, incidently, if agents loaded into personas cannot control the persona.
Lets walk you through a scenario.
I have 10 commlinks. I chain these together and log in all 10 persona's into the 'front node' and load a rating 6 agent into all personas. All persona's have my full suite of software 'on tap' and some stuff loaded obviously.
Now on the defense my personas/agents can
A) Attack x 10 any intruders
B) Analyze x 10 the node
C) Spoof x 10 for my new lifestyle or whatever.
D) Exploit x 10 into a new node
No limitation you've laid down in that post is going to stop me doing that.
Now once I've exploited my leading man into a node, I am actually slowed down (slightly) by your limitations
I need to edit in 1423524624532 more user accounts so persona 1-9 can come to support Persona/Agent 10, then I need to manually move the personas into the new node. This is a bit of a speedbump, but then I have 10 agents running in the new node just peachy.
So while your chain scenario is quaint, I'm just using the persona's as carriers for an agent I'm loading into them. So, what I would do is bust out my 10 personas, load 10 agents, tell agents 1-9 to assist agent 10 in whatever he is doing when they get the 'go code' All the persona's are doing is acting as a vegative 'host' for the parasitic agent - which can act on orders generated via email or whatever.
So then I'd send an email to everyone with "Agent 10, exploit the node" and bust out my teamwork test for exploit with agents 1-9 (loaded in persona's 1-9) in support. Works fine as far as I can see. Agent smith is working great.
The only thing you are actually making difficult is relocating all the persona's once I have done something. The is no way to issue an order to move the containers (the personas) on mass to a new location. This doesn't matter in the defensive situation as I can move all the personas to the node at the front of my defense network, and then the agents can teamwork up on analyze or whatever. So corps can defend against hackers no problem.
It doesn't matter for things like browse, spoof and exploit that run from the 'home node' because again, I don't have to move the personas.
The only time it becomes really irritating is that when I've exploited in persona 10 - containing agent 10, he needs to edit the access list by himself (annoying) and then I need to ferry my remaining 10 personas in.
This is only a limitation, incidently, if agents loaded into personas cannot control the persona.
Lets walk you through a scenario.
I have 10 commlinks. I chain these together and log in all 10 persona's into the 'front node' and load a rating 6 agent into all personas. All persona's have my full suite of software 'on tap' and some stuff loaded obviously.
Now on the defense my personas/agents can
A) Attack x 10 any intruders
B) Analyze x 10 the node
C) Spoof x 10 for my new lifestyle or whatever.
D) Exploit x 10 into a new node
No limitation you've laid down in that post is going to stop me doing that.
Now once I've exploited my leading man into a node, I am actually slowed down (slightly) by your limitations
I need to edit in 1423524624532 more user accounts so persona 1-9 can come to support Persona/Agent 10, then I need to manually move the personas into the new node. This is a bit of a speedbump, but then I have 10 agents running in the new node just peachy.
Persona /= Agent. Therefore you can't issue commands to the persona and have it operate independently.
According to BBB, an agent that does anything on a node in which the persona is not located is operating independently.
From Unwired, unless patched your Agent has the same AID as any agents copied from it.
All you've essentially done with your 10 commlinks is set up a botnet without doing any Mass Probes. Congrats.
You could still buy 10 different types of agents (ie. from different programmers) and have the same effect. For rating 6 it'd be 18,000 nuyen and 3000 nuyen per month. Then they'd all have different AIDs but you'd run into the little problem that all 10 would still have to hack in independently or else one would have to hack in, set up a backdoor, then the rest could come flooding in.
BTW, the corp would have to pay ten times the amount in up front costs to set this up. According to most GAAP the various subsidiaries would still have to pay at full price. Net cost to the overall Corp is 0 but that department's budget just went up by 200K.
According to BBB, an agent that does anything on a node in which the persona is not located is operating independently.
From Unwired, unless patched your Agent has the same AID as any agents copied from it.
All you've essentially done with your 10 commlinks is set up a botnet without doing any Mass Probes. Congrats.
You could still buy 10 different types of agents (ie. from different programmers) and have the same effect. For rating 6 it'd be 18,000 nuyen and 3000 nuyen per month. Then they'd all have different AIDs but you'd run into the little problem that all 10 would still have to hack in independently or else one would have to hack in, set up a backdoor, then the rest could come flooding in.
BTW, the corp would have to pay ten times the amount in up front costs to set this up. According to most GAAP the various subsidiaries would still have to pay at full price. Net cost to the overall Corp is 0 but that department's budget just went up by 200K.
Side question, as you are having a discussion about specifics:
There are three potentially controlling entities for a node: OS(device user), OS(persona), and command program. I get the construct "persona", but what is command good for? A modern CNC control option would have a terminal running XP and some software from Siemens (or others), executing rather elaborate node scripts. SR has it the other way 'round.
