Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What Do You Think of the Matrix Rules?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Mr. Bane
QUOTE
You sure? I loved to read The Art of Intrusion and it really read like something i'd like to play.


You mean by Kevin Mitnick?

The book about himself?

Well let me show you my book: Roleplaying Gamers: Hard times, Sexy Women, And A Lot Of Money by David Bane. It details how awesome I am.

But, sillyness asside. The book is about social engineering not hacking. Hacking is tedious and mind numbling boring. There is a reason non-famous hackers are complete dicks and there are very few famous hackers: Hacking is literally perfect for people with Asperger's Syndrome (Focused attention and social disabilities) because the crux of it involves finding small human errors and voiding yourself from any social setting. In fact the entire concept behind hacking is the understanding that all software is made by Humans. Humans make incredible errors and most large scale software is written by hundreds of sweatshop programmers who have crappy managers (who know nothing of software OR programming) and try to stamp it all together. Alternatively, Cowboy Coders are so full of themselves (and unable to work in large teams) that they overlook obvious problems.
GreyBrother
QUOTE (Mr. Bane @ May 27 2009, 10:44 AM) *
You mean by Kevin Mitnick?

The book about himself?

Well let me show you my book: Roleplaying Gamers: Hard times, Sexy Women, And A Lot Of Money by David Bane. It details how awesome I am.

*snip*

Awesome, you got an ISBN on that? I'd like to read it. grinbig.gif

It wasn't about him, but about stories of actually what shadowrunners do (going into a area you shouldn't belong), stuff like Intrusion Tests but also about one or two guys who set themselves a nice internet connection in prison up (in a time where that wasn't allowed). That's the reason i actually bought it and there isn't a chapter about something Mitnick himself did (guess that is in The Art of Deception, which i still have to read)

But yeah, i see that it could be boring for some people, though i really would dig this kind of hacking sometimes. rotfl.gif
hobgoblin
i have art of deception sitting on my shelf, its a collection of social engineering stories with a bit at the end about how to guard against them.
Malachi
Well, it looks like Frank has been asked to leave so I doubt we'll get a continuation of this debate. Take from it what you want; I don't think the rules are as broken as some would suggest and most of those "breaks" come from the classic RPG pitfall of "the rules don't say that I can't!"
hobgoblin
and whenever a player makes such a statement, the GM is free to call on a orbital bombardment on the character...
Malachi
... of the "bovine" nature? That's my favourite. biggrin.gif
Ryu
QUOTE (Malachi @ May 27 2009, 10:35 PM) *
... of the "bovine" nature? That's my favourite. biggrin.gif

Certain laws of the universe are guarded by experienced Drop Bear Commandos stationed in space. Be glad if the GM uses cows.

kigmatzomat
QUOTE (Malachi @ May 27 2009, 02:49 PM) *
most of those "breaks" come from the classic RPG pitfall of "the rules don't say that I can't!"


I just want to point out that earlier in the thread the "permissive" nature of SR hacking was described by some as a strength.

This reflects, imo, the fundamental disconnects on the rules as no one seems clear on things as basic as whether the rules are a permissive model (anything goes that hasn't been explicitly forbidden) or a restrictive model (nothing is allowed that hasn't been expressly permitted).
Larme
QUOTE (kigmatzomat @ May 27 2009, 04:41 PM) *
I just want to point out that earlier in the thread the "permissive" nature of SR hacking was described by some as a strength.

This reflects, imo, the fundamental disconnects on the rules as no one seems clear on things as basic as whether the rules are a permissive model (anything goes that hasn't been explicitly forbidden) or a restrictive model (nothing is allowed that hasn't been expressly permitted).


I suspect that it's not strictly either, the GM is the one who has the final say over whether "it doesn't say I can't" means that you can. This is even true to some extent with hacking, because the rules are so extremely wide open. Fore instance, can you download the personnel file from a security node? The book doesn't say you can, but the GM is free to decide that there is such a file on the node and you can download it. Can you add yourself to the personnel roster, and make it look like you're a transfer from another facility? Again, it doesn't say you can, but that doesn't mean you can't. The permissive rule mindset starts to matter when someone says "well, it doesn't say I can't automatically blacklist all hostile traffic while simultaneously maintaining an automatic, dynamic list of all acceptable access ID's." Obviously, when "it doesn't say I can't" is the argument used to break the game, that's when you take out the "permissive ruleset" bat. For anything that's reasonable and non-game breaking, the permissiveness argument is considerably weaker because of how vague the rules are.
Wiseman
First, I like the matrix rules. I think they're very permissive overall and common sense always fills in the blanks at the GM table. I find them fairly intuitive and streamlined at the said table, and I can condense or expand upon the detail (and interaction) level as fits the overall story and pace of the game.

Unwired brought some nice rule options, which only further illustrates how GM interpertation and allowance make each game unique. Much as I can respect FT's finer understanding of mechanics, I have to agree with Larme that what he has in logic, he lacks in heart. Those interpertations are missing out on the fun of the game for some perceived injustice from the devs.

The additional security measures added in Unwired offer a nice toolset for GM's to keep things interesting, and I find it amusing that some think its unacceptable for financial institutions and shadowtech corp R&D labs to require things like alchemical passkeys, and worse to assume everyone will use them for their personal commlinks regardless of cost "because its the best". True, altering allowable access ID's is a lot easier than wireless inhibiting wallpaper and definitely easier than obtaining and setting up alchemical passkeys, but its not all encompassing and security personnel are not psychics (or maybe they are ^^).

Sad fact is we live in a world where people STILL don't use firewalls or anti-virus software, they open every email that promises "special offers inside", or eagerly download the so called "picture album" file from some stranger in a chat room and don't even second guess when clicking it that it doesn't appear to do anything at all. Most of the wage slaves and everyman trust the corps and their methods (promises) to keep them safe. Worse, system engineers and security advisors (and game developers) make mistakes, try getting fifteen people in a room and get them to agree on something, now try to get them to keep it secret. These human flaws are what "hacking" is all about, and there is no right way or only way to do it. You do whatever it takes. The relish my players feel when pulling off something complicated is almost enough reward in itself and often becomes the "remember when" stories of yesteryear (memories being the ultimate and only truly attainable payoff for playing).

