Fluff-wise. Not mechanics. Obviously by RAW someone with 1 reaction and a rating 6 command drives better using Command. But why?

I would say that the deciding factor in that argument would be the character's Pilot Skill... And probably because teh worls is so computerized and connected, it is natural for people to be more familiar with command interfaces than the real thing...

Bad example, but here it is... how many Kids are crazy skilled with game consoles and the various games that support them... Need for Speed, Halo, etc.? Hand/Eye coordination via electornic interface is quicker and more responsive than the meat interface for mechanical control...

in 2072, this is the obvious extension of that using the Command Program...

And this virtual transmitter pad works with every electronic device, instantly, without needing to take time to interface with it? Eh... I'm not entirely sold on either the concept or that's how it is intended to be, fluff-wise. I'm not sure the devs knew how command interfaced with devices when they wrote that in the core Matrix section, considering the obliqueness of their description. It's there though, I just think it detracts from Rigging by being Rigging Light.



No, not required, but it would make the matrix easier to understand. As it is now, to use your Agent idea, you would have to understand these skills, understand they are of limited utility, and understand that you can run a program that can run a program to do actions that you would otherwise need to have a skill to use. My first read through I didn't get that Data Search is an extremely limited skill that can be easily run by a cheap program. I just got "Oh, if I need to find something on the matrix, I need this skill and this program."



Yeah, sorry. . SR4 and Unwired, mainly. I haven't looked too much at SR4A. I'm not sure looking at SR4A now would let me know how much easier it is to understand, though, since I've already managed to mostly muddle my way through it and would have the benefit of hindsight.

Also, I wish there was a good way to make the logic stat relevant. Maybe give a dicepool bonus after a certain level, such as how STR gives a recoil bonus after a certain level.

But is that really necessary?

You can take 5 actions a combat turn with very little modification, and a Command 6 program costs a fraction over 1 bp. Reaction 5+ costs significantly more.

There should be some way to reward people who are intelligent hackers, and not just script kiddies. Logic is the most dumped stat after Strength, which is too bad.

Are you talking 5 Simpel Actions, 5 COmplex Actions or 5 IP's... if Complex Actions/IP's, it is not simple nor cheap to do so... and it will cost significantly more than a fraction over 1bp to accomplish...

Simsense Booster (4 Ip's in Hot VR) costs: 65,000 Nuyen... and .5 points of Essence
Simsense Accelerator (Comlink Modification, Raise to 5 IP's in Hot VR) Costs: 15,000 Nuyen...

So as you can see, definitely NOT cheap... equal to .5 Essence and 80,000 Nuyen (16bp) > 1...

Reaction enhancement provides additional benefits other than Piloting, but do cost some at chargen... 40bp for a human to get to a 5 and an additional 32,000 Nuyen for +2 Wired Reflexes and 20,000 for +2 Reaction Enhancer... Total Reaction = 9 and I can still afford the Simsense Accelerator (Comlink Modification, Raise to 4 IP's in Hot VR) Costs: 15,000 Nuyen... all for 67,000 Nuyen and 3.6 points of essence... (54bp)

As you can see... it is all relative... it is what you are wanting...

I'm thinking because it's easier to point and click and have software take care of the rest than to personally maneuver the car.

To offer another example, ever played Crimson Skies for the XBox? In that game, if you pulled down on both sticks and clicked the right stick button, you do a modern version of an Immelmann turn (or maybe it was a Split-S; I forget). If you were "behind the wheel" as it were, you'd have to simultaneously control the throttle, the ailerons, the rudder, and the yoke.

I believe that's the difference between a good Command program and just controlling the vehicle directly.

If you want clean data, use a poll. Comment-at-will surveys always requires significant parsing. The comments tend to be more valuable highlighting issues the pollster did not realize were issues.

As for your question, no one I know has an SR4A. Call it a dozen gamers and all have Sr4.

And who has a reason to buy the Anniversary printing? After all, it's not a new edition or anything, just errata, right? Nope, not SR 4.5 Revised.

Btw, there's no fluff anyone can write that would differentiate between stat+skill, stat+skill+program, stat+skill capped by program or skill+program. 10 dice is 10 dice.