There are three potentially controlling entities for a node: OS(device user), OS(persona), and command program. I get the construct "persona", but what is command good for? A modern CNC control option would have a terminal running XP and some software from Siemens (or others), executing rather elaborate node scripts. SR has it the other way 'round.
QUOTE (Cheops)
According to BBB, an agent that does anything on a node in which the persona is not located is operating independently.
That was one of the competing interpretations of what the BBB said, but Unwired clarified that detail in long and explicit fashion. An Agent which is loaded onto a processor other than the one that is running the Persona it originated from is an Agent which is operating independently. It can still access other nodes and perform actions relative to them all it wants - as long as it does so under the directions of the Persona of the device which is running the Agent program.
But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent, that last restriction (which isn't in the book even, but merely in Synner's proposed errata) is completely meaningless.
QUOTE (Cheops)
From Unwired, unless patched your Agent has the same AID as any agents copied from it.
Yes we know. But also from Unwired, if your Agent "stays home" its AID doesn't ever get checked or matter. And "staying home" just means that the code uses up processor cycles on the home node, it doesn't actually mean that you aren't accessing other nodes and running Exploits and Edits there.
So yes, the entire Agent Smith AID limits thing is largely pointless because there is a much harsher restriction on how many programs you can run with how many processors. And the thing that lets you bypass the Processor Load Limits required to actually field an Agent Smith army also bypasses the AID limits as a complete after thought.
-Frank
I really wish I had the time to break that down but I don't. I'll be back when I do.
I don't mean to drag out the Agent Smith discussion - since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine - but if I could get a minor bit of clarification, I'm wondering if, even given all of Synner's proposed errata and whatever restrictions supposedly exist in Unwired, can the Doc Smith scenario be eliminated? That is, could I just put a few commlinks on my desk, stick Agents with Medic on each, log onto all of them simultaneously, and order the Agents (which we'll say, for sake of discussion, are acting autonomously) to spam Medic at my Icon while I use my main commlink to mow down armies of IC and spiders? Granted, it's not as much of a doomsday scenario as the full-blown Agent Smith army, but I think we could agree that invulnerable hackers (and, by extension, any other matrix entity) are not a good thing. So, is this still possible?
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 29 2008, 06:56 PM)
That was one of the competing interpretations of what the BBB said, but Unwired clarified that detail in long and explicit fashion. An Agent which is loaded onto a processor other than the one that is running the Persona it originated from is an Agent which is operating independently. It can still access other nodes and perform actions relative to them all it wants - as long as it does so under the directions of the Persona of the device which is running the Agent program.
There is a difference between the requirements for making an agent independent and the requirements for considering an agent independent . The end of the first paragraph is no coincidence.
It CAN act independantly once it has "it´s own" hardware, it DOES act independently if the controlling persona has no command subscription to it.
QUOTE (Gelare @ Jun 29 2008, 07:19 PM)
I don't mean to drag out the Agent Smith discussion - since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine - but if I could get a minor bit of clarification, I'm wondering if, even given all of Synner's proposed errata and whatever restrictions supposedly exist in Unwired, can the Doc Smith scenario be eliminated? That is, could I just put a few commlinks on my desk, stick Agents with Medic on each, log onto all of them simultaneously, and order the Agents (which we'll say, for sake of discussion, are acting autonomously) to spam Medic at my Icon while I use my main commlink to mow down armies of IC and spiders? Granted, it's not as much of a doomsday scenario as the full-blown Agent Smith army, but I think we could agree that invulnerable hackers (and, by extension, any other matrix entity) are not a good thing. So, is this still possible?
Errata 1.5, on p. 219 Repair Icon [4]:
Add the following line to the end of the 1st paragraph:“An icon may not take any other action (in any node) while it is being repaired.�
Fixed 1.5 years ago...
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 29 2008, 07:56 PM)
But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent, that last restriction (which isn't in the book even, but merely in Synner's proposed errata) is completely meaningless.
Except that a Persona is just an user interface, without an user it can not do anything at all, so no you cannot do that.
Well, I think it's well settled: if you misunderstand/distort/ignore the rules of Unwired, the game is broken! Shame on you, Catalyst! You should make a system that works even when people break the rules 
QUOTE (Ryu @ Jun 29 2008, 12:50 PM)
Errata 1.5, on p. 219 Repair Icon [4]:
Add the following line to the end of the 1st paragraph:“An icon may not take any other action (in any node) while it is being repaired.�
Fixed 1.5 years ago...
Add the following line to the end of the 1st paragraph:“An icon may not take any other action (in any node) while it is being repaired.�
Fixed 1.5 years ago...
Thanks, Ryu.
Well the Errata promises from the Devs are many and much promised but in fact are extremely short on delivery.
Arsenal has not yet gotten its errata, it have been since February, is UnWired going to somehow leap ahead of that?
WMS
Arsenal has not yet gotten its errata, it have been since February, is UnWired going to somehow leap ahead of that?