Social-engineering is given a backseat in the RAW, but it goes without saying that the best runs are going to involve paying someone who knows someone about a corp exec and where he lives. Then hacking his home terminal after getting through corporate compound security. As Larme pointed out, this is a feature and not a flaw, moreso its the very essence of the game. There are plenty of "fluff" systems hackers can crack open on the fly, virtual clubs, personal PAN's, the drone waiter at the stuffer shack, but when players want a challenge (and hacking banks or stealing a corps blood secrets should be the stuff of legends) you need to throw a few barriers in their way (read reasons for everyone else to care about the Matrix even if they don't access it). When push comes to shove, or just for shits and giggles, add in a miscreant rogue AI who has it out for a certain hacker for dragon's know why (and have finding out the why part of the run).

At the end of a day, I think the Shadowrun books offer numerous imaginative mechanics concepts, plenty of hard rules, and definitely does provide "hours of fun". Focusing on only the mechanics without the game context is an effort of futility, and no system can be a perfect tactical simulator, exactly emulating reality (or the perception of imagined reality and its plausibility), and remain streamlined.

As for flaws and loopholes by themselves, no human made system is going to be perfect (or perfect for everyone) and I think the near constant re-balancing that MMORPGs go through regularly is proof that for every player there is an opinion and an ego to back it, but unlike video games, at the desktop YOU get to decide (without waiting for the patch).

Anyway, I don't post often and I'm sure and shows, and i'm becoming somewhat redundant. I'll quit while i'm behind.
Biokinetica
QUOTE (kzt @ May 25 2009, 12:04 PM) *
Since you are admitting that both the fluff and the rules don't work and the GM has to house rule everything, why are you defending the computer rules of SR4?
I never said any of this non-sense, nor am I defending anything. At most, I created a counter-argument to test a hypothesis posed by an individual. Re-read the posts and try again.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Wiseman @ May 27 2009, 07:19 PM) *
First, I like the matrix rules. I think they're very permissive overall and common sense always fills in the blanks at the GM table. I find them fairly intuitive and streamlined at the said table, and I can condense or expand upon the detail (and interaction) level as fits the overall story and pace of the game.

Unwired brought some nice rule options, which only further illustrates how GM interpertation and allowance make each game unique. Much as I can respect FT's finer understanding of mechanics, I have to agree with Larme that what he has in logic, he lacks in heart. Those interpertations are missing out on the fun of the game for some perceived injustice from the devs.

The additional security measures added in Unwired offer a nice toolset for GM's to keep things interesting, and I find it amusing that some think its unacceptable for financial institutions and shadowtech corp R&D labs to require things like alchemical passkeys, and worse to assume everyone will use them for their personal commlinks regardless of cost "because its the best". True, altering allowable access ID's is a lot easier than wireless inhibiting wallpaper and definitely easier than obtaining and setting up alchemical passkeys, but its not all encompassing and security personnel are not psychics (or maybe they are ^^).

Sad fact is we live in a world where people STILL don't use firewalls or anti-virus software, they open every email that promises "special offers inside", or eagerly download the so called "picture album" file from some stranger in a chat room and don't even second guess when clicking it that it doesn't appear to do anything at all. Most of the wage slaves and everyman trust the corps and their methods (promises) to keep them safe. Worse, system engineers and security advisors (and game developers) make mistakes, try getting fifteen people in a room and get them to agree on something, now try to get them to keep it secret. These human flaws are what "hacking" is all about, and there is no right way or only way to do it. You do whatever it takes. The relish my players feel when pulling off something complicated is almost enough reward in itself and often becomes the "remember when" stories of yesteryear (memories being the ultimate and only truly attainable payoff for playing).

Social-engineering is given a backseat in the RAW, but it goes without saying that the best runs are going to involve paying someone who knows someone about a corp exec and where he lives. Then hacking his home terminal after getting through corporate compound security. As Larme pointed out, this is a feature and not a flaw, moreso its the very essence of the game. There are plenty of "fluff" systems hackers can crack open on the fly, virtual clubs, personal PAN's, the drone waiter at the stuffer shack, but when players want a challenge (and hacking banks or stealing a corps blood secrets should be the stuff of legends) you need to throw a few barriers in their way (read reasons for everyone else to care about the Matrix even if they don't access it). When push comes to shove, or just for shits and giggles, add in a miscreant rogue AI who has it out for a certain hacker for dragon's know why (and have finding out the why part of the run).

At the end of a day, I think the Shadowrun books offer numerous imaginative mechanics concepts, plenty of hard rules, and definitely does provide "hours of fun". Focusing on only the mechanics without the game context is an effort of futility, and no system can be a perfect tactical simulator, exactly emulating reality (or the perception of imagined reality and its plausibility), and remain streamlined.

As for flaws and loopholes by themselves, no human made system is going to be perfect (or perfect for everyone) and I think the near constant re-balancing that MMORPGs go through regularly is proof that for every player there is an opinion and an ego to back it, but unlike video games, at the desktop YOU get to decide (without waiting for the patch).

Anyway, I don't post often and I'm sure and shows, and i'm becoming somewhat redundant. I'll quit while i'm behind.


And with great fanfare, I bow to your wisdom...
Malachi
QUOTE (Wiseman @ May 27 2009, 07:19 PM) *
*snip*
Anyway, I don't post often and I'm sure and shows, and i'm becoming somewhat redundant. I'll quit while i'm behind.

Wow man, I haven't seen anything that rational and well-written in some time. You don't post often but you sure save up for some good posts.
Mr. Bane
QUOTE
It wasn't about him

Man, you have no idea how massive his ego is then.

QUOTE
though i really would dig this kind of hacking sometimes.


Again, that wasn't about hacking it was about Social Engineering.

QUOTE
Those interpretations are missing out on the fun of the game for some perceived injustice from the devs.


Your entire post is just a bunch of air. You literally created a strawman, set it on fire, sweeped it into the garbage, dusted your hands off and called it "A job well done."

That you don't understand the argument at all is shown in this one line:
QUOTE
and no system can be a perfect tactical simulator, exactly emulating reality (or the perception of imagined reality and its plausibility), and remain streamlined.


But hey, when you can write 400+ words that amount to "No one is perfect, so you can't criticize it!" and get text-fellatio for it...Well, I can see the appeal.
Larme
QUOTE (Mr. Bane @ May 28 2009, 07:57 AM) *
Your entire post is just a bunch of air. You literally created a strawman, set it on fire, sweeped it into the garbage, dusted your hands off and called it "A job well done."