And making one subsystem diverge uniquely from the otherwise universal resolution mechanic to enable "multi-tasking" is a suboptimal design decision. A proper design course (industrial engineering, software interface, architecture, etc) stresses that deviations from the normal pardigm, even when the "norm" is only in regards to a single system, results in reduced efficiency, decreased utilization of that subsystem or even avoidance.

Every RPG designer worth their salt should take an actual design course, preferrably software user interface design and documentation as it's the most accessible algorithmic design program.

Stat 6, skill 4, program 5.

But 10 isn't 15 isn't 10 (max 5) isn't 9 dice.

If I remember Crimson Sky, the only way to pull of that maneuver was to use the macro.

Which is the problem. If the code doesn't know the routine, it can't do it. Want to invert that CS trick maneuver? Sorry, no can do. Meaning that for a new, on-the-spot stunt the software does nothing except possibly interfere. And nothing says "on-the-spot" like being a shadowrunner in mid op.

It's also an issue if you start it and want to turn it into something else as you see an opening. Or a wall.

@Aaron,

May I recommend a structured questionnaire style of answering. If you ask for what is good and just and bad and nefarious in the Matrix rules of SR4(A) you will get as many answers as there are posters. A multipart questionnaire with questions with scalar answers and free text boxes for explanations would be more helpful, even for people like me who are not big fans of arguing the minutae of rules. Furthermore, I recommend that it would be an online form which is filled.

This would avoid the inevitable topic drift, as there is no place to ridicule the rightness of the answers, except perhaps a thread such as this, where you could place the link. You could then also use the discussion and its divergent streams as being a representation of the intertextuality between the questionnaire and its target audience.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. 54 > 16, and 3.4 > .5, no? Even taking out the Simsense accelerator, it's still 51 > 16. Factoring in the the commlink, the hacker is still far ahead. In fact, I just realized command is a Common program, so it doesn't even cost a full BP. So for a minimal outlay, the remote operation hacker gets two more initiative passes and a better dice pool than the physical driver. That's not even counting + 2 for hotsim. Hell, I have so much more extra BP than you I could add in Codeslinger (remote operation) for 2 more dice and not sweat it.

That's certainly a messed up aspect of Command. Because your reaction isn't used, if you had a rating 6 command and 1 reaction, you'd be a driving dynamo via remote control, even though behind the wheel you'd suck. I guess the only explanation is that Command does a lot of the work for you, your attributes don't come into play, just like every single other matrix program. Note that it's not automatically better than jumping in, though. Jumped in, you use Response instead of Reaction, so you've got the same deal where your reaction might suck but it doesn't matter.

Could be that the high rating program have logic in it that links actions? like say, that the user wants to turn, but the speed is to high to make the turn, then the command program will automatically adjust breaking to make the action happen?

Basically, driver assist tech taken to the Nth degree.

Sure, one could start to ask why this is not built into each and every vehicle out there. But as its the big corps that both make the vehicles, and the software? Nickles and dimes...

I guess one could compare it to playing a driving game and driving a actual car. Only that in this instance your doing both...

It is built into every car, it's called Pilot. Just like Command, a Pilot's rating is substituted for the attributes when a car does something by itself. Why not use virtual controls in all cars, effectively meaning that everyone just remote controls their car? Because it's even easier for people not to drive at all -- get a good Pilot in there, and you can read the screamsheet on your way to work instead of having to sit there and mind the controls like a peasant

Wasn't there exactly such a thing in the third edition and didn't this thing give negative dice pools if you wanted to do something "illegal" on the street because you went up the speed limit and the system actually brakes?

I think its called gridguide, but i cant find a similar negative effect in 4th ed.

Btw, i found that looking up how to use the command program is a troublesome subject.

The programs description lists page references for drones and agents, but neither of those lists the command program as a option in its way of control.

The only way to find something is by going to the index, and there it points one to page 221, but the actual meat is on page 220, controlling devices.

And even then the text is as generic as it gets...

I find myself wondering why the program exists at all...

The rules we're talking about are indeed real... See SR4A p.245, "Remote Control." When you remote control, you roll Command + Skill to perform actions with the drone.