WMS
QUOTE (Synner @ Jun 28 2008, 04:45 AM)
This means that if the original commlink is disconnected when you switch commlinks in Hackastack, the connection to the account/node you were hacking is severed and you need to re-log on (usually a setback). If on the other hand, you leave the original connection on and manage to spoof and replicate the original commlink's Access ID (which may or may not be spoofed) and then try to access the same account, your duplicated Access ID will be flagged (p.101) and both accounts are blocked. In both instances you are"safe," but you're back (almost) to square one.
Without questioning the basic ideas here, doesn't that mean that a system that is defended by a competent sysadmin (who by definition has admin access on the corp nodes) will always win? Because he CAN play hackastack and effectively infinitely multiply himself for minimal money?
QUOTE (Gelare)
since, ultimately, Synner is going to do what he thinks best and errata Unwired and Frank is going to do what he thinks best and make house rules, which are both totally fine
Good point, a very good point. Honestly there is nothing to be gained from the continued talking about Unwired between Peter and myself. Peter will not budge, nor will I. He will make the things that he wants to make, which I will not like or use; and I will make the things I want to make which he will not like or use. That's the long and the short of it. We don't talk to each other professionally or socially, and there is no reason for us to carp at each other over something where we simply do not have common ground.
Honestly, it would probably be better for everyone if I simply didn't participate in any discussions about the content of Unwired at all anymore, so I'll endeavor to do that. Or not do that. You know what I mean.
But I am still interested in hearing from people who want my work to go in particular directions. I am obviously enough not particularly interested in hearing from people who want me to make do with the printed material in Unwired, and I'll attempt to maintain the discipline to refrain from responding to them. In the meantime, people who want to discuss the contents of Unwired and the specific effects it has on various aspects of the game should probably go get a new thread.
-Frank
*posts in a thread where Frank argues with everybody*
Yeah, by all means. If you have comments on something I wrote, don´t hesitate.
Good luck Frank. (no sarcasm)
@Frank Trollman
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?
WMS
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?
WMS
QUOTE (WearzManySkins @ Jun 29 2008, 07:18 PM)
@Frank Trollman
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?
WMS
For those of us who do not know where such will be taking place, could you tell us where this will be discussed?
WMS
i believe the intended purpose of this thread was to discuss what you would like to see in his rules. so i would say right here.
It was supposed to be on this thread, and then the pointless nattering took place.... *sigh*
Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."
Also for those who like their game world to make sense, if the rules say something with a ... at the end of it players will take that ... and run with it. The problem is not that hackastack is annoying for some people it is just that it changes the game play when you extrapolate what you can do with the information given to you. If corporations have extensive drone networks then they just shut down a hacker. If a hacker has a bigger drone network then the competition then they can pull off the win. Now the book does not explicitly say this and/or points wildly at this as the example of how people should hack, but it is what a corporation would do if they wanted to stop a hacker cold.
It's like having a crap ton of tanks with experienced crew and knowing if you sent in the tanks it would utterly destroy the enemy without suffering any casualties. You know it and they know it, but in the end you decide to give the tank crews hand guns and send them in as foot soldiers, who then get horribly slaughtered. The problem that some people have is that if this is what would make sense given the rules then it is what happens in the game world. Data steals now are just physically removing the hardware containing the data before you have to bring it back to your home turf to overwhelm the ice and steal the sweet gooey pay data inside. Not that the rules are wrong, but it's just putting that extra little tack on the end that the DEV's didn't actually mean to create, or maybe even imply.... although it is what anyone would do given the situation and rule set. It can be disregarded, broken, changed, augmented. Call it what you will it's just the way some of us feel. For us we have had to just had to pass it onto an NPC so it doesn't mess with our game world.
I would just like it to be fun w/o tons and tons of dice rolling taking up too much time in game while all the other players are twiddling their thumbs and wondering what they should do next. If the errata solves this then yay let the good times roll. If Franks can pull it off fine with me. Don't care one way or the other.
Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."
Also for those who like their game world to make sense, if the rules say something with a ... at the end of it players will take that ... and run with it. The problem is not that hackastack is annoying for some people it is just that it changes the game play when you extrapolate what you can do with the information given to you. If corporations have extensive drone networks then they just shut down a hacker. If a hacker has a bigger drone network then the competition then they can pull off the win. Now the book does not explicitly say this and/or points wildly at this as the example of how people should hack, but it is what a corporation would do if they wanted to stop a hacker cold.
It's like having a crap ton of tanks with experienced crew and knowing if you sent in the tanks it would utterly destroy the enemy without suffering any casualties. You know it and they know it, but in the end you decide to give the tank crews hand guns and send them in as foot soldiers, who then get horribly slaughtered. The problem that some people have is that if this is what would make sense given the rules then it is what happens in the game world. Data steals now are just physically removing the hardware containing the data before you have to bring it back to your home turf to overwhelm the ice and steal the sweet gooey pay data inside. Not that the rules are wrong, but it's just putting that extra little tack on the end that the DEV's didn't actually mean to create, or maybe even imply.... although it is what anyone would do given the situation and rule set. It can be disregarded, broken, changed, augmented. Call it what you will it's just the way some of us feel. For us we have had to just had to pass it onto an NPC so it doesn't mess with our game world.