Ah Mr. Bane, with each post you seem to be showing your civilized nature more and more. Bravo for not letting decorum or diplomacy get in the way of direct flames!

And how about the pot calling the kettle black? You took the weakest, least complete assessment of Frank's argument and chose that as your target to destroy. Good job knocking down the straw man!

Now how about the fact that Frank's most recent attack on the matrix rules was based on a loophole that he made up, himself? He fabricated it from whole cloth, and told everyone it was a rule, which would be tantamount to cheating if he was a player in any campaign of mine. And then that was his whole basis for saying that the rules were crap, or at least the only specific case he made outside of his generalities about it being "so bad that even the writer knows it." I think it's pretty clear that Frank is well and truly beyond the point of rational argument and has moved on to vendetta, otherwise he wouldn't use such obtuse methods to attack the system.
Mr. Bane
Irony: Whining about someone that uses insults, then insulting someone.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Civility is greatly appreciated...
paws2sky
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ May 28 2009, 10:37 PM) *
Civility is greatly appreciated...


And sadly in short supply much of the time.

-paws
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (paws2sky @ May 28 2009, 08:22 PM) *
And sadly in short supply much of the time.

-paws



Ain't that the truth !!!
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Larme @ May 28 2009, 09:34 AM) *
Now how about the fact that Frank's most recent attack on the matrix rules was based on a loophole that he made up, himself? He fabricated it from whole cloth, and told everyone it was a rule, which would be tantamount to cheating if he was a player in any campaign of mine.


No - this is just what you think the rules say. If you apply a purely legalistic interpretation to reading the relevant sections, either definitions could be true because it is very unclear how the access ID system works/doesn't work. So people just fill in the gaps according to their own preferences and prejudices.

You have openly stated you use the interpretation that makes the Access ID rules do nothing - but if they do nothing, what is all this text there? It makes no sense. Now, there are lots of valid interprations, but they are just that.

Incidently, Wisemans arguement is completely ludicrous. In shadowrun, security personnel use lethal force on computer intruders - and have lethal force used on them. For this people, who literally have their life on the line:

QUOTE
The additional security measures added in Unwired offer a nice toolset for GM's to keep things interesting, and I find it amusing that some think its unacceptable for financial institutions and shadowtech corp R&D labs to require things like alchemical passkeys, and worse to assume everyone will use them for their personal commlinks regardless of cost "because its the best". True, altering allowable access ID's is a lot easier than wireless inhibiting wallpaper and definitely easier than obtaining and setting up alchemical passkeys, but its not all encompassing and security personnel are not psychics (or maybe they are ^^).


So he's seriously saying they - who might actually die - would ignore a very cheap defense in favour not implementing a very expensive defense because it is to expensive. Does that sound insane to you?

The entire post is pure insanity once you consider that the security spider is risking his life. Wiseman is saying that they'd never do a cheap option because a better option they cannot afford exists.

The second reason that it is meaningless waffle is that Shadowrunners don't hack into some kids myspace site. They hack into facilities secure enough to warrant protection with lethal force. What institutions are protected with lethal force today? Major infrastructure facilities, military bases, a few other odds and end. These are always heavily secured and the owners generally spend large sums of money on protecting them, particularly the military.

Saying that the owners would cheap out on automated protection is very silly when you consider that the owners are paying for multiple people with guns and highly illegal programs that kill people to defend them! If not everyone has them, and just 'only people runners will encounter' have them, that is functionally the same as everyone within the context of a game.

Finally his financial institutions with alchemical keys introduces a logical impossibility that undermines his whole argument

Axiom 1 It requires alchemical keys to access financial institutions

Axiom 2 Private individuals do not have alchemical keys

Axiom 3 Private individuals use financial institutions.

Therefore

1) A = C

2) B = NOT C

3) A = B

Substituting 1, 2 into 3

C = NOT C

When I can prove absurdities using a posts logic, you need to really question the validation of the logic of that post.
kzt
You don't understand. The Matrix rules are perfect! Everything you might ever want is included, and it's all perfectly clear. Just ask Wiseman. sarcastic.gif

That's why nobody ever asks, as their first question on Dumpshock: "How the hell do the matrix rules work?" Oh, sorry, it's the MOST common first question.

But clearly that is all Frank Trollman's fault. It can't possibly that the rules confuse everyone who actually reads them and tries to parse what they actually say, as opposed to just pretending they make sense by ignoring and mentally rewriting them. ohplease.gif
Cthulhudreams
Oh yeah, just compare the number of FAQ threads about the bloody matrix (and rigging) to magic, which is a subsystem that occupies an equal proportion of the games conceptual space. Which one is has more FAQs? Oh yeah, the matrix

How many people can clearly explain all the various methods and dicepools to fire a gun on a vehicle compared to how many people can clearly explain all the ways to cast a spell and the dicepools. The FAQ thread takes more than 8 pages to arrive at a consistent explanation of what the rules for rigging are, and that is after the OP made a post that he obviously thought was completely correct and reference material - and he had it wrong!

I also like the 'so what is an electronic warfare test' question.
Mr. Bane
No, see, you have to understand. He totally has a rational argument.

You see they are:

QUOTE
intuitive and streamlined at the said table


But were not supposed to use it because:

QUOTE
There are plenty of "fluff" systems hackers can crack open on the fly, virtual clubs, personal PAN's, the drone waiter at the stuffer shack,


And if we cant use those rules, well, then they obviously aren't broken!
Wiseman
Its obvious to an extent that certain people when given two optional perspectives, one positive and one negative, will choose the negative every time, I guess they just like to argue.

Mr. Bane, I don't respond to flame bait directly (nor will I resort to name calling) and you quoted two small sentences of an entire post, taken out of context. Worse in one statement you say I made the whole argument up and solved it, and in the next you say I don't understand the argument. I don't get your point.

My post was more an addenda to alot of Larme was trying to express, and really there were a lot of things he said better. Also my post was a direct response to the TOPIC about what "I" think of the Matrix rules, right or wrong. You're allowed to think whatever you want, and you can no more convince me the sky is falling than I can convince you of the foolishness of crying foul for your own misunderstandings and refusal to accept rational ways to work around YOUR perceived flaws. Its a book of rules applied to a fictional and imagined reality, everyone is going to have an opinion on how it should work. I think the flexibility of the rules is a good thing.

