That's great. I quote something from the book and you use it make the opposite point I was trying to make. That's the human brain for you.


I will say that legwork definitely can be heavily biased towards Hacker/info master characters, but it doesn't have to be. I think I've seen several suggestions over the multiple threads in which we've discussed the topic: rule that some info is not on the public Matrix, reduce the number of rolls they can make per search (the "limited extended test" optional rule), combine searches on similar topics into one roll, use the "buy hits" rule on Data Search test. All of these things are in the powers of the GM to accomplish, without even resorting to what would be considered "house rules."

As GM, during the "execution" part of the run, I can do nothing but through waves of gun bunnies at characters making only the combat monsters effective; I can throw nothing but manifested spirits as opposition, excluding all but the mages; or I can have a target defended by nothing but technological security. None of these situations could really be considered "not-RAW" but they would be "bad GM'ing." Just because the rules allow you (or even suggest to) exclude certain characters doesn't mean that the GM should.


That's how I play it. The well-connection, well-liked Face has a nice array of "free info" at their fingertips.

Not to mention (again) that the Data Search skill (or an Agent on call) and a decent Browse program are not the sole purview of the Decker. Pretty much anyone can surf the Matrix using Data Search.

It says a Negotiation test might be necessary, which presumes a transaction of some kind.


True in theory, not so good in practice. Someone without the skill isn't likely to have a commlink powerful enough to handle a high-rating Browse program, let alone have a program rated that high. So, even a good agent won't be able to match a decent decker. The average agent will be Rating 3, Browse 3; an average decker would have Browse 4+, Data Search 4, maybe with a specialization, and Hot Sim +2. 6 dice for the agent vs 12 for the decker.

As you can buy a R4 agent out of the box, and browse programs and commlinks are cheap, most guys I've made would have DP 9 (limited by response), average decker is unlikely to be much better at chargen because he's going to have the computer skill group at 4, and any 6 will be in hacking.

But yeah agents suck and (every) use of them breaks the game over their knee.

Emphasis mine.

It's questionable if you should allow a hot-sim bonus for extended tests such as these, since hot-sim relies upon the users 'hyper-sensitized state' for its bonus, which may not be helpful for a data-search test such as this. Data search is also not a matrix test in the same sense that hacking and cybercombat are.

If you DO decide to allow this bonus, you should defiantly be enforcing the drawback of simsense addiction on the player as well. If he is using hot-sim for something as trivial as data-searching for legwork, addiction is very like to be a problem for the character.

Pilot limits Agents in the same way that System does. So, even a Rating 5 program will only work at rating 4 in the hands of a rating 4 agent. That's still only 8 dice vs 12. Decker still wins, hands-down.


Oddly enough, I've never seen anyone use the addiction test for hot sim, simply because there's no frequency chart on it. It's pretty much an "whenever it feel right" type of deal, and if a player isn't making a huge deal about always using hot sim, odds are that the GM will never notice how often it's being used.

How does the Hacker win 'hands-down'? At best, the typical Hacker would only have 11 dice out of chargen (13 with specialization), as compared to the non-Hacker's possible 8 dice with an Agent (or possibly even more, as if I recall correctly, Agents can be optimized for a task in a similar vein to Specialization). And that assumes the Hacker has a 6 in Data Search instead of Hacking, which is not too likely. So we are really only looking at one or two dice difference, which isn't that great of a disparity.

And once it's past chargen, buy a rating 6 agent, and the rating 6 program, and you've got 12 dice for data search for a few nuyens.

I'd say that hotsim is suitable for time-sensitive data searches - like, looking for a good place to hide while being chased over a highway in the team van.

Cain, you've mentioned a few times that you didn't think think this Matrix Search "problem" existed in SR3? How did you play it in SR3 so that it wasn't a problem? If anything, it appears to me that SR4 made the Matrix more accessible to all members of the team than in SR3.

Decker with Data Search 4 + Specialty(+2) + Browse 5 + Hot Sim(+2) = 13 dice.

Rating 4 agent + Rating 4 Browse = 8 dice.

Decker wins, hands down.


Deckers had their own set of problems in SR3, but it was easier for anyone to contribute. All you needed was a cyberterminal and a Computer skill. With the split of Computer into lots of little skills, I see few non-deckers take the skills and equipment to be a decent backup decker. I'll agree that Sr4 made the Matrix more accessible, but it also made it harder to use.

For example:

SR3: Computer Skill 1 + Hacking Pool + No Program = Lots of dice for Data Searching
SR4: Computer Skill 1 + No Program = 0 dice for Data Searching.

