I never said that and neither did Tom Dowd. What he was talking about is that they were trying to convey a particular "feel" of how a "matrix run" should look like, how they wanted it to look like, into working rules.

I was referring to the basics, and describing the experience in general. Individual rules would vary.

But isn't the problem of how to properly represent them in rules what we are talking about?

I was referring to TomDowd's comment. Again, if you can describe the experience of astral projection in the rules, you should be able to do the same with the VR experience using similar rules. The problem is that the game's designers have always insisted on making the Matrix rules far more complicated and bizarre than they need to be, and that simple philosophy seems to become completely alien to them in the process. They really are the same thing; exploring and interacting with another world with your mind.

Then they started in the wrong place, because they failed.

Gun combat is a rollercoaster, already. It feels like, it plays like, and the rules support it.

The matrix, comparatively, is a swamp.

Having attempted writing short fiction,* I know that when I have an ending I'd like to achieve, I have to shoe-horn my plot to get there. The reason is because I know where I want to go and where my plot is currently headed and they're not the same. I suspect the 4E matrix rules had the same route, they tried to do something "different" than the rest of the system in an attempt to get somewhere specific and ended up in a quagmire.

Obviously the rest of the system functioned fine, and what they needed to do was evaluate how those very same rules could be put to a different environment to achieve the same level of satisfaction.

*Which has never ended up "short." My last "8 to 10 page" short story was 23 pages long.

Yes, they failed. We all know that. The question is: can you do it better, trying to achieve the same "feel" the SR4 devs aimed for? If yes, then by all means share with the rest of us! You know we'd love you for it!

And this is where we won't agree (the two of us), because I won't let you postulate a conclusion without support.
The "feel" that needed a rules representation, included computers and computer hardware. There are a few deciding factors that diffferenciate the "matrix experience" drastically from the "astral experience", namely:

-Processors
-Hardware architecture
-Software
-Access restrictions
-ICE

Those are key elements to gibsonian matrix architecture and a cornerstone of the expectations of most cyberpunk settings. They need to be implemented. And this is where the trouble starts. These elements reference technology that already exists (albeit in a less advanced way) and is thus familiar to the players. To allow for the suspension of disbelief,the representation therefore needs to be somewhat plausible (key word being "plausible", not "realistic").
As the two experiences (astral and matrix) are therefore vastly different you cannot simply conclude that if the astral experience could be put to rules effectively you could use the same rules contruct for the representation of the matrix experience.

That's why I asked you how you would do it. It's a very important question.

<shrugs> I neither have the desire nor a reason to waste a large chunk of my life writing a bunch of pointless house rules just to appease you. If you don't understand how they're similar or how they could use the same basic rules to describe the experience, that's a limitation all your own.

So, you can't back your argument, is that what you're saying? Alright, I accept your concession, then.

Sarcasm works both ways, you know?

If you think I was using sarcasm, you clearly have no idea what sarcasm means.

I was holding that to your benefit. I didn't think you really thought you had a viable argument. My bad.

The problem is, with astral projection, the rules start off assuming astral space is pretty much like normal space, in terms of how the world is laid out and how you can interact with it. The matrix actually introduces a whole new global architecture and set of ground rules, which means you have to do a lot more explaining before you even have the basics.

Of course, you could just rule that the entire matrix is one big ultraviolet system, with individual people / objects representing individual nodes / programs / etc. Then you