In my half-asleep state though, I noticed something interesting just now -- all actions are complex actions when you remote control. So firing a weapon in burst fire or semi-auto can only be done once per pass. Also, Use Sensors becomes a complex action. Everything else is pretty much already a complex action when controlling vehicles, but those are still significant.

Yes... including dodge tests, which is pretty punishing.

I don't remember if the game let you do a large loop with the left stick, but if it did you could.

Although that wasn't my point. My point was that a Command interface is probably an abstract layer over more manual controls.


I think another thing that you (and kzt) are missing is the level of sophistication of the fictional programs of the 2070s. If we apply Moore's observation extremely conservatively, say a doubling of sophistication every ten years, then programs will be far and away better at anticipating needs and reacting to novel situations (a technology we have today, if in limited form). True, a driver would still need to make good decisions about driving, but I suspect that's why the dice pool is skill + Command rather than say Pilot + Command.

I thought of that, but I had trouble figuring out how to elicit spontaneous answers by offering a list of responses. I'd gladly take pointers on how to do that, though.


I'm pretty sure you don't need to buy SR4A, what with the errata available. However, the two Matrix chapters are, while mechanically similar, quite different in language and structure. In order to figure out what part of said texts are the confusing ones, the question needs to be raised.


Er ... I'm missing your point here. Could you elaborate?


I'd love to hear ideas on building a "multi-tasking"-enabled system with a more optimal design that doesn't deviate from the normal paradigm. Attribute + skill deviates not at all, but unless the attribute is one that applies to another shadowrunning role, you're losing out on the ability to mix roles. Attribute + skill + program deviates from the norm, unless you're doing an awful lot of first aid; I suppose you could assign a rating to EVERYTHING, but that would be a bit more tracking than necessary, I think. Attribute + skill capped by program is similar to spellcasting, but the spellcasting rules are a deviation from the normal paradigm. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that "programs replace attributes in the Matrix, use standard rules from there" has a very high level of deviation from the main paradigm of attribute + skill. But I'd love to hear novel suggestions.


Er ... I guess that would help. I'd prefer they take some solid stats classes and something that involves system analysis, or at least more analysis than interface design would require.

whats the saying again? designed by artists, played by mathematicians?

What about defaulting then? Everyone has Attributes, but not everyone has Programs.
Also with the standard rules it's skill+linked attribute. You can't have skill+linked programs when the link is the other way around.
Then there's the script-kiddie syndrome.

Oh come on... what did you expect?



And that's a very valid point, but its backwards from how it worked in previous editions. In my experience, it was the decker who picked up other roles. The Combat Decker from SR3 was probably the prime example of this.



From what I've seen of it the SR4A Matrix chapter does seem to be better organized, it still seemed to be lacking in examples. I'm still waiting for my dead tree copy to really dig into it.

Confusion still exists for me in regards to cybercombat. A step by step walk through of a cybercombat would be nice. Both from the perspective of encountering someone in a 3rd party node and hacking someone's 'link so that you can smack them with a blackhammer (or other combat program).

Spoofing commands could use a little walk through too. Say, for tricking an enemy drone into shooting your enemies or making the gooey bar vending machine to give you a nutty gooey bar.

The blending of AR and VR, unless that's been clarified in SR4A, seems to really muddy the waters for some people. I think was mentioned previously.

Oh, here's a question: Can you use Analyze to determine if someone is in AR or VR?

-paws

Kind of jumping around there. Sorry.

i do not see a reason why it should not, as matrix perception is basically 1 question pr net hit...

btw, the number of times that matrix perception comes up in unwired is interesting. analyze and stealth to the max, people...

I would say no. Or can you determine how if i access this board with an iPhone, a Browser, some nifty Gadget or a Laptop?
But then you should actually be able to look at a persona and see "It moves a little bit slow and generally not "natural"" or something.

Anyone better suggestions?

maybe, there is software out there that can poke around a network, find the individual device and attempt to id them.

still, if i had access to the webserver logs, i could probably look up what indentifier your browser used, and that often contains quite a bit of data.

and yes, a lot of browers allow you to change that string, think of it as a low level accessid spoof

but as i think about it, i would say that in the end, its up to the individual group of players. if they want more hollywood style hackers, then yes. if they want more realistic, then no, unless the hacker gets inside the node of said opponent.