Decker dice vs. Agent dice.

Agent rating 5, browse 5 = ten dice
Decker data search +4 specialties only get you so much but if you want to add 2 dice everything then fine there is a +2, browse +5, hotsim +2 = thirteen dice

Most runners especially if you have a rigger will want a response 6 chip and an agent rating of 6 as well. This generally means the agent will eventually get twelve dice to the deckers thirteen to sixteen dice.

The only difference is that the agent can't use edge the way the decker can (like it really matters though)

It is not the hands down end all be all win.

I haven't read all of it closely, but doesn't Unwired have rules for optimizing Agents for certain tasks (such as Browse or Analyze)?

Another thing to keep in mind is does your Agent have purchase authority....

But something you might look into is that information costs money... you may be able to find certain things on the matrix... But your local government might actually make you pay to download that old building plan from it's database if you can't hack it. (gotta make their tax and fee revenue somehow!).

Not all things on the matrix are free.

There are two points of issue here.

Firstly, if you are going to ignore the rules as written, then there really isn't much to talk about. But considering that data-search of the entire Matrix takes one minute per test (of which they may be several per extended test). And considering you have quoted a character doing 60 such tests as a part of legwork. This means such a character is spending over an hour (possibly multiple hours depending upon the number of intervals he uses per test) using hot-sim for what is essentially a high tech google search. If this isn't a classic time to introduce some of the penalties for abuse of hot-sim, then I don't know what is.

Secondly you seem to be indicating that hot sim use doesn't become a problem because players conceal its use from the gamemaster. Surely I don't have to point the problem with this statement to you?

In any case I think granting hot-sim bonuses for extended tests of this nature is probably questionable, though I could see a case made for it in some situations.

----

The other point ignored in favor of agents is that they are autonomus. While data-search requires 100% of the users attention. This means a clever player (and mine have done so on occasion) could leave an agent running data search running for topics of interest to them, and stay on top of critical data even when they might be otherwise engaged.

The problem is that you can't start with a Rating 5 agent. Due to availability restrictions, the best you can do is Rating 4. Once game begins, you can try to purchase a higher-rated one (expensive) or code one yourself (time consuming). So, neither option is going to be easily attained for a fresh character.


Data Search tests are supposed to take about a combat turn of game time. 60 x 3 sec = 180 sec, or about 3 minutes. The problem is that in the real world, it takes up to several minutes to resolve a Data Search test. If you use the longest interval, it's only 1 minute. So, it takes about an in-game hour to resolve 60 Data Search items, but over an hour and a half to resolve it in real time.


The issue isn't concealment, the issue is communication. Unless the player explicitly says "I'm using Hot Sim" each and every time, the GM isn't going to notice. Two more dice in a fistful of them isn't going to stand out. You could make the decker count out his dice each and every time, but that's time-consuming, and distrustful of your player. You could continuously ask, but that's also time-consuming. What's more, if the player does communicate his Hot Sim use to the GM clearly, he's going to be punished for it more than the guy who simply doesn't mention it as often.

On top of that, there's no interval for Addiction tests. They occur more or less at the GM's whim. Which means, if the player isn't making a big deal about it, a Gm could easily forget.


Agents are autonomous, but they're also not nearly as good as an average decker. If the Data Search is important, or if it doesn't take up much time (like, say, a minute) then it's better for the decker to do it. Especially if the data is critical.

Also, if it's time-sensitive, the decker has a huge speed advantage. With 13 dice, he will average 4.33 successes. Since the threshold for Easy information is 4, the decker is likely to nail it every time. The agent, with only 8 dice, will average 2.66 successes; not enough to hit even the easiest threshold, even if we round up. It'll need to take a second interval, taking twice as long.

The interval is based on the "area" of the search.

I don't know how other people do it, but I make my players choose the area of search before they begin. If they decide they want to widen the area of the search, then I make them start over with a new interval.

The point is that Data Searching is, in-game, the fastest and easiest way to get a lot of information in a hurry. You can get all your legwork done in an hour or less.

Agent rating on availability is rating x3. You can get a rating 5 agent because it does not go over availability 16.

Ironic that you are saying that Data Search is the fastest way to get Legwork done in game-time, but you are also complaining that it takes up too much real-time in the session. Huh. You still haven't answered my question about how this wasn't a problem in SR3.


Availability 16 must be a house rule. By RAW the limit is supposed to be 12.

As others have pointed out, your assumptions are highly questionable as well. Using hot-sim for routine data-search legwork? An applicable specilisation in the kind of data-search you are doing? Both highly questionable. And without them a deckers advantage in this kind of test is minimal.