Ultimately my only arguement to that whole thing about who's right about the rules quality amounts to this, the one who says it can't be done shouldn't impede the one who is doing it. I'm using the RAW (matrix), playing 2-3 times a month, and we don't have any issues worth spending the amount of time and angst some people waste here. It is probable that I DON'T understand, because I don't have the same problem (nor the time to sit around with the books trying to prove how it won't work without considering the team effort running a game entails, and how circumstances often limit what the rules don't implicitly enforce).

There are no specific examples given in most of the naysaying posts. Just generalized non-constructive opinion statements.

QUOTE
Incidently, Wisemans arguement is completely ludicrous. In shadowrun, security personnel use lethal force on computer intruders - and have lethal force used on them. For this people, who literally have their life on the line:


Most of my post was focused on two points. One the fact that some nodes should use more than standard security, meaning it should be hard. Two, most everyday people couldn't (or don't) care less about security. Even the most secure corp system has leaks and uncaring or poorly trained employees who create circumstances allowing hackers entry one way or another. I don't see how this makes my opinions ludicrous. I think you just like to type insane and ludicrous.

QUOTE
So he's seriously saying they - who might actually die - would ignore a very cheap defense in favour not implementing a very expensive defense because it is to expensive. Does that sound insane to you?

The entire post is pure insanity once you consider that the security spider is risking his life. Wiseman is saying that they'd never do a cheap option because a better option they cannot afford exists. .


I never said hackers wouldn't beef up their own security, I specifically said "everyone" meaning the general population. As for a spider risking his life, in 2070 people risk their lives for all kinds of dangerous jobs for meager pay and often without the best protection cred can buy, hell people do even today. That spider needs a job and he'll use what the corp gives him, and they're not going to bankroll every spider with every program "just in case", nor are they going to always give him the top of the line hardware or agents.

By your rationale, every bank security guard should be a cyberzombie backed by an elite task force of mages, hackers, and drones. The corps don't care if he dies, or the spider, they are expendable assets. Will they arm the security guard, you bet, will they employ mages and drones, of course, but that doesn't mean they'll use the best technology in every single instance. They will employ the most cost effective measures to make it prohibitive for 95% of the population. They might skimp on the physical security and allow the bank to transfer balances via a temporary satallite link daily (at a random intervals), anything you hack before the true transfer and backup can be restored or rebalanced by the end of the day. Maybe they feel secure enough with that, maybe there are budget cuts, maybe they are holding on to liquidated financial assets to stave off a hostile corp takeover. These are just examples, and no they are not perfect, but really whats your point? You make no direct claims or suggestions at all and its easy to poke holes. Try filling them once in awhile too.

Also most hackers aren't caught, even when a trace can be performed. They use fake SINs, move often, and change the access ID for the next time. In the corp's game, it's catch them red handed or burn up way too many resources to be worth catching them at all (in most cases..). HR fires the security personnel for failure, PR glosses it over, and the corp still rakes in profits hand over fist. They have the time and resources to wait it out, and time and probability is on their side that you will eventually get caught.

I'm not sure where your getting the "ignore a cheap defense from". Honestly I think you are either reading too little or spinning my post for the sake of getting to rant about it. Have at it though if it makes you feel better.

QUOTE
The second reason that it is meaningless waffle is that Shadowrunners don't hack into some kids myspace site. They hack into facilities secure enough to warrant protection with lethal force. What institutions are protected with lethal force today? Major infrastructure facilities, military bases, a few other odds and end. These are always heavily secured and the owners generally spend large sums of money on protecting them, particularly the military.

Saying that the owners would cheap out on automated protection is very silly when you consider that the owners are paying for multiple people with guns and highly illegal programs that kill people to defend them! If not everyone has them, and just 'only people runners will encounter' have them, that is functionally the same as everyone within the context of a game.

Finally his financial institutions with alchemical keys introduces a logical impossibility that undermines his whole argument

Axiom 1 It requires alchemical keys to access financial institutions

Axiom 2 Private individuals do not have alchemical keys

Axiom 3 Private individuals use financial institutions.

Therefore

1) A = C

2) B = NOT C

3) A = B

Substituting 1, 2 into 3

C = NOT C

When I can prove absurdities using a posts logic, you need to really question the validation of the logic of that post.


If hacking a PAN or home terminal gets you the same passcodes, why go after the uber secure corp network? I'll hack myspace if it has the info I need, or gets me intel on the target's habits. I'll hack into a club to monitor a meeting when a wageslave is bitching about his job. I will always take the path of least resistance that accomplishes the job. But again, I feel you're nitpicking here. I can make 20 examples and we can go around and around filling them in and punching holes. Its still not playing the game, and the rules taken out of context of actually playing doesn't serve any real purpose, other than feeding the ego and rants of some.

Corps cheap out on whatever they can get away with. Most of the stuff is just a deterant anyway. Only on the big special projects will they bother with the "no cost is too much" spending on security. And isn't part of what is being argued are unhackable systems, and how unfair it is that corps can keep you out? In one breath its said its too much and when I give a few plausible alternatives you cry foul it's too little. What do you really want here?

Finally, banks could use alchemical passkeys for the operator transfering information to the mainframe (like a manger's key to the vault), but not every citizen that accesses the day to day banking terminals. Most of that info is tracked via the commlink. I mean do banks require me currently to do online banking using biometrics, or just an account number and a password? Do atm's currently require more than a magnetic strip and a pin code (four digit no less)? They'll spend lots of money protecting their profitability, but they spend the money on PR to convince the common man his money is safe and that an access id and passcode is all thats needed. This is why its easier to spoof a lifestyle (targeting the individual citizens) than hack the banking network, and it's hard for the citizens to raise enough complaints and evidence to get the corps to intercede on their behalf.

In any case, I can see that posting about what the topic asked for gets the fur ruffled for some of the "it don't work because I say so" anti-rules crowd. Flame me for enjoying the game, make outrageous personal attacks all you like, but I'm enjoying myself and I still don't get or can't see where your hate is coming from.

In the end i'm not perfect (nor is anyone), but just because we don't see things the same way doesn't give anyone an excuse to fill up the boards with some personal vendetta driven drivel or epeen measuring challenges. Post something constructive and chill the fuck out (read: get off my nuts already).

Larme
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ May 28 2009, 11:29 PM) *
No - this is just what you think the rules say. If you apply a purely legalistic interpretation to reading the relevant sections, either definitions could be true because it is very unclear how the access ID system works/doesn't work. So people just fill in the gaps according to their own preferences and prejudices.