I would just like it to be fun w/o tons and tons of dice rolling taking up too much time in game while all the other players are twiddling their thumbs and wondering what they should do next. If the errata solves this then yay let the good times roll. If Franks can pull it off fine with me. Don't care one way or the other.
QUOTE (Backgammon @ Jun 27 2008, 04:56 PM)
While not a specific request, I'd like solutions that allow a fair middle ground - partial success. This can of course be done with the current rules, but you sort of have to extrapolate here and there and be a bit imaginative. I would certainly like a system where partial success is built-in.
I'm fairly certain that you don't have to pwn a node to get it to do stuff for you. If you don't have the appropriate access in the node, I believe you can make a $PROGRAM + Hacking test against the node's System + Firewall to make it work without actually getting yourself a account with the necessary access first. For example, if you need to open a maglock in a hurry, and have access to the node (say, in a public account), you could make an Opposed Command + Hacking Test to convince the node to do it. This wouldn't work with devices with no public accessible node, like the ones mentioned in SR4 that only have admin accounts (which include commlinks in my games, but your mileage may vary with your GM), so you're back to hacking in or spoofing those.
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 29 2008, 10:56 AM)
But since you can just have the Persona set to repeat commands it receives in email to the Agent [...]
Sorry to jump in late, but I have a question. Where did you read that a persona is capable of receiving remote commands? I may have missed it in the text, but what you seem to be describing is an agent receiving a command, rather than a persona being used by a ... er ... user.
@Frank Trollman
What I would like to see is a system that has the ease of the current magic system, where attributes have a place in the tests of Matrix Actions and skills. And yes I understand that is "NOW" an optional rule. But that is a Band Aide approach. I prefer a total system that was designed to use such from the beginning rather than a house rule.
I do not wish to have a utterly complex book keeping system where software degrades so fast if at all. I did not use the SOTA rules from earlier iterations of SR.
Where characters get Warez more online with what is ongoing today with the various Torrents rather than pay system. Today's Torrents one's UpLoad (Seeds) is more important than ones Downloads. Having a less than a ratio of 1 in most Torrents does not get you the access to the more desirable Torrent Sites which are by invitation only. Partly based on one's Seed/Download ratio.
A system where Cracking Gangs shred copy protection in a matter of days rather than months.
Where Crackers can under take "Projects" to rapidly achieve the desired results.
WMS
What I would like to see is a system that has the ease of the current magic system, where attributes have a place in the tests of Matrix Actions and skills. And yes I understand that is "NOW" an optional rule. But that is a Band Aide approach. I prefer a total system that was designed to use such from the beginning rather than a house rule.
I do not wish to have a utterly complex book keeping system where software degrades so fast if at all. I did not use the SOTA rules from earlier iterations of SR.
Where characters get Warez more online with what is ongoing today with the various Torrents rather than pay system. Today's Torrents one's UpLoad (Seeds) is more important than ones Downloads. Having a less than a ratio of 1 in most Torrents does not get you the access to the more desirable Torrent Sites which are by invitation only. Partly based on one's Seed/Download ratio.
A system where Cracking Gangs shred copy protection in a matter of days rather than months.
Where Crackers can under take "Projects" to rapidly achieve the desired results.
WMS
QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 29 2008, 06:11 PM)
Sorry to jump in late, but I have a question. Where did you read that a persona is capable of receiving remote commands? I may have missed it in the text, but what you seem to be describing is an agent receiving a command, rather than a persona being used by a ... er ... user.
Please note the quote from Frank earlier
QUOTE
But I am still interested in hearing from people who want my work to go in particular directions. I am obviously enough not particularly interested in hearing from people who want me to make do with the printed material in Unwired, and I'll attempt to maintain the discipline to refrain from responding to them. In the meantime, people who want to discuss the contents of Unwired and the specific effects it has on various aspects of the game should probably go get a new thread.
WMS
Ah, thanks, WMS. That leads to another question, though: where should one post a request for clarification?
Frank, but what I am 99% confident we are both talking about is this
A) I get a new commlink
B) I get an agent
C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent
D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever
E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona
This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)
Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)
Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.
To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)
A) I get a new commlink
B) I get an agent
C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent
D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever
E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona
This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)
Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)
Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.
To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Jun 29 2008, 11:57 PM)
Frank, but what I am 99% confident we are both talking about is this
A) I get a new commlink
B) I get an agent
C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent
D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever
E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona
This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)
Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)
Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.