As Malachai pointed out, the interval is based upon the 'area' of the search. In the case of the entire matrix (which is what would be applicable for the kind of leg-work we are discussing), the player in your game is spending over an hour on his absurd number of questions. Possibly as many as 4 hours if he goes for 4 intervals, or even longer if he goes for more (generally capped at his dicepool, so as many as 8 or so for most reasonable pools). Spending this amount if time in hot-sim doing basically an enhanced google search should definitely bring up the issue of addiction. Which is why, of course, most characters wouldn't use hot-sim (which is dangerous and addictive) for such a mundane task.

Though of course no one in their right mind should be making 60 legwork tests, so the example is rather extreme. But if this kind of junk is happening in your games the downsides of it should defiantly be brought into play as well.


The rules explicitly state that hot-sim is dangerous and addictive. You can literally fry your brain with it. If this isn't an important consideration that needs to be brought to the GM's attention, each and every time it is used, then I don't know what is. I mean it's not like saying "I'm going to use hot-sim" takes up a lot of time in the real world. You would certainly object if the players decided to start taking cram or some other dangerous and addictive substance and conveniently forgot to mention its use to the GM.

As for it being left up the GM, this is probably as it should be. Most of the time the other main drawback of hot-sim (the potential to bleed your brain out through your nose) is enough to balance it. However if a character is using and abusing this fundamentally dangerous tool for such mundane tasks, then the GM is certainly within his rights to bring up the specter of addiction. In fact it seems to be almost a text book case for it.


My point was with an agent any character can have an autonums bot that feeds him information constantly. Unless your decker is doing matrix-searches 24/7 he cannot match this availability. He won't be able to get up-to-the-minute news because he can only get that data when he takes the time out of his busy schedule to look for it. Heck he won't even know its out there till he makes a test.

Being that the character is a shadowrunner, there might occur times when vital information comes up but the character is to busy doing other more important things (like avoiding being shot). An example of this that came up in my game was a players agent letting them know that there getaway chase with Lone-Star just broke on to the 6 o'clock news. An important pecie of data they which they were a bit to busy to search for at the moment.

This is where I have a problem. I am of the opinion that not everything (not even close) is available on the Matrix to a simple Data Search. Therefore, although it may be a fast way to get some information, it will not suffice for all your Legwork needs.

I believe that there is an Edge that allows one to bypass that limitation.

I did. Data Searching as a specific skill didn't exist in SR3. It was folded into the Computer skill, which just about everyone had. With the Computer skill and a cheap cyberterminal, anyone could handle a basic matrix search. You didn't even need a Browse program, since all Browse did was locate paydata.


There is, but wasting it on an agent seems foolish. Better to use it on a rating 6 Response chip.


Compared to a Contact test, that's lightning-fast. The interval for a contact test is 1 hour. In that same amount of time, a decker can easily run 60 tests, even if they take more than 1 interval; odds are that the contact will need more than 1 interval as well. So, it could take you several hours to get info on one subject, or one hour to get info on lots of subjects. That, of course, presumes that the decker is searching the entire matrix, and not a dedicated network such as Shadowland. That would be even faster, being able to complete 2000 tests before the contact could even find anything.


Do you ask you players, each and every time, if they're using Hot Sim? Do they explicitly tell you each and every time what sim level they're using?

At any event, if players are using hot sim to carefully probe a target, then spending an hour or less doing a hot sim data search isn't such a big deal.


Sending a bot out requires taking up a subscription slot, possibly a program slot, and takes an action to communicate with. Agents also don't know what information to go after unless you tell them, and as established, they're significantly weaker at it than a good decker. While it's sometimes a good idea to have an agent in a well-placed node, reporting back to you as needed; a constant stream of agents telling you everything that moved is not practical.

Your objections to the changes ring hollow. First off, a data-search test in SR3 was handled by Etiquette(Matrix), not computer skill. It took 2d6 hours of continuous search time, and you could not add your hacking pool to this test. So basically everything you said about how data-search was handled in SR3 is wrong. Well I guess you didn't need a program, which costs all of what 400Y for a rating 4 program? A big expense there. So as others have been saying, if anything data-search is a much more accessible option to other characters in SR4. Indeed, my impression from reading the two rule sets is that while in SR3 data-search is intended primarily for hackers, in SR4 it is meant for more general application.