Off Topic: Is that why why sites seem to regularly confuse Chrome and Safari?

-paws

quite possible, as they both probably id themselves as webkit (the engine that does the actual rendering of the page).

I found the Matrix section of the BBB appeared to make good sense on first read through, but when I came to actually run anything I got very confused about what could be done when. Then when I tried to find the relevant rules I had to scratch through the whole section, and even then had to wing it.

Unwired I found simply compounded the problem, since now I had a whole other book to scratch through for rulings. On top of that I have some programming types in my group, although I'm a biologist with limited computer skills. They keep asking why they can't do one thing or another, and I can't get a firm enough grip of the rules to determine whether they can do this thing or not, and how to deal with it from a GM perspective.

Basically the layout and mechanics explanations of the whole chapter is boned.

TMs also seem utterly hosed. They are no better than hackers - for considerable greater cost - with the exception that they can summon sprites. Sprites themselves are quite good, but similar to spirits they have powers that seem horribly abusable, and others that do nothing. But basically a TM without sprites is crap.

The Good: Matrix rules permit PC hackers to actually work with the team rather than sitting in a van or their mom's basement. They also allow for quick hacking resolution rather than tedious dungeon crawls.

The Bad: Non-optional hacking rules defy the Attribute + Skill paradigm that makes up every other aspect of Shadowrun. It's horribly frustrating for newer GMs and players to comprehend.

How about the agent approach on the low end, combined with augmented attribute/skill/dice-granting ware on the high end?

Background- I use the optional skill plus logic, limit program rating in my campaign (in unwired). Also use the variable level complex forms as well.

That being said:

What I like: Easy to integrate into the game, optional rule mechanic makes it much easier to run (for me as GM). IC are now agents with programs and use similar mechanics to hackers.

WHat I dislike: Slow hack rules, no chance of the system detecting the hacker. The lack of description for user levels, no described limits on Admin access (which you can get on a slow hack), Scanning for a wireless network. Signal ranges seem off (I've pretty much tossed them).

I've discovered that for me to challenge my hacker player-would take a complex of nodes with a choke point and lots of Agents, and program ratings of 7+.

That stealth does not translate well into the optional rules I'm using.

Tarpit-what happened to tarpit??

RAW/RAI indicates that without a program you cannot perform that matrix action. No defaulting. Ever.

FTFY

Top hackers can't be challenged by the machine, except when using the more complex countermeasures out of Unwired. But all you actually need to challenge a top hacker is another top hacker. Want a node to be tough to crack? Have a spider online who's just as good. That should give him a run for his money.

best i can come up with is a agent with attack and corrupt as a payload, with the task of crashing the program in question and then corrupting its stored data...

sadly, erasing or corrupting programs are not really covered by the rules, but i would say that the corrupt treshold would be the rating of the software targeted...

maybe toss in disarm just for that really nasty wild weasel type agent, the one that makes you attack, disarms your attack program and then goes about corrupting it.

Hmm, looking back over the rules, it would actually need to hack your comlink node to erase your program, but ones there, its a single complex action to perform said erasure. I sure hope you keep backups

Defaulting is a good example.
Outside the Matrix we know the base pool is Attribute + Skill + Mods.
In the matrix we have Program + Skill + Mods.

Outside the Matrix you can default if you have no skill, you base it on the Skills Linked Attribute.

Inside the Matrix..... Unknown and tough to extrapolate, because Program apparently maps to Attribute, for which we don't have an example outside the Matrix on how to default No Attribute.

Of course, we aren't sure how the dice pools behave or if Program Maps to Attribute when switching from Matrix to Out of Matrix dice pools. A defined general model would allow the players and GM to extrapolate as needed with some consistency as odd situations came up.

Since you asked ... =i)


That's already covered. You can't perform a Matrix action without the proper program. If you don't have Spoof, you can't perform the Spoof Command action, so there's no need to default.


Are you sure the link isn't the other way around? It looks to me that the rules simply associate certain skills with certain programs. It seems like one could read the link as being in either "direction."