You have openly stated you use the interpretation that makes the Access ID rules do nothing - but if they do nothing, what is all this text there? It makes no sense. Now, there are lots of valid interprations, but they are just that.


The difference between these interpretations is one follows the text and the other does not. Blacklisting confabulates a whole set of rules on top of the text which says, very directly, that Exploit does not care whether you have a whitelisted access ID or not. Here's what the access ID rules do, per the text: they allow certain nodes automatic access to a secured node, without needing a passcode or further authentication. It's a nice trick to have when, say, you have a whole mesh network when everyone needs to be able to talk to certain secure nodes without going through a whole security rigamarole. Do they prevent hacks? Not in any way. You are saying that if it doesn't prevent hacks, then it does nothing. That is a fallacy. It does something, just not in terms of stopping Exploits. In fact, it introduces additional vulnerabilities, namely that a node with whitelisted IDs can be spoofed.

My point is, Frank's "interpretation" actually makes up new rules. It ignores the rule that Exploit bypasses access ID authentication. And it is VERY explicit, in plain English. There is no possible "interpretation" where the access ID matters to an Exploit. Any such rule would need to be a house rule. You can question why the access ID rules exist when they don't stop hacks, but that does not make them disappear. What is truly despicable about Frank is he made up the blacklisting rules and then claimed them as canon just to start another shitstorm about the matrix rules.

I agree, lack of clarity is a problem in the matrix rules. But claiming that they're broken just because you can twist the wording, add in house rules, and thusly confabulate a way in which they could be broken? Ridiculous.

My point about there being two interpretations is hypothetical. Even if Frank's interpretation was valid, it's an interpretation he clearly thinks is horrible. And yet he uses it anyway as a weapon to attack the RAW. He doing it himself, he's voluntarily choosing a bad interpretation, and then acting like someone else did it. That, again, is ridiculous. It would be nice if the rules were clearer, and there was no way anyone could be confused into following Frank's made-up bullshit. But that is not the equivalent to the rules being broken out of the box, like Frank claimed.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Wiseman @ May 29 2009, 10:33 AM) *
If hacking a PAN or home terminal gets you the same passcodes, why go after the uber secure corp network? I'll hack myspace if it has the info I need, or gets me intel on the target's habits. I'll hack into a club to monitor a meeting when a wageslave is bitching about his job. I will always take the path of least resistance that accomplishes the job.


Voila, the hacker wins without needing to roll dice. My bet is that a player-hacker could trade in 5 dice to a success and still not get caught doing all of that.

What fun is that?

Therefore the rules have to be such that the hacker wants to go after the uber secure corp (say, but disallowing the hacking of a PAN in some fashion) while at the same time not allowing that same justification to not make the corp impenetrable.

Unfortunately...Real Life Logic comes into play and says "if a home user can make themselves immune, then so can the corp."
Wiseman
QUOTE
Voila, the hacker wins without needing to roll dice. My bet is that a player-hacker could trade in 5 dice to a success and still not get caught doing all of that.

What fun is that?

Therefore the rules have to be such that the hacker wants to go after the uber secure corp (say, but disallowing the hacking of a PAN in some fashion) while at the same time not allowing that same justification to not make the corp impenetrable.

Unfortunately...Real Life Logic comes into play and says "if a home user can make themselves immune, then so can the corp."


Now this I can relate to, because you ask "what fun is it" and you'd be right. But to me the fun would be in finding out the weak link, some social engineering, getting your team to support you (such as having a female face seduce the wageslave to get him to bitch in the first place).

To me, they give a wide range of options from simple/easy access, to incredibly hard. The GM balances this at the table, he has the tools to increase or decrease difficulty as needed (and on the fly). Thats streamlined, the mechanics are there. You're in a sense asking for complete rules to cover every situation, and it is my contention that too many rules make it too restrictive, and people will always find situations the rules don't fully cover.

The book by itself without players and GM's is just a bunch of fluff as a whole, which is why I argue that you can't take out all GM interpertation, house rules on the fly, and everything else not specifically permitted or excluded. Not because it should be irrelevant to a logical argument focused on the rules as stand alone constructs, because without consideration of the game and actually playing it, the rules don't make any sense at all.

I'm not being permissive of flaws in the game, but I am understanding that there is no perfect answer for every situation for every person's individual views. We're not talking rules of nature or physics, were talking about game rules. When weighed and measured and tested at the table, I think they work fine if not great.

They allow flexibility, they're mostly intuitive for on the fly calls, they're specific enough to have hard rules for the important things, and they remain readily applicable to implement at the table.
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Larme @ May 29 2009, 11:46 AM) *
The difference between these interpretations is one follows the text and the other does not. Blacklisting confabulates a whole set of rules on top of the text which says, very directly, that Exploit does not care whether you have a whitelisted access ID or not. Here's what the access ID rules do, per the text: they allow certain nodes automatic access to a secured node, without needing a passcode or further authentication. It's a nice trick to have when, say, you have a whole mesh network when everyone needs to be able to talk to certain secure nodes without going through a whole security rigamarole. Do they prevent hacks? Not in any way. You are saying that if it doesn't prevent hacks, then it does nothing. That is a fallacy. It does something, just not in terms of stopping Exploits. In fact, it introduces additional vulnerabilities, namely that a node with whitelisted IDs can be spoofed.


So taking your intepretation, why would you ever use Access ID blocking. It adds vulnerabilities (someone can sniff your network, spoof an access ID and gain trusted access, an action that is impossible to catch or retaliate against) and gives you nothing - just issuing a pass code costs nothing, because the security rigmarole you imply doesn't exist. No time or effort is expended authenticating, it is automatic.

So please answer the question

QUOTE
but if they do nothing, what is all this text there?


smile.gif

QUOTE
Corps cheap out on whatever they can get away with. Most of the stuff is just a deterant anyway. Only on the big special projects will they bother with the "no cost is too much" spending on security. And isn't part of what is being argued are unhackable systems, and how unfair it is that corps can keep you out? In one breath its said its too much and when I give a few plausible alternatives you cry foul it's too little. What do you really want here?