In addition, the ambiguous wording in SR3 could lead a foolish GM to put all legwork data up on the matrix if he was so inclined. "Virtually any information can be found in the Matrix, if the character knows where to look and has the time." Of course a rational person would still be able to read that sentence and determine that no, not EVERYTHING can be found on the matrix, but then again, that doesn't appear to be your mindset when you looked at the SR4 rules.


Quite an assumption to assume that a player can narrow down his information to residing on a specific network. Even more so a players access to such network is completely at the GM's discretion. Access could be given out freely, treated as an asset the player had to purchase with karma/nuyen, or even like a contact.

But this entirely misses my point. Which wasn't so much about the speed of data-search itself (which is rather fast). But the amount of time you seem to have characters casually using a dangerous and addictive substance (Hot Sim).


I don't have to ask them, they explicitly tell me in the first place. Is that so strange? The same way they would tell me before using cram or some other drugs to boost their stats. In fact we have a habit at my table of rattling off our dice-pools and where we get them from as we roll them, but even if we didn't, I would still expect to know, each and every time, a character started using hot-sim. It is after all a dangerous and addictive.

This includes if a player is using it when probing a target. And yes I would consider dragging out the specter of addiction then as well. Probing is designed to be a slow, careful analysis of a system looking for weaknesses. It's another situation where granting a bonus for hot-sim is questionable, but if you did decided to grant it, bring in worries about sim addiction would certainly be applicable as well.


Agents have some intelligence, depending upon their rating, so one could expect them to provide some filtering. But in any case it only takes an action to issue them a command, there is no action necessary to receive an alert or something of that nature. Observing their data in detail might be an action, if necessary, but just getting a message from the certainly is not.

I've been thinking about this thread while GMing two Shadowrun games in a convention this week-end. The scenarios were mine (written long before that topic came up) and I hadn't played with the players before.

In the first game, they could get some data on the Matrix, but it was easier and faster to find it with good old legwork (calling contacts and talking to people). In the second game, the players chose to investigate entirely through the Matrix and some thinking rather than on the streets and this made their job a lot harder.

So I guess that, in my games at least, there are times when it's better not to use the Matrix to do the legwork.

Oh, I get it. You want to make this into a SR3 vs SR4 thing. Well, I'm not falling for that trap. When you compare SR4 to any other system out there with an internet-like creation, the local decker-equivalent does not dominate information gathering in this fashion. That's *every* such system, not just SR3.

Sorry, but I refuse to get back into that old flame war.

What, haven't you head of "Virtual Contacts"?

Seriously, 60 data search tests could take as little as 3 minutes (maybe less); even searching the whole matrix, it could take as little as 60 minutes of game time. Using contacts require at least 1 hour apiece, so 60 hours plus some seriously annoyed contacts. So, using Data Search is still faster, a point I noticed you ignored in favor of starting an old flame war.


If you're using the botnet rules, you've got literally hundreds of agents placed in the net, sifting data for you. That's bound to toss up a few false positives. Even without that, there's going to be a fair number of botches and critical botches going on, which will screw up your data collection. And finally, with that many agents out there, there's going to be a fight over subscription slots, as well as a lot of redundancy of information. You're going to need to sift through the data your agents bring back, which coincidentally is another Data Search + Browse roll.

So you just want to ignore the point that pretty much every statement you made in regards as to how data-search was handled in SR3 was wrong? Because, you know, it was. Virtually every single point. Go on, re-read the SR3 rules, its on pg 254. Call it a flame if you like. But when your repeated quotes of your preferred SR rule set is dead wrong, it has some bearing on how others should look at your approach to other rule sets. That is, that you have decided upon a twisted and biased interpretation of the SR4 rule set to support another set of rules which you obviously remember poorly.

As for starting a SR3/SR4 flamewar. I have no such intent. I firmly believe that a rational interpretation of the SR4 rule set can stand on its own in this respect. I have no real opinion on the merit of SR3's approach to data search. However when the comparison between the two systems is made, I feel compelled to point out that your statements about the old system were in error. If you conclusions about the relative superiority of these two rule sets is based upon those statements, then obviously your conclusion may be in error as well.


If you read more closely you would see rather than ignoring the point, I explicitly granted it. Data search is undoubtedly faster than calling contacts (though a call to a contact need only take an hour if the contact is going to take an hour if he is going to ask around on your behalf, if he knows the answer that knowledge may be available immediately). In a time critical situation data search may be a superior technique. However the leg-work portion of a run is rarely so time sensitive.

The entire reason I brought up the issue of the duration of a data search is that you seem determined to find flaws in the data search rules by taking the most extreme situations possible and ignoring the built in checks to the rules. My specific example was the problem of hot-sim addiction if you spend such large periods of time using hot-sim for data-search. Which seems to be the case in games you have been in.