To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)
A) I get a new commlink
B) I get an agent
C) I load the persona of that commlink with the agent
D While using the persona, I order that agent to do stuff while I am using that persona, load scripts, set up standing orders, whatever
E) At a later date I take an action that triggers the scripts of the agent loaded into the persona
This can be as simple as bolting 10 mics together and ordering them all by shouting (after loading a script that says when I shout X do Y)
Or I could email them all (after loading a script that says when I email X do Y)
Now, you could say that an agent is incapable of talking actions if that persona is not 'attended' but that seems self defeating in the broader rules context. How can I have an agent in my persona that watches out for attacks, or does something (browse) while I am otherwise occupied. This is especially true as agents are explictly capable of interaction.
To draw an analogy. We want to use the Persona as a APC, and the Agent 'fights' the APC, keeping watch, firing out of the gun slits etc (using analyze, black hammer, analyze). The only limitation here is I actually have to jump into the APC (persona) and drive it to a new location. But once there the infantry (agent) are clearly capable of firing (using black hammer) out of the vision slits (persona)
synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 29 2008, 11:49 PM)
synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.
No, it's not functionally different. But it's also not distinguishable from you giving the orders to the agents through your persona in an AR interface. Hell, you can give the orders through the AR interface by having a drone hand be the thing that actually receives your instructions. The fact that "you" are not "there" doesn't matter because AR hacking isn't connected to "you."
Under the Matrix Topology described in Unwired, there is literally no way to tell how many layers separate a live human being from the Persona that has the Agent loaded into it. And if the rules try to care about this particular data, they've failed. Is that a real hand in the AR glove that is connecting to the signal amplifier that is connecting to the commlink that is running a Persona that has loaded an Agent? Or is that just a drone hand that is being controlled through a thousand more connections? There's no way to know or care, because there's an actual break in the chain of matrix handoffs at that point. The rules say that an Agent loaded into a Persona does not count as a separate connection and therefore does not count its Access ID, full stop. Trying to come up with a special case where an Agent is loaded into a Persona but "effectively" being controlled from outside and therefore counts as if it isn't loaded on is not something I can respect.
You've made your AR bed, and now you have to accept the consequences. The consequences are that people can be an Matrix user with no direct connection to themselves at all, and therefore that the number of users is not in any way limited to the number of people. So you can be multiple users. So you can be dozens or hundreds of users. That is an inevitable slippery slope that you go down the moment that you allow people to hack without having any part of themselves connected to the Matrix. Flailing around trying to say that the Matrix magically knows whether the real buttons are being pressed by real human fingers is frickin retarded. If you wanted to have mandatory human interaction, you should have set up required DNI that actually mandated human interaction.
But regardless, please get your own thread to talk about this issue.
QUOTE (WMS)
I do not wish to have a utterly complex book keeping system where software degrades so fast if at all. I did not use the SOTA rules from earlier iterations of SR.
Totally with you. I think it best if the SotA is confined to just a couple of areas of "current" arms racing. Currently looking into a category of "program" that isn't programmed at all but is instead based on stolen information and look-up tables: like a modern day satellite descrambler. These key sets would be good for a certain amount of time, and thereafter only be of any use if you found an archaic system that ran on old codes. Then the rest of the SotA checks can pretty much go away.
QUOTE (masterofm)
Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."
Speed of resolution is an important one. Lots of things can be streamlined, just one Matrix Perception test rather than one per icon, and have a set table of information by hits similar to the Assensing table rather than the incredibly time consuming 20 Questions model. But the big thing here is to have many actions handleable with a single roll. A computer system that just runs a door only has two states: locked and unlocked; so requiring a lot of die rolls to get it to change from one to the other is not good for the game. The Jedi Trick should just happen in one die roll so that the rest of the team is grateful to the Matrix specialist for their contribution instead of annoyed.
-Frank
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jun 29 2008, 11:49 PM)
synner's point is not that you couldn't give orders to these agents, it's that those agents are not functionally different from agents running off of scripts to begin with unless you are actively using the persona, managing the agents. so basically, you can manage agents that are attached to your current persona, or you can give orders (scripts, basically) to agents that are not attached to your current persona... but that's not really any different from setting up a botnet.
Look, I can drive an agent with a keyboard, a mic and a screen.
So what you are saying is that while I'm tapping away (and that can be on something else completely because the agent is capable of independent action while loaded into a persona) the internet treats my agent one way, and then as soon as I take my hands of the keyboard and go get a can of coke out of the fridge the agent is treated a different way and suddenly everything grinds to a halt. How does everyone know I went to get a coke? How is that different from me stopping to read the screen? Are you saying that agents in personas just constantly lock up all the time unless you have 3IP and can interact with agents at their speed? Is sitting at my terminal reading 'war and peace' actively using? If so, why cannot I just go sit on my lounge and read war and peace?
