There's too many posts to reply to individually, so I'm going to try to address this generally.
The issue I have is that, in every SR4 game I've played in or GM'ed, the decker has dominated the legwork section of the game. This involves many games under many GM's, including one Commando (whose name I've forgotten), and includes published adventures as well as home games. GM style is not an issue, unless somehow I've magically only gotten GMs who overplay the matrix beyond the setting bounds. (And before you go there, my playstyle is not an issue either: I have yet to play a decker-type in SR4.)
There are several reasons why this comes about. The first is that fact that every time people start looking for answers, they start with a matrix search. Based on what they find, they may or may not then go to contacts or do other types of legwork; they might decide to follow up with more matrix searching. This holds true today, for many of us: if someone asks for quick information on a topic, we tell them to google for it, or use the forum search function.
The second reason is that, mechanically speaking, the matrix is better for general info. Contacts have specific knowledge skills and social networks; the matrix is everywhere and has information on everything. Granted, if you want specific info, it's better to go to a contact; but first, you have to know what you're looking for.
The third is the fact that Data Search rolls provide predictable results, while contact information is frequently up to the whim of the GM. Even when you have an appropriate contact, the GM has to decide what he knows, if anything. For example, your Mafia contact may not know that a particular bar pays protection money to a different branch of the mob, even though it falls under his realm of expertise. He may even have in-game reasons for not wanting to tell you. The Data Search results give you predictable thresholds for specific information.
The fourth is that a Data Search roll is free, while going through channels can not only cost you money, but can make you indebted to your contact for a later favor. Even high-loyalty contacts will ask for favors in return, especially if you've been using them frequently as a resource. At worst, you could roll a critical botch on an ettiquette or other social roll with the contact, and annoy them.
The fifth is that Data Search rolls are low-exposure, while asking questions in person is much riskier. If you're working with a low-loyalty contact, or a "friend of a friend", there's a good chance that they'll tell someone else that someone is digging for a particular piece of info. Especially if there's multiple factions and/or shadowrunning teams involved.
The reason I'll close this list with is this: According to all the fluff, the matrix is everywhere, and the decker should always be the one doing the first info run. In fact, I just got a copy of
Unwired, and did a quick skim through it. Here's one direct quote:
QUOTE
Only slightly less important is the Data Search skill, as the hacker is almost always called upon to do the digital legwork and background research during runs.
So, whenever you have a question, or want background information, the game is *designed* around a decker doing the grunt work. This isn't just fluff, this is in the rules section.
Now, how does this become a problem? Count up the number of questions that come up in a game. A good runner team will ask all sorts of questions, gathering information on all aspects of a target: their security, their personnel, their friends and enemies, and so on and so forth. Sometimes these questions lead to dead ends, sometimes it wanders off into tangents. Tangents aren't a bad thing, though; they can lead to an off-the-wall approach that will make for a fun run. Sometimes the answers only lead to more questions. But when you total up the number of questions that are asked, including the dead ends, you end up with a lot of data search rolls made. Ultimately, it's the decker who gathers most of the information; everyone else then goes to contacts or other sources to fill in the blanks, and to get more specific intel on certain things.
The GM can help make the other parts of the game more interesting for players, by setting up fun interactions with contacts, and the like. But first, you need to know what contact to go to. In short, the rest of the team sits on their thumbs while the decker amasses a pile of information; the team then sorts it, and decides what to do with it, like deciding which leads they want to chase down; this is, of course, assuming that they do want to do further searching. Until the background information is complete, though, they can't really do much of anything.
Many GMs try to give every player spotlight time. And they do; when I GM, I make sure there's something for everyone. Once you've figured out who has the information, for example, the Face will get to shine when you start talking. But none of that does you any good unless you know where you're going, and that requires a lot of digging on the matrix.
Yes, you can try to balance the focus on the decker by giving the bulk of the rest of the time to the other players. Make exciting combat scenes for the combat characters, introduce interesting NPCs to interact with, and so on and so forth. Players can leave satisfied, even with this problem. However, it's better to engage as many characters at once as possible. A combat scene engages everyone there, so does a meet. A decker Data Search run is pretty much a solo act.
And gods forbid if the decker decides to chase down some secure info on his own, leading to a hacking run. OK, you have the same problem if the mage on astral recon decides to try an astral penetration: in both cases, you're running a "dungeon within a dungeon" for one player. Sure, the sammie might decide to run off on his own, but the rest of the players have the ability to go after him.
This is the problem. What's the compromise? I have no idea. I do know what it cannot be, though:
- It cannot be "up to the GM" to fix. The GM should not be required to create major adjustments to the setting and rules to please his players.
- It cannot be a "change your playstyle" issue. If someone's playstyle doesn't fit the game, they should play a different game.
- It cannot be a "you're misreading the fluff" problem. Or that they've over-emphasizing it. It's clear that deckers as primary researchers is intended in the rules as well as fluff.
So, what we're left with is a need to fix the setting and supporting rules, to make it so that legwork is a more cooperative activity.