Look in the technomancer sections, the only references I remember to offline storage was in referring to their lack of hardware that has it, so, they tend to be fond of nano-paint storage.

*Newsflash*
"Newb pouring over sourcebooks to learn the game finds himself useful. Full story at 11."

Thanks.

Try this for starters ...

Actually Cain is correct. The way something is broken is when someone chooses to read and apply the rules as he does, but the problem isn't with him per se because the wording of the rules does lend itself to that interpretation! It is not that the RAW cannot be interpreted as he does, but that the way he(or someone he plays with) does so can lead to such an interpretation. Whether or not he is reading it wrong is a matter of grammar and applying the rule as intended requires knowledge that for the most part in the hands of the writers themselves (because some writers may have intentionally used ambigious wording to encourage brokeness!), yet for the most parts, he does not read it wrong(per grammar) or that the intention of the writers were made clear(in a dev post or such).

However, Cain, bear in mind, that your interpretation is one of many equally valid interpretations. It does not mean that it is the only valid reading of the rules.

I agree that the wording is sometimes (often) unclear and open to multiple interpretations.
Bu when a rule can lead to a broken or an unbroken interpretation, I don't see the point in choosing the broken interpretation. My natural reaction when facing an ambiguous rule is to search for the intent of the rule, not to search how broken it could be.

My natural inclination is to fix it until it's not broken. That, and the fact that I play a lot of Missions, both as player and GM. There, you have to follow the strictest interpretation of the rules if you want to fairly pass the character onto another GM. The fact that you aren't allowed any optional/house rules and have to adhere to the letter of the law (sometimes over the spirit of it) is one of the few flaws the Missions campaigns have.

And as I said earlier, its because of that format that missions fails in regards to this. The module is written by some guys, who then get it looked over and made official. Then that goes out to GMs who are official. Then they run it via the official rules.

Problems: The guys who write the modules often make no distinction in the information you get via data search vs the contacts. The GMs can't change this, because the module is official, and they can't change whats written in it. The rules don't bar this so it flys.

Solution: Have the people writing the modules actually make a table for data search results, and a table for contacts results. All fixed.

The Missions are also designed to be run within a single 4-hour period to fit Convention time-slots, and therefore some so-called 'shortcuts', especially in the realm of Legwork, might have been deemed to be desirable to facilitate this requirement.

Is this the same Cain that argued vehemently over 6 pages and 138 posts the the GM should bow to the behests of the players? This one is my favourite:

So, if you're GM is truly "fair" then he should be "actively soliciting" your opinion on this matter. Tell your GM that everyone is bored with 3 hours of Data Search rolls and he should do something about it. "Official rulings" and "Commando GMs" be damned. Tell him that you would like to see other players get more involved in Legwork. Theoretically those other 3 or 4 guys that went for pizza with you when the Hacker started his thing will agree.

On the "dungeon" issue and encouraging Hackers to come with the group on a run, it didn't take me long to find something in the RAW.


I firmly believe that the intention behind the writing of any of the rulebooks and the Missions Modules was not to have everyone sit around while the Hacker does everything during Legwork. If there are some rules/wording that can be changed so that less people will get this interpretation and think that this is the "right" way (another whole argument is if there is a "right" way to run an RPG) to run the game then lets change those rules. I will fully support that.

For reference. Standard text in every SR4 Denver Mission arc



You note it goes through Contacts, contacts asking contacts, and then finally Data Search

Um, is it just me or is that wiggidy-whacked? I thought Data Search via the basic rules presented in the BBB was Data Search + Browse Program Rating.

Haha, it is, missions uses house rules!!!!!!!

I've always like the idea of Matrix tests using the same mechanic as Spellcasting test: Logic + Skill with hits limited by Program Rating.

Spellcasting is actually Magic + Spellcasting.

I know. What I was referring to is Spellcasting's mechanic of rolling an Attribute + Skill with caps limited by Force. The same pattern could be applied to Matrix tests by making them an Attribute (Logic) + Skill with hits limited by Program Rating.

Ah, yes, ok. That is a common houserule yes, and a fairly balanced one too.

Just as a note, not all of them actually say this. I have a couple of the earlier ones printed out and this section is omitted on them. I haven't searched through all of them again, but I seem to recall some of them having separate tables for data searches and contact searches.

Well Data Search+Browse is used when searching for data on the Matrix. So one might argue that you can use Logic+Data Search for searching data regardless of the medium (Matrix, datafax, radio, trideo and so on.)

Data Search is the exception to a lot of rules, since it can be used with a variety of programs. For the most part, the other actions are almost always Skill X + Program Y. Data Search gives examples of using Scan, Browse, and I think a few others.