What if I have 20 of these setups in a big wall infront of me an its all voice and gesture controlled like some sort of conductor. Am I using them all now? Thats another perfectly legit control setup. I'm certainly watching them all, nd interracting with them all (though the order might be 'invalid input' over and over and over.
That is crazy talk. The problem is AR has no definition of actively using that make sense and will hold up. VR kinda almost does, but I don't have to use VR, I can use AR. If you want AR gloves, well, I'll just make 20 pairs of them into retarded oven mitts, and use voicecomms for actual orders while I wave my hands around like a Captain retard Mcspackypants to count as 'interacting'
QUOTE (masterofm @ Jun 29 2008, 06:50 PM)
Either I would like to see the matrix have some way to make other PC's involved, or I want it to rarely take center stage for hours on hand. Our group right now just can't deal with the time it takes to have a hacker slowly work his magic, so now we have an NPC technomancer and with the magic power of GM hand-wavium things get "done."
I agree, it would be nice to have some way to get the rest of the party involved in the matrix. I remember finding it very cool that, as of Street Magic, you could bring your buddies with you during your vacations to the sunny metaplanes of hell or whatever. Missions that send the whole team into the matrix to do something would be far more interesting than taking the hacker aside for an hour. I don't know how possible that setup is, but it'd be nice.
Also, Frank, since I assume you're building off the alternate matrix rules you've already posted, I'd like some more information on actual applications of those rules. For example, it seems like computers in your rules are more secure when hooked up to human brains because they get all that additional processing power (and Willpower) and so forth. So if a corp needs a secure server, do they have some minimum-wage guy stand in a room with a computer on his head sending data all over the place? What would a 2070 chat room look like, and would it be run 24/7 by a guy standing around letting his spare brain cycles be used? Heck, what would Jackpoint, or the ZOG matrix security system look like? You've already got most of the hard rules developed, at this point I'm more interested in examples.
Getting back to the original point of this thread: feedback on where Frank's houserules should go from here, here's my shortlist of requests/things I had questions about:
- A fleshing out of the concept of the datajack's role in compartmentalizing the brain and securing it against external access.
Do "Secure Mental Folders" have to be pre-defined by the player ahead of time, or is this a chosen on-the-fly type bonus against certain Type "B" hacking procedures? - An expansion on the general concept of Hacking an Occupied Network, specifically what it means when brain and machine "reinforce themselves defensively."
It's explicitly clear how machine reinforces's the brain's security, as the brain gains the benefit of the Network's firewall.
What's less clear is how the addition of the brain's extra processing reinforces the security of a network, unless we are to infer that the hacking-on-the-fly bonuses to running software that can only be achieved from the creative power of a skilled brain is what makes security "orders of magnitude more effective" for an occupied network. Or is there a passive component that any brain can provide, skilled, or not, with or without spending of avaiable actions? - Integration of a brain with a Network taking time at bootup:
Must a network be always be booted to integrate a brain, or can it be up and running and integrate a brain on the fly? Can more than one brain integrate with a network at a time, and if so, what happens when a brain has to disconnect but others remain? - LOS targeting vs. large possibly armored objects where it isn't visibly obvious where the node hardware you're trying to target would be located.
While it can be assumed that there is some degree of electronics located throughout vehicles and bulky milspec armor suits, is that enough to allow for someone to just look at a main battle tank and have LOS to the tank's network? - Sieze vs. M-B-W:
Will there be any special interaction between the Sieze Program and a target with a Move-By-Wire implant? Seems like a ripe opportunity. - Pornohacker:
Have you considered variants to the Peristalsis program that target more interesting bodily systems? (Why should mages be the only ones with an Orgasm spell?) - Hardening:
Will the Electronics Hardening option from p.58 of Arsenal be incorporated into the rules for Signal Defense?
What I'd like:
Nerfing of "manual" AR. Data Gloves, Keyboards, and such should be much, much worse in handling any matrix matter than DNI. Speed of thought should beat Data gloves so badly, only the poor who can't afford better would even contemplate to buy data gloves.
Nerfing of agents. Agents running autonomously should be clearly inferior to a hacker doing stuff directly. Not just 2 dice less, not just "once a while they may have problems", but "any hacker with more intelligence than a potted plant is better than an agent in just about every situation other than operations such as searching and similar automated tasks".
Nerfing of "manual" AR. Data Gloves, Keyboards, and such should be much, much worse in handling any matrix matter than DNI. Speed of thought should beat Data gloves so badly, only the poor who can't afford better would even contemplate to buy data gloves.
Nerfing of agents. Agents running autonomously should be clearly inferior to a hacker doing stuff directly. Not just 2 dice less, not just "once a while they may have problems", but "any hacker with more intelligence than a potted plant is better than an agent in just about every situation other than operations such as searching and similar automated tasks".
Make Technomancers not be retarded.
Been said before, but it's worth saying again. Conceptually, mechanically, and in terms of character power parity: MAKE THEM NOT SUCK.