My point was in dealing with your descriptions of 5 actions per turn...
He also gets potential lethal dumpshock from not paying attention to his environment (I know, the driver has his difficulties as well)...
Software is Cheap... Hardware is not...

It was just an observation that your Command using Rigger is not going to get 5 actions(Generally Complex) per Turn for a fraction of a BP as stated... That is all...

And don't forget.. the driver can get the same benefits for the cost of a Comlink and a Datajack, driving in VR... No command Program necessary at all...

My point wasn't that it isn't covered. It's that it's not the same as the base defaulting mechanics, hence you can't say that it follows the same mechanics with Attributes replaced with Programs.



Attributes -> Skills are one-to-many,
Programs -> Skills are many-to-one.

How do you balance "multiclassing" in a classless system? You make the costs commensurate.

E.g. to be a half samurai, you need at minimum a dodging skill, a ranged weapon skill, a melee combat skill, armor, weapons, ancillary gear (e.g. smartlink, vision mods), and probably a speed booster. Assuming rank 4 skills with specializations that's 54BP for skills and probably 5BP worth of gear. That's 59BP.

What about a half-rigger? Pilot Groundcraft, Gunnery, Dodge, a VCR, commlink and a vehicle and a drone or two. Again rank 4 skills with specializations gives 54BP in skills and around 7BP worth of gear for 61BP.

Dodge, armor, weapons and probably Pilot Groundcraft will be had by most characters so the opportunity cost probably isn't as high as listed to go from whatever to whatever-samurai or whatever-rigger.


Now try a half-decker. Computer, Cybercombat, Electronic Warfare, Data Search, and Hacking skills, along with a comm and a big stack of programs. We'll cut the half-decker a break and give him rank 3 skills with specializations. Add four common programs and at least nine hacking programs plus a decent commlink, all at rating 4. That's 70BP for skills and 5BP for gear for 75BP.

That's ~15BP higher, the majority of which are skills. Non-hackers may have computer or data search 1 or 2, a mid-range comm and a couple of low rated programs but that pretty much goes along with the Dodge/Pilot above so the margin of error is comparable.


So if you want to make half-decker's acceptable without changing the subsystem, change the build-point cost. Cut it down to three, maybe four key skills: Computer, Hacking, Cybercombat. Data Search should be a specialization of computer (who uses a computer and doesn't search for files or text?!?) and Electronic Warfare should be a specialization of Hacking, since it's predominantly for detecting hidden networks. Let Computer+Sniffer find publicly broadcast networks. Computer should be defaultable, the other two should not.

You can recycle the spell mechanic, where program rating limits successes. That also mandates that they have the program, since otherwise they'd be capped at rating successes, which is 0.

Since we let people default Computer, that means regular folks will be using Logic-1, capped by their software. So Joe Illiterate (Logic 3, skill 0) with his off-the-shelf comm and the cheapest rating 1 software will roll 2 dice with a max of 1 success per roll, with a 56% chance of getting that 1 success. Joe Sixpack (Logic 3, skill 1) has 4 dice and can buy his 1 success every time, so except when he needs to use a comm under stress (or drunk) he's going to succeed every time.

Ta-da, I just fixed "multiclassing" and didn't introduce a single new mechanic. I won't even require a writing credit, I'll just gloat here on DS.



Be honest, the actual mechanics of SR4 in a flow-chart format would take up less than a dozen pages. Interface design will show them how people USE algorithm based systems (RPG == Software) and how to express that to people. There are several successful game systems that are statistically lame. But those products are REALLY good at teaching people how to play the game.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. The rigger spends 13k nuyen more than the driver to get a bigger dice pool, 2 more IP and do so for a fraction of the essence? Also, you don't get dumpshock if your vehicle is destroyed when you are using the command program. That only applies when you are jumped in.



Yes, for 16bp he can act 5 times in 3 seconds. he has the command program which cost him ~500 nuyen and gives him 5 dice to every action he takes with it. A physical based driver spends 51 bp to have a worse dice pool and 3 actions a combat turn. There is no reason for any person who wants to drive vehicles to not use remote operations.