You know how much it costs to have a security spider on duty 24/7? For someone with a skill of 4 who will lose to agents, is something in the order of 336k nuyen a year - to man a job 24 hours a day you need 5 FTEs, 1 on leave then 4 in rolling shifts and that guy has professional skills and would be earning a moderate lifestyle + savings for retirement (assuming his wife works and pays for herself and the kids and college and the second car with the money). That is a lot of cash. You can buy a lot of security for that much. If there is a security spider - and lets face it, dramatic matrix confrontations call for a security spider - you are spending massive cash. Definationally, the corp hasn't cheaped out and is going to resort to unhackable measures.

Finally your point about hacking into end user PANs and leeching passcodes ignores published materials. Sensitive data is in some scenarios in an entirely independent network with no wireless accessible only internally.

Of course you can just discard internal consistency, the rules and whatever else and just do whatever feels right, and hey, thats not a bad idea - but it is not good overall. Infact, that is exactly what is happening and is exactly why the matrix rules provoke the most "HLEP (Sic) HLEP (Sic) MY LEG FELL OFF" FAQ threads.
Wiseman
QUOTE
You know how much it costs to have a security spider on duty 24/7? For someone with a skill of 4 who will lose to agents, is something in the order of 336k nuyen a year - to man a job 24 hours a day you need 5 FTEs, 1 on leave then 4 in rolling shifts and that guy has professional skills and would be earning a moderate lifestyle + savings for retirement (assuming his wife works and pays for herself and the kids and college and the second car with the money). That is a lot of cash. You can buy a lot of security for that much. If there is a security spider - and lets face it, dramatic matrix confrontations call for a security spider - you are spending massive cash. Definationally, the corp hasn't cheaped out and is going to resort to unhackable measures.


Look I understand your point of view and I don't wholly disagree in SOME instances, but not all. I also appreciate your leaving out the nose thumbing in making your point.

But a thinking person is always better than a rigid topology or any set of "mother may I rules" (which are never as airtight as intended, the whole point of exploits). A spider is more adaptable, and considering training programs (which spiders have to pay back), skillwires, and even corporate cybertech (at discount labs), it is a far better investment per nuyen than only hardware.

Question is, given the cost of a spider, you're almost implying that they (the corp) wouldn't necessarily just trick out the spider with all the latest tech (you almost directly say they wouldn't and based on cost would go with the "cheaper" unhackable system). I'm pointing this out because this almost conflicts with your previous assertion that they would do both (if I understood it right).

Most hacks aren't confrontational at all though, ideally anyway. And also consider that the more limitations hardcoded into a system directly inhibit accessibility. So we must just be talking about military installations, R&D networks, black op labs and the really big stuff. And on this I think we agree, they're going to do everything possible to make it unhackable. But as I tried to illustrate, nothing is unhackable, the rules never say anything is unhackable, and no (good) GM is going to put information needed to complete a run in circumstances its unattainable. The rules provide lots of options from stopping hacking from being redundant, and making that super secure facility a real challange (again a feature), but not being so all covering in general application that it rules out most of the hackers ability to fulfill his/her role.

One of my favorite fluff examples from unwired was how a team took a matrix job to deny service to a corp about to launch a product, but their hacker was sick, so they cut into the main feed cables and pointed a HERF (?) rifle at it for a few hours and defended against the physical security teams.

From a GM perspective, he challenged the players with a mission they weren't designed for, but they found a way regardless.

Its a game of imagination as much as rules, and i'm often surprised by some of the ideas players come up with to complete their missions. I like that aspect. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

So my whole blah blah about the weaker networks and social engineering is to highlight that using barriers pulls the plug on repetitive matrix runs. There are all kinds of options to juke the players and shake them from the roll some dice and succeed mentality. They just have to be creative.

There are times where the matrix specialist should shine as an individual, and times when he needs a team to help out with their special skills, and thats a good thing. But saying all corps and all networks would always use the most secure networks (realistically speaking) is as flawed as saying they never would, and thinking that such barriers create "unhackable" systems in all cases with no work arounds should and will only exist if the GM wants some mechanical RAW means to make it so time consuming or so prohibitive (because it has no bearing on a run) to prevent players from abuse.

I can't just let the hacker rape all the banks for billions because he has the dice, but "why not", rather than saying "because I said so" they gave GM's tools (applied when needed) to keep the game going without breaking the feel of hacking.

Tools used to either enhance the game and break monotony (and give that installation a unique feel) or tools used to stop a hacker from having hand wave access to supposedly "tough networks".

Larme
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ May 29 2009, 12:32 PM) *
So taking your intepretation, why would you ever use Access ID blocking. It adds vulnerabilities (someone can sniff your network, spoof an access ID and gain trusted access, an action that is impossible to catch or retaliate against) and gives you nothing - just issuing a pass code costs nothing, because the security rigmarole you imply doesn't exist. No time or effort is expended authenticating, it is automatic.

So please answer the question


The rigamarole I refer to is stopping to input the password. It doesn't take a lot of time, but you still would have to manually authenticate your commlink every time you connected to the node. Pre-authenticating an access ID is similar to setting an "allow" rule on your firewall. It makes things easier. I guess you don't think anyone would do that, even though I'm pretty sure people do set "allow" rules on their firewalls for authorized traffic. If you think that "making life easier" is the same as "nothing," I don't think I can change your mind, but that's how it is.

Regardless, even if you think the access ID rules are pointless, that doesn't mean there's any text-based justification for converting them into this whole big invincible blacklisting boondoggle. If they're worthless, then ignore them because they don't matter. What matters is that Exploit cannot be shut down via blacklisting, not ever, because the text explicitly says so. Frank was wrong, he made it up, end of story. If you're actually defending Frank's crazy fabricated crap, then go ahead and defend it, if you can. If you're just attacking my argument to keep the debate stirred up pointlessly, you should quit trolling.
Darklordofbunnies
Normally I dislike redundant complaints, but since you asked for specifics: the matrix programs+skill system. The fact that a 4yr old child with superior programs can beat or exceed a Logic 6 hacker is ludicrous. The way the skills are listed is also counter intuitive, the skills and groups claim they are linked to Logic but when it comes time to use them you don't roll Logic.
tete
The Good is that they streamlined the old matrix maps into a single node. Which will vary in how useful it is depending on how big your old systems were. If you only used a couple of nodes before it hasn't sped it up much. If you used a lot of nodes before now you have sped it up a lot.