Been said before, but it's worth saying again. Conceptually, mechanically, and in terms of character power parity: MAKE THEM NOT SUCK.
QUOTE (Gelare)
I'd like some more information on actual applications of those rules.
Examples are the biggest thing. I think we're looking at a full length chapter of examples and walk throughs.
QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
Will there be any special interaction between the Sieze Program and a target with a Move-By-Wire implant? Seems like a ripe oportunity.
Agreed. Something I would like to do is to have a set of expanded program/object interactions. A Move By Wire system by rights should be extremely good at suppressing a Seize attack. I would like a standardized rule for that, which is probably going to be something along the line of having devices have the capability to be "optimized" against certain attacks - a state which gives them a dice pool bonus on defending against those attacks (either Rating or a flat optimization bonus depending upon feedback). A MBW, for example, is optimized against Seize (on account of constantly suppressing exactly that attack in the first place) and provides a dicepool bonus to defense if the wetwork gets attacked by it.
QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
Have you considered variants to the Peristalis program that target more interesting bodily systems?
Nice one. A lot of people seem to want more diverse attacks, and that can certainly be up on there. An attack that basically just stims out your Accumbens Nucleus and overwhelms you with pleasure to the point that it becomes hard to care about or do anything is certainly plausible.
-Frank
Man, it's depressing to see so much debate and disappointment over Unwired. I waited a long time for it, and I didn't feel cheated at all. I loved the original rules (both as a GM and a player) and was delighted to see the clarifications in Unwired. I completed my cover to cover read through a few days ago and now that it's sunk in I allowed myself to come back to Dumpshock and see what was up.
I just want to say that I see no reason why using the rules as they are stated constitute some sort of playability issue. I thought the crunch and fluff both supported the idea that systems must balance usability and security, and being an IT professional I agree. The rules as they stand provide plenty of opportunities for players to have fun with a hacker no matter what they want out of the experience. It's up to the GM to accommodate that and the rules as given don't tie my hands or make it overly complicated to do what needs to be done.
I'm very happy with my purchase of Unwired, both digitally and my hardcopy once it arrives.
I just want to say that I see no reason why using the rules as they are stated constitute some sort of playability issue. I thought the crunch and fluff both supported the idea that systems must balance usability and security, and being an IT professional I agree. The rules as they stand provide plenty of opportunities for players to have fun with a hacker no matter what they want out of the experience. It's up to the GM to accommodate that and the rules as given don't tie my hands or make it overly complicated to do what needs to be done.
I'm very happy with my purchase of Unwired, both digitally and my hardcopy once it arrives.
One of my fellow runners, who as a character and player understand matrix activity very little, asked my Technomancer to make a drone "Unhackable."
Here's how I forsee it...
Me: "Here's your drone, hope you enjoy it."
Him: "Sweet, did you make it unhackable."
Me: "Yeah, just as long as you never touch that button."
Him: "Whats that button do?"
Me: "That would be the power button."
Here's how I forsee it...
Me: "Here's your drone, hope you enjoy it."
Him: "Sweet, did you make it unhackable."
Me: "Yeah, just as long as you never touch that button."
Him: "Whats that button do?"
Me: "That would be the power button."
I'll re-read Frank's ruleset once there are more examples. My biggest gripe before was that it was not any less complex than the current matrix rules. It filled some gaps in logic and exploits, but didn't look like resolution would be any more/less fun than RAW. So, that's the #1 thing I am looking for, playability. If I need 40 pages to even play in the matrix, then its not an improvement. If complex tasks can be broken down into fairly simple dice roll resolutions and the whole slew of pertinent data/tables can be condensed to a single sheet...then yeah, this will be good.
The other thing I was thinking needed more fleshed, was the equipment and programs. Costs, availabilities, etc, were all missing. I think the biggest hurdle is that if you are going to make these alternate rules and not use anything in RAW, then you have to duplicate the sorts of things that are needed by other parts of RAW (i.e. costs and availability, maybe even some descriptions if its new).
I mean, if we are talking about a whole rewrite, then we can't assume anything can be used, so nodes have to be redefined (or copied)...I mean, I think you know this already, but based on the first go-around, there was a lot of information I still needed in order to play your rules.
The other thing I was thinking needed more fleshed, was the equipment and programs. Costs, availabilities, etc, were all missing. I think the biggest hurdle is that if you are going to make these alternate rules and not use anything in RAW, then you have to duplicate the sorts of things that are needed by other parts of RAW (i.e. costs and availability, maybe even some descriptions if its new).
I mean, if we are talking about a whole rewrite, then we can't assume anything can be used, so nodes have to be redefined (or copied)...I mean, I think you know this already, but based on the first go-around, there was a lot of information I still needed in order to play your rules.
Hi Frank
Do you have a link to the rules you've already created for the matrix? I couldn't find a link anywhere.
Do you have a link to the rules you've already created for the matrix? I couldn't find a link anywhere.