It seems to be a repeating pattern in your interpretation however. Any example is cast in the most extreme light possible in order to make your position seem correct. Any rational approach to the rules is rejected. Of course you are going to have problems with the data=search rules if you decide that any and all information can be found on the matrix (despite all the rule based and reason based reasons why you should not) . Of course you are going to have problems if you decide that all matrix information can be localized to a single network, to which your specialization applies, and the use of hot-sim has no drawbacks. Virtually any rule can be twisted and abused in this means. This does not necessarily mean the rule in and of itself is flawed, only your approach to the rule.


Again, you take a perfectly rational approach to the rules, and twist it to support your argument. There is no reason to involve a entire bot-net of agents for most data-searches. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to believe not only would the approach be be more dangerous (as it is likely to attract more unwanted attention), it is not likely to gather more useful legwork. A thousand librarians may be able to sift though data more quickly, but if they are all of equal skill there is no reason to believe they will get any better results. Since time is rarely an issue when searching the matrix, unless you need to harvest a huge quantity of data for some reason, there is little to no reason to resort to this approach.

For the legwork a character is typically going to do, asking a single agent to perform a data search on your behalf is the most rational approach, and resorting to an entire botnet is lunacy (as well as being a red-herring and a strawman to the argument at hand). The rules easily support this rational approach to this problem. You ask your agent to "Find out where I can buy a snowplow" and it does so. Or you load it on to a separate node and ask it to "Inform me if my name or picture appears on the net (or that of my mark, or of a corporation I am researching)" and it will do so. It would be marginally less effective than a dedicated character at doing so (depending upon how much you wanted to invest in buying an agent), but for most purposes it would be entirely sufficient. And it brings data-search into the hands of most interested characters, which at one point the thrust of one of your arguments against it. Saying that data-search was entirely in the realm of the decker (and making a comparison to how it was handled in SR3 which was based upon well... sheer lies as to how the SR3 rules worked).

Very well put MaxMahem. I agree with your point that in the end, the results are more a factor of the person than the rules. If a person wants the rules to work then they'll find a way to make them work. If someone has decided that they don't like some rules then they will read/interpret them in a way that they don't work.

(PS I'm listening to your podcasts MaxMahem, and enjoying them.)

Glad you like them. I have some more sessions sitting on my hard drive, I just haven't gotten around to editing and uploading them. Hopefully I will be able to get back to it soon. Cause as my groups sessions continue on, I am getting more and more behind!

What you say is correct to a certain degree. If you want to make broken rules work, you can always house rule them until they do. Of course, that says nothing for the strength of the underlying system. If you're having to house rule everything, then the system isn't that stable in the first place. Saying a system is stable because you can apply a hundred patches is just silly.

No offense, but the thought that it's a personal problem when multiple GM's have reported the Pizza Problem, just doesn't hold water. Data Searching is fast and powerful, and arguably faster and more powerful than calling up contacts. It also has fewer drawbacks. The issue is how long it takes to do those data searches in real time: long enough for someone to go out and bring back a pizza.

Most of Max's post was a rant, so there's no logical argument for me to reply to. His only solid point was referencing the SR3 book, of which my copy is sitting in a closet 300 miles away. I'll give him that one, simply because I'm unable to read the same section as him and show him where he's wrong. It proves nothing, since it's a SR3 vs SR4 argument, and doesn't explain how Shadowrun's Matrix stacks up against other systems.

I haven't said anything about house-rules or patches. The only thing that I have done is decided that not all information can be found on the Matrix, you (or your GM or whatever) have decided that everything that you need to know can be found by searching the Matrix. *shrug* To me, my ruling seems logical. If one could simply search for Mr. Johnson's real identity, or what AZT's current black project is about, or who really killed Big D, then no one would need runners to gather intel. In the SR3 Corporate Download book, it states that AZT deckers actively search an eliminate any info about AZT that is accessible on the Matrix (Shadow sites and all). Unless they just decided to give this up after Crash 2.0 and open up all their sites to be spidered by Google, I don't think much has changed.

We been over this too many times already, so I'll just say that even though your experiences my show a repeating pattern I think we've already seen quite a few DS posts by people saying this isn't a problem in their group. Both of the polls don't tell me that there is an overwhelming majority that feels the same way you do. So, I think calling the "Data Search pizza problem" a systemic one would be an extreme stretch at this point.

Perhaps I should start writing Missions adventures and apply to be one of those Commando people you put so much stock in.