The Bad is Hacking is still separate system (unless you use the unwired option) creating more subsystems to remember. Also the commlink/software relationship is just terrible... Honestly the commlink should have most of the basic software needed included. You should only have to pay for fancy versions, exploits, or some such things. Better versions should give some bonus dice. As its much easier for me to detect intruders using a network appliance or tool that cost 1000s of dollars than ethereal or snort which are free but not the easiest things to use or sort through the gobs of information.
Cain
Matrix maps were gone as of SR3. If anything, SR4 brought them back with daisy-chained commlinks and slave nodes.
Malachi
QUOTE (Cain @ Jul 6 2009, 10:50 PM) *
Matrix maps were gone as of SR3. If anything, SR4 brought them back with daisy-chained commlinks and slave nodes.

Slaved nodes do not create a map as such. Attempting to connect to a slaved node means that you are connecting to the Master instead. Some people might think that a diagram is required to map out all the node connections in SR4 but that's not strictly necessary by the rules. Just stat out 1 Node that "controls everything" and go from there. People that want the uber level of detail can have it, but its not required to play the game (like it was in SR1 and SR2).
Larme
QUOTE (Cain @ Jul 7 2009, 12:50 AM) *
Matrix maps were gone as of SR3. If anything, SR4 brought them back with daisy-chained commlinks and slave nodes.


Daisy chains existed in SR3... So maybe they were never gone?
hobgoblin
Larme, may i humbly suggest you stop feeding trolls?

And yes, SR3 had node "maps", if one chose to use advanced sysadmin tricks like chokepoints and trapdoors.
Just the same as daisy-chaining comlinks and slave nodes are advanced hacker tricks...
Larme
QUOTE (tete @ Jul 7 2009, 12:26 AM) *
Also the commlink/software relationship is just terrible... Honestly the commlink should have most of the basic software needed included.


Well, they did give us a quasi-optional solution to that in Unwired, in the form of Open Source. As the GM, you can rule that all the basic proggies, especially the common use progs, are available for free as Open Source. They suck compared to the SoTA versions, but they get the job done.
Malachi
QUOTE (tete @ Jul 6 2009, 10:26 PM) *
The Bad is Hacking is still separate system (unless you use the unwired option) creating more subsystems to remember. Also the commlink/software relationship is just terrible... Honestly the commlink should have most of the basic software needed included.

An extremely unnoticed change in SR4A was to add basic program "packages." These allow most commonly used programs to be bought "pre-installed" on your Commlink for a reduced price. It's kind of like getting MS Office preinstalled when you buy a new computer. For example the "Basic User" package has Analyze 2, Browse 2, Command 1, and Edit 2 for 300 nuyen. If you don't like having to keep track of programs the easy way to fix it would be to just rule that every Commlink comes with all Common programs at the same rating as the Commlink's System, and don't count as a "running program" for Response decrease purposes. There, done.
tete
QUOTE (Cain @ Jul 7 2009, 04:50 AM) *
Matrix maps were gone as of SR3. If anything, SR4 brought them back with daisy-chained commlinks and slave nodes.


Honestly I don't remember the 3e rules, because we had hacked (pun intended) the 1e rules to do all the test against the cpu and forget all the other nodes and stuck with it. I was under the impression that 3e still had the everyone go get a pizza while the decker solos problem.

QUOTE (Malachi @ Jul 7 2009, 05:28 PM) *
An extremely unnoticed change in SR4A was to add basic program "packages." These allow most commonly used programs to be bought "pre-installed" on your Commlink for a reduced price. It's kind of like getting MS Office preinstalled when you buy a new computer. For example the "Basic User" package has Analyze 2, Browse 2, Command 1, and Edit 2 for 300 nuyen.


I was aware and happy of that change, I just forgot about it.
Malachi
QUOTE (tete @ Jul 7 2009, 04:03 PM) *
Honestly I don't remember the 3e rules, because we had hacked (pun intended) the 1e rules to do all the test against the cpu and forget all the other nodes and stuck with it. I was under the impression that 3e still had the everyone go get a pizza while the decker solos problem.

SR3 wasn't as bad as the previous editions. You didn't necessarily need a map of all the systems as you could represent a whole network as one system (or "node"), or you could have many systems that the PC had to hack their way through. The thing that made SR3 hacking lengthy to resolve was the myriad of rules all over the place. Each system was represented by a color code, a rating, and 5 different base target numbers (Access, Control, Index, Files, Slave: ACIFS). Deck programs modified (subtracted from) the target number appropriate to the operation you were performing at the time (what target is that op again? What program pertains to that again?). While in the system, every round the System got to roll to find you based on your Detection Factor, which was based off of your Deck's Stealth rating plus your Sleaze program, each hit against your DF generated was summed up and the sum of hits against your DF determined which IC got launched. This was based on a list of what IC got launched at what point: called a Security Sheaf. However, you DF could get modified as you hacked based on what you did in the system (like crashing an IC). Then of course you still had to manage your Storage and Active memory (for what programs are currently running) and transferring between Storage and Active happened at your I/O transfer rate.

So, there were a lot of rules to remember that usually involved a lot of looking things up (I made a chart that cross-referenced System Operations with their Target Number and related Program for easy reference), hacking a system required a lot of information that wasn't easy to come up with on the fly if your Decker decided to hack a system that you weren't ready for as a GM. It still took too long to resolve a Decking action in real-time, and (the worst part) no one else in the team was involved with it while the Decker was doing it.
Mirilion
There's one point I didn't quite get. Using VR, you suffer a -6 penalty for physical actions. But, you also use your matrix initiative while immersed in VR.
So, what happens to your matrix initiative passes if you take a physical action while in VR ?

Suppose you have 3 IP. During one of them, can you decide to shoot your gun at the enemy nearby as one action ? Do you have to devote an entire IP to the physical ? What happens to the rest of your round ?
I tried searching DS for the answer, but found nothing.
Earlydawn
I would say that my biggest problem with the system is the fragmentation of concept. You have some systems within hacking that are relatively underdeveloped, like the basic programs, actions, and models for what a simple system looks like. Then, on the other side, you have crazy things like botnetting.

Don't get me wrong - I like having every archetype developed from basic actions to long-term plot changing elements like ritual magic and vehicle reconstruction, but hacking seems more prone to session hijacking then any other role in the game. Although I disliked his "brain hacking" concept, one of the things Frank's alternate rules did so well was making hacking high effect and low drag. If SR5 included a system that's a little more accessible without losing depth, I'd love it.
Cheops
One of the things I didn't like was that despite the hype you still can't really hack in combat. It takes far too many actions and Decryption is a Combat Turn length extended test (unless I missed some changes in SR4A).