QUOTE (Thufar_Hawat @ Jun 30 2008, 05:54 PM)
Do you have a link to the rules you've already created for the matrix? I couldn't find a link anywhere.
I'm not Frank, but what you're looking for is here.
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 30 2008, 08:07 AM)
I would like a standardized rule for that, which is probably going to be something along the line of having devices have the capability to be "optimized" against certain attacks - a state which gives them a dice pool bonus on defending against those attacks (either Rating or a flat optimization bonus depending upon feedback).
Will that pendulum swing both ways? Will there be hardware that's non-optimal against certain attacks?
thanks for the quick link
First of all, thanks for your work on your houserules Frank. They pretty much rock, specially the infinitely easier to implement character creation fixes.
I did have a question and a request. I know you mentioned that you will put in more examples and such into the book which will help a ton because you are basically changing an important part of the game from the ground up. I would also like to request examples of how brain hacking and all the other basic changes you made would effect the SR world. So essentially, I am asking for good fluff that will make it fairly obvious how the world should be different.
I think I'm essentially asking for a complete sourcebook though and I would think that's a shit load of work...
The question I had was about trodes and nanopaste trode interfaces. Why is it that when someone can hack my brain wirelessly from a distance when I'm meat only, my commlink can't interface with my brain wirelessly without trodes from my pocket? I mean I personally love DNI and datajacks - and I found that fluff bit about them being "so last decade" to be one of the most setting distrupting pieces of fluff I've ever read. However, since the logical conclusion you are going with is that wireless brain hacking on virgin brains works, I want to know why I need trodes or shit if I don't have cyber instead of just beaming that shit straight into my grey matter.
I did have a question and a request. I know you mentioned that you will put in more examples and such into the book which will help a ton because you are basically changing an important part of the game from the ground up. I would also like to request examples of how brain hacking and all the other basic changes you made would effect the SR world. So essentially, I am asking for good fluff that will make it fairly obvious how the world should be different.
I think I'm essentially asking for a complete sourcebook though and I would think that's a shit load of work...
The question I had was about trodes and nanopaste trode interfaces. Why is it that when someone can hack my brain wirelessly from a distance when I'm meat only, my commlink can't interface with my brain wirelessly without trodes from my pocket? I mean I personally love DNI and datajacks - and I found that fluff bit about them being "so last decade" to be one of the most setting distrupting pieces of fluff I've ever read. However, since the logical conclusion you are going with is that wireless brain hacking on virgin brains works, I want to know why I need trodes or shit if I don't have cyber instead of just beaming that shit straight into my grey matter.
QUOTE (Tabula Rasa @ Jun 30 2008, 06:29 PM)
The question I had was about trodes and nanopaste trode interfaces. Why is it that when someone can hack my brain wirelessly from a distance when I'm meat only, my commlink can't interface with my brain wirelessly without trodes from my pocket? I mean I personally love DNI and datajacks - and I found that fluff bit about them being "so last decade" to be one of the most setting distrupting pieces of fluff I've ever read. However, since the logical conclusion you are going with is that wireless brain hacking on virgin brains works, I want to know why I need trodes or shit if I don't have cyber instead of just beaming that shit straight into my grey matter.
If I understand what Frank's said previously on that subject, [Edit: this must have come from someone else, as Frank gives a different reason a few posts down.]
(
And that's what I'D like to see from Franks House rules. If you can, Frank, please make your rules in a cell structure, so that maybe if we like something from them but don't want the whole package, we can pull it out and use it.
Well, I guess my issue with that signal strength description is that I would think my commlink in my pocket only traveling a meter or so would have a stronger signal than some guy's commlink from 30 meters away. Maybe if they had military strength signal they could override it or something.
It just seems that by the logic that he follows to explain wireless hacking. Which as far as I got it says because people can have wireless signals going out their brains via trodes and into their brains via trodes then you should be able to do the same thing at a distance. So given that, you should be able to defend yourself at a distance too through your commlink without trodes. Or at least maybe there would be some signal contested test or comparisson that would make DNI infinitely better for those who cared enough, but at least the option should be there.
Maybe there is something else I'm not seeing though.
@ Frank
One more request. Please give a flow chart or something that covers the connection ranges and everything so I can just show it to someone and they'd get it without a terrible explanation from me. That'd be nifty.
It just seems that by the logic that he follows to explain wireless hacking. Which as far as I got it says because people can have wireless signals going out their brains via trodes and into their brains via trodes then you should be able to do the same thing at a distance. So given that, you should be able to defend yourself at a distance too through your commlink without trodes. Or at least maybe there would be some signal contested test or comparisson that would make DNI infinitely better for those who cared enough, but at least the option should be there.
Maybe there is something else I'm not seeing though.
@ Frank
One more request. Please give a flow chart or something that covers the connection ranges and everything so I can just show it to someone and they'd get it without a terrible explanation from me. That'd be nifty.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.