Yes, and he suffers the possibility of dumpshock, which is how it should be. I don't like remote operations; it makes no sense fluff-wise and is is very powerful for the minimal resources you have to put into it. You get to add 5/6 dice + your skill + hot sim bonus + codeslinger bonus + specialty 5 times a combat round; if your drone gets toasted it's no skin off your back except for the nuyen you put into it. It's safer, cheaper bp-wise, and the only down side is that you can't use your command program for it's ranged defense unless you spend an action, which isn't that terrible of a downside.

Thank you. I was trying to make that point earlier but you brought the numbers with you! Hacking is heinous, skill wise. The problem is that half the skills in the two hacking skill groups (electronics and cracking) are just not that useful for a Hacker. He can live without Hardware. Software is useless. Data Search is a one trick pony. EW is necessary, unfortunately, but still doesn't give you that much for the points put into it. It is expensive, bp wise, to be a hacker - and let's not even start with the poor technomancer. A player new to SR and wanting to do the main feature of the game is not going to get that he doesn't need half the skills he's told by the book that he needs. Yes, he can tank his attributes to save costs but then we're back to the hacker being the guy who sits in the van having his own little adventure while everyone else goes out to play.

One thing about the matrix rules is complexity:
Program ratings are capped by System which is capped by Response. Optional: Optimisation option
Number of programs running is penalised by Response. Can be dealt with by "manual load balancing". Optional: Ergonomic option
Number of variables to watch/use: 7 skills, 20+ programs (+options), program load, number of subscriptions

That is a sizeable amount of data to figure out a dicepool, even if it can be learned.

I disagree that the skills are wallpaper to a hacker. I had a very effective hacker with Hacking 4 and Computer 6. I got strange looks until folks saw it played. As for the other skills, Data Search tests can be considered to be timed as the spiders use Analyze to find you limiting your time to complete a Data Search and, time permitting, Data Search is how you get paydata. ChaCHIIING! Data Search's rating is a measure of SPEED searching for Data. EW is used for more tests than you might think. A lot of the signal interception tests that are hard to have a hacker overwatching with cybercombat are EW tests.

Does it require a lot of build to get all of the hacking skills? Yes. In fact, HELL yes. I suppose we differ in that I think its ok for someone to want to have the ROLE of hacker and spend lots of build and *time* doing just that where many players want a hacker thats also a (insert other role here). In some ways a tricked out hacker is better than a tricked out TM (and vice versa) but it requires technique and a good buildout. That technique CAN mean sitting in a truck and it can also mean getting your hands dirty in a megacorp facility your team is assaulting as you enter a hardwire to get at the soft digital underbelly.

There is no single "I win" buildout for a hacker or TM and to get fantastically good at all of it requires narrow specialization in that role. If you want a mixed role character, yeah, you're going to sacrifice something. I wish TM's didnt have to sacrifice EVERYthing else but meh, they are pretty amazing in their overspecialized role.

I disagree. It's the same defaulting rules as any other instance in which one can't do something if one lacks an attribute. Actors without Reaction (mostly inanimate objects, of course) can't dodge things. Characters without a Magic rating can't do all sorts of things; ditto Resonance. You can't use sensor targeting if you don't have a Sensor attribute.



Fair point, although it seems to me that this arrangement isn't necessarily important when considering defaulting. I mean, when you're making a Con + Intuition Test to resist a con attempt, and you don't have the skill, do you roll Charisma - 1? Even if you have an Intuition of 1 and a Charisma of 7? What about detecting things in a vehicle with Sensor + Perception? Assuming one could (see above), would the sonar guy in the submarine without sensors just roll Intuition - 1 to find out what was outside?

Yeah, it is a lot of stuff... but I'm still looking at it in comparison to previous SR additions where there was even more to keep track of. You had Storage Memory on your Deck that you had to ensure could fit all your programs with some room to spare for files you get during your run. You had Active Memory which limited how many programs you could be running (much more difficult that just Response = Running Programs), plus you had I/O speed which determined how fast you could download a file or how fast you could move something from Storage to Active Memory. Hacking is complicated, true, but it is better.

Here's a tip for everyone: I had my group's Hacker write down the names of his programs on little strips of paper. Then, all the programs he has Active, he puts the paper for that program on the table.