The thing I really liked was that the rules simplified decking/hacking greatly. As malachi pointed out it used to be byzantine. While groups that really tried to learn the rules could get it down pat and it would take about as much time as an SR4 run those groups were few and far between. Was always disappointing in SR3 to have spent time building up a kick ass decker only to have the GM say: "I don't understand the rules so just make a Computer test."
Malachi
QUOTE (Earlydawn @ Jul 8 2009, 01:17 AM) *
I would say that my biggest problem with the system is the fragmentation of concept. You have some systems within hacking that are relatively underdeveloped, like the basic programs, actions, and models for what a simple system looks like. Then, on the other side, you have crazy things like botnetting.

I think you can thank the computer geeks of the world for that. The system (pre-Unwired) started nice and abstract. Then people with a bunch of RL computer knowledge starting coming up with things ("Can't I put an Agent on a million toasters and hack with that?" "Can't I scrub my Access ID through an Anonymizer Server?" "Why can't I control multiple commlinks simultaneously?" "Where is Open Source software?" "Can't I just buy a pirated version of this stuff?") Thus, we have serious scope creep in the rules. The good news is, you can just ignore what you don't like/want. Remember that the game is about fun and if you don't have a bunch of computer geeks applying a bunch of RL concepts to the SR Matrix, then you probably don't need all the expanded rules.

QUOTE (Earlydawn @ Jul 8 2009, 01:17 AM) *
Don't get me wrong - I like having every archetype developed from basic actions to long-term plot changing elements like ritual magic and vehicle reconstruction, but hacking seems more prone to session hijacking then any other role in the game. Although I disliked his "brain hacking" concept, one of the things Frank's alternate rules did so well was making hacking high effect and low drag. If SR5 included a system that's a little more accessible without losing depth, I'd love it.

Yeah, Frank's rules included a lot of ridiculousness, and stuff that I didn't agree with from a metagame fluff, real-world concept, or game mechanic result perspective, but simplifying hacking down to single die rolls was a good idea. The good news is that it's not terribly difficult to port over the concept. For example, a Hacking attempt could be simplified to an Opposed Hacking + Exploit vs. Analyze + Firewall, with the Node getting +3 for a Security Account, and +6 for an Admin Account. You could do pretty much every Matrix test as Skill + Program vs. System + Firewall or some such. Personally, I don't find that the Matrix actions take that long to resolve (maybe I still have fresh memories of SR2 and SR3), but feel free to modify the game to suit your tastes.
DireRadiant
QUOTE (Mirilion @ Jul 8 2009, 12:15 AM) *
Suppose you have 3 IP. During one of them, can you decide to shoot your gun at the enemy nearby as one action ? Do you have to devote an entire IP to the physical ? What happens to the rest of your round ?
I tried searching DS for the answer, but found nothing.


Follow the Switching Initiative procedures in the rule book. p. 145 SR4A|p. 134 SR4

The key concept is that you can act physically while using VR. In this case, use the physical initiative and apply the VR modifier for physical action. Of course, it happens rarely because it is a free action to switch between VR(Virtual) and AR (Physical), so there is rarely a need to keep VR going. Then again, you might need to do a physical action to jack out if the black IC is keeping you locked in VR while a sec team it tracking you down, but no one needs to worry about that as long as they aren't doing anything illegal eh?
deek
QUOTE (Cheops @ Jul 8 2009, 11:07 AM) *
One of the things I didn't like was that despite the hype you still can't really hack in combat. It takes far too many actions and Decryption is a Combat Turn length extended test (unless I missed some changes in SR4A).

While I disagree with your second statement, I do agree with your first, just for a different reason. Hacking in combat, unless for a very specific reason, like opening a locked door, is much less useful than just pulling a trigger.
Cheops
QUOTE (deek @ Jul 8 2009, 09:20 PM) *
While I disagree with your second statement, I do agree with your first, just for a different reason. Hacking in combat, unless for a very specific reason, like opening a locked door, is much less useful than just pulling a trigger.


Out of curiosity what did you disagree with in my second point? (Not to argue just curious) Is it just that the new rules still aren't streamlined or where you part of those awesome groups that actually did take the time to learn the rules?
Mirilion
QUOTE (DireRadiant @ Jul 8 2009, 05:11 PM) *
Follow the Switching Initiative procedures in the rule book. p. 145 SR4A|p. 134 SR4

The key concept is that you can act physically while using VR. In this case, use the physical initiative and apply the VR modifier for physical action. Of course, it happens rarely because it is a free action to switch between VR(Virtual) and AR (Physical), so there is rarely a need to keep VR going. Then again, you might need to do a physical action to jack out if the black IC is keeping you locked in VR while a sec team it tracking you down, but no one needs to worry about that as long as they aren't doing anything illegal eh?


I'm sorry, but I don't follow. This is not the case of a mage coming back to his body from the astral, but of a VR user acting in the physical. The section you pointed out doesn't address that. Lets say I use a matrix simple action, then another physical simple action to move around. What happens ? I mean, usually moving doesn't require tests, and what happens to the initiative ? This is highly confusing. And I think hackers would want to stay in hot-sim VR as much as possible, because of the sweet extra IPs.
Malachi
QUOTE (Mirilion @ Jul 8 2009, 02:53 PM) *
I'm sorry, but I don't follow. This is not the case of a mage coming back to his body from the astral, but of a VR user acting in the physical. The section you pointed out doesn't address that. Lets say I use a matrix simple action, then another physical simple action to move around. What happens ? I mean, usually moving doesn't require tests, and what happens to the initiative ? This is highly confusing. And I think hackers would want to stay in hot-sim VR as much as possible, because of the sweet extra IPs.

I would only allow a Hacker to take 1 "meat" action per round because that's all the IP's they have. Going full-VR to get the extra IP's just to use them for meat actions is blatant munchkinism.
Mirilion
QUOTE (Malachi @ Jul 8 2009, 10:32 PM) *
I would only allow a Hacker to take 1 "meat" action per round because that's all the IP's they have. Going full-VR to get the extra IP's just to use them for meat actions is blatant munchkinism.


I'm just looking for a clarification on how the rules handle this. I can easily houserule the problem myself, but I want to make sure it isn't covered elsewhere already.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012