At any event, while the Mission scenarios are almost universally praised, they have that nasty constraint of "No house rules" if you want to carry your character over. So, you have to go by strict canon, and I mean Toturi-strict canon. Since by RAW, Data Searching is the easiest, quickest, and safest way to perform legwork, the role of other characters becomes minimized, if not outright eliminated.

Yes, you can theoretically produce a house rule to solve this. Your group can (and should) collaboratively brainstorm up a solution. But if you're playing Missions, you can't actually use it. And I play a lot of Missions.

Cain: As I said, the fault is of the GM, in missions case, its the writer(s) of that mission in particular. They can put in there "this info is only available via contacts" or they can not put that in there.

As far as missions goes, its equally as fast to say, "I ask my contact about blah blah blah" with the face, and get 4-6 hits on it. Just make a PC and spend points on a connection 6 rating contact, info broker or somesuch. Ask them for everything.

And like I said, it's the fault of the system, because if it's happening to enough GM's it cannot just be their problem. I really think blaming the GM is passing the buck, and mildly offensive.

And even with a Rating 6 contact, it won't help much. The initial roll, to see if the contact knows anything, is strictly a knowledge skill roll. Connections only comes into play if he's going through his network. And that search not only has risks, but is an Extended test with an interval of an hour, while Data Search has an interval of 1 minute or less. To top things off, even with a Connection 6/Charisma 5 contact, you don't have more dice than someone with Data Search 4 + Browse 5 + Hot Sim. And finally, a contact search doesn't get you the information, but someone who might know the information. So, the Data Search roll, by the RAW, is safer, faster, easier, and cheaper.

"When a PC gets in touch with a contact, make a Connection + Connection test for the contact. The results of this test will determine how many ranks of information the contact knows about the question. (Apply die modifiers to this test based upon relevance of the contact to the subject
matter.) A PC then makes a test of Charisma + Etiquette + Loyalty rating. The contact will reveal that many levels of information about that topic for free. (Up to the number of hits scored by the contact for that topic.) If the contact knows more, additional information will require a payment to the contact of 50Â¥ * TR."

Connection + Connection = 12 dice for the contact. That is what gives you info on the subject. Thats on average, 4 hits.
PC makes charisma + etiquette + loyalty (as long as this is at least 12, they should typically get whatever the contact knows for free).

Thats it. In fact, the first test doesn't even have a timeframe listed for it, its instant, as its to find out what the contact already knows about it. So, up to threshold 4 information with a quick phonecall. They haven't asked around at all, thats the laster test (which has a 20 minute interval, not one hour), and there is not any risk with it. I'm not sure why you think there is.

This is in comparison to data search, which, going through the missions, the first 2 do not have listed as an option, and you MUST go through contacts to get the info. Something you also forgot, is that data search standardly has thresholds of 4, 8, 12, and 16 for the test. So, a 12 dice connections contact checking for info will on average get 4 hits. Your 12 die data search test, will get 1.

The first and second missions omit data search entirely as an option to get the information with.
The third mission specifically states what information is available via data search.
The fourth mission states exactly what charts you can use data search for, and lists the thresholds for each hit (some 4, some as well as listing the interval as being 15 minutes. It also states which kinds of contacts are appropriate for each chart. Kudos from me to the writers on this one, thats how it should be done.
The fifth mission, like the first two, omits data search from the options to get info from the legwork charts.
The sixth like the fifth, omits data search.
As does the seventh.
Finally, the eighth is the first one to explicitly allow data search for all of the charts, but limits the rolls they can make to their skill in data search. Also changes it so that every 4 hits on data search equates down to 1 hit on the charts (following the standard data search thresholds).
Mission nine follows eights lead.
Ten follows eight and nine.
Elevent follows ten, nine, and eight.
So does twelve.
And thirteen.
And fourteen.
And fifteen. Though it also scatters about results for data searches for various parts of the story as well.
Sixteen has no legwork section at all.
Seventeen follows fourteen and the rest.
Eighteen has no legwork section either.
Nineteen follows seventeen and the others.
Twenty follows fifteen in that it also has various data search results scattered through it.
As does twenty-one.
And twenty-two.
And twenty-three.
Twenty-four follows nineteen and the rest.
And twenty-five.

So, that makes 5 that don't allow any search at all. (1, 2, 5, 6, 7)
2 that actually spell out exactly what you can search for. (3, 4)
11 that allow it, but limit rolls to skill and use the normal data search thresholds.(8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24, 25)
5 more that allow it, limit it as above, but also have explicit results scattered throughout for data searches.(15, 20, 21, 22, 23)
And 2 with no legwork section at all.(16, 18)

So, in other words, Missions is using house rules? Because the rules I quoted were in the BBB.

Also, the five you mention do not omit data search as an option at all. They actually allow for it, just not explicitly and using the standard number of successes. Just because the book doesn't say you can murder the bartender at Club Denim, doesn't mean you can't accomplish it.

Looks like it.

Yes, missions uses house rules regarding legwork, I said that a while ago. Their rules are as follows:

To quote from Mission 1... "Legwork
When a PC gets in touch with a contact,
make a Connection + Connection test for
the contact. The results of this test will
determine how many ranks of information
the contact knows about the question.
(Apply die modifiers to this test based upon
relevance of the contact to the subject
matter.) A PC then makes a test of
Charisma + Etiquette + Loyalty rating. The
contact will reveal that many levels of
information about that topic for free. (Up to
the number of hits scored by the contact for
that topic.) If the contact knows more,
additional information will require a payment
to the contact of 50Â¥ * TR.
If the PCs have worked all of their
contacts, and are still missing important
information, they may ask a contact to ask
around. If they do so, have the Contact
make an extended (Connection +
Connection (20 minutes)) test. Additional
information will be available at a cost of
200Â¥ * TR."

As far as the 5 missions you claim still do allow data search? There is no mention of data search giving you any information from the tables. Thus, you can data search, and normally it would be up to the GM to decide what info you could obtain with a data search. Since its missions, and the mission doesn't state any specific information that can be obtained with data searches, nothing officially is able to be found via data search in those missions.


Actually, since the rules cover combat, the only thing needed to shoot the bartender is to know what the stats on the bartender are. But, playing by missions, he isn't statted out, so how can you shoot him? All missions are supposed to follow the same rules, so if one GM decides that the bartender has a body 3, and another decides a body of 4, then neither one is really official now are they? Of course, the best solution would be to just flip to the "Bartender" contact in SR4, and use his stats. So yes, you can shoot the bartender without a problem.

The rules allow for data searches, but they say that information on the matrix is up to the GM. Since the missions don't allow for data search to find for that information, its up to the GM running the mission to decide if it is or is not on the matrix. Since later missions explicitly state that the info is on the matrix, it isn't too hard to decide that yes, its on the matrix because a lot of other missions allow it to be, or no, it isn't, because they didn't say it is.

Which one is more correct? That it isn't on the matrix, because they didn't say it is. If you think it is, then you are making an assumption based off other missions, and it is not following the mission as written.

Please. They also don't explicitly say that you can look up a club on the matrix to find out what kind of clothing is appropriate, but that doesn't mean you have to call in a contact to find out.

No, but the only way for you to find out the information that is on the tables, is through a contact. Information the GM would have to come up with on his own, is available however he decides.

Or, the information is on the matrix, they just forgot to mention it.

Or it is not available on the Matrix, so there is no need to mention it.

Except it isn't, because the didn't mention it.

My point, the right way to do things, is like mission 4. It states what info you can get from contacts, and what you can get from a data search. Its how it should be broken out. Sadly, its the only one. Again, its a fault of the writer/GM to allow/disallow too much info on the matrix. Not of the mechanics.

I have done "legwork" by standing around outside a target building smoking cigarettes or reading newspapers (screamsheets) on a parkbench or coffee shop. Lots of legwork can be done without hacking. In my weekly game, I make sure everyone has the ability to do some legwork. And each person can get different info... which plugs into each other together.

I try to make sure everyone has the opportunity for some peice of info.

I quite agree that's one good way of doing it, but unfortunately it's not supported by the RAW. Just because they failed to mention something doesn't mean useful information on it doesn't exist on the matrix. What happens if you use a virtual Contact, for example? Searching a forum would entail the Data Search skill. Now, using Contacts is melded even further into the go-out-for-dinner problem of the grueling Data Search rolls.

When 5 different GM's have the same problem, then it's not a fault of those GM's. How many more will it take to convince you that this is a system issue, and not something you can blow off onto someone by saying "Bad GM, No Biscuit"? I'm not the only one who's reported this problem.

There are quite a few more than five different GMs in this thread alone (including more than one Commando) saying the exact opposite. How many more GMs will it take to convince you that this is indeed a GM problem?

To me, it is a GM problem when one GM or a very small percentage of GMs (about 5% or less) find it a problem, maybe due to the GM having comprehension problems, mentally unstable players, etc.

However, it is a problem with RAW when that percentage is larger, precisely because a significant number of people then finds it possible to game in an unsatisfactory manner. If more than 5% of road users find it possible to end up in a accident despite following the traffic rules/driving in a safe manner/etc and all other factors being the same, then perhaps the problem lies with the road.

In response, therefore, I would say that for every 1 of Cain's GMs, there has to be about 20 GMs saying the exact opposite.

Matrix Contacts are handled with the meat body Contact rules. I don't have the BBB in front of me to quote a page number but that is RAW.


Are those five different GMs part of the same gaming group or five different groups?

How is it not? GM Decides what info is available and where. Why? Because hes making up the adventure. Using mission 4, he didn't "forget" to mention anything, and quite explicitly stated what you can, and can get from the matrix. That is how I say it should be done. As Wesley said, matrix contacts are handled using normal contact rules. (Or in missions, their own houserules).

Enough guessing. Let's find out how many people agree with Cain.

Five different groups. Plus one or two that I heard from here.

I attribute hacking being so popular to the increase in electronic security. In first through third ed games if you were near the barrens, for example, you didnt have to worry about cameras. In 4th ed the street cams, ATM cams, and 50 bajillion other cameras all tied together really put a damper on walking around talking to gang members, drug dealers, etc. Hacking is clean if risky. Sure you may get your head fried but when you can do it on the interstate, dumpshock your hacker who just had his biomonitor detect a near fatality, and then divert to another roadway its a whole lot safer.

Now I know, naysayers, that this is a very specific example. My assertion is that its generally much safer to investigate with hacking so thats the path of least resistance most runners use.

Wow! You're a busy gamer! I barely have time for two.

I agree with this statement in regards to playing a game in a surveillance society. But Data Search as a skill isn't hacking. There's no manipulation of code, be it legal or illegal. It's simply sifting through data and information for an answer to a question.

I go to Google and use various boolean queries, read message boards, listen to podcasts, watch streaming video; that's Data Search. I trick Microsoft's corporate mainframe into thinking I'm a legal user, take advantage of known flaws in Vista programming code, and divert Hotmail data packets to grab a piece of information; that's Hacking.

You are the boss of me!

In all seriousness, I've lived in three cities in the last year alone. Before that, I was involved in two different regular gaming groups, plus irregular Missions games and conventions. I also burn out as a GM rather quickly, so I like to swap GM duties in a new group.


It used to be that to enter Shadowland, you had to perform a feat of hacking to get in the door, every time. We don't make people roll this out, however, since it'd be time-consuming. But at any event, there's no indication that it doesn't also encompass minor features of hacking. For example, properly using Google, you can find social security numbers.

With the prerequisite that someone had to be stupid enough to publish it on a webpage somewhere that google could index.

Or someone else posted it for you. There was an experiment a few months back, where a professor and team of research students were able to access people's SSN's, credit card information, mother's maiden name, etc., etc.

And how many people, out of the percentage with access to the web? So whats the likely hood that you can reliably get the info you need on your target via that method? I'm pretty sure its not good enough to bother.

Using Google isn't hacking. Hacking by its very definition requires rewriting code. Equating Data Search to Hacking is like equating my mother the librarian to Kevin Mitnick. There's no comparison. If I told my programmer co-workers that I was hacking right now they would laugh me out of the building.

I have no useful programming skills, yet I've hacked passwords before. I cracked my Ex's credit card password, to see if she had been drawing money off our joint account after we split up. That's also a form of hacking, called "Social engineering". We're not allowed to discuss real-life hacking techniques here, but you know what I'm referring to.

I'm also capable of hacking wi-fi networks. (Legally, too, I might add.) Do I rewrite code? Hell no, I'm a script-grognard. I have this little program that does it for me. I use it to scan my own home network for weaknesses, which is how it's legal. I don't rewrite a single line.

In other words, cain defaults on his hacking skill, but has a decent exploit program.

Guessing the password isn't hacking.

I'll go with that. The only reason I'm not a script-kiddie is because I'm way to old to be called "kid".


If it gets me into the computer without permission, it's hacking. Dictionary.com's definition is pretty clear on that point. Wikipedia isn't reliable, but according to it, Kevin Mitnick relied almost exclusively on social engineering. So, by deducing someone's password from talking to them, you are hacking in the same method as Kevin Mitnick.

Which still isn't Data Search.

Social engineering, in Shadowrun at least, can consist of a good chunk of Data Searching. In the first book (the so-called "braided novel" that introduced Wolf and Raven) a group called the Burkingmen make a living out of sorting and collecting garbage data. In that story, they uncover a key clue by finding a perfume receipt. Now, sorting out all the receipts and transactions is clearly a Data Search test. What that receipt then allowed them to do was crack a high-rating fake SIN.

So, if you scan enough of someone's transactions, you can find out a lot about them. You never know what you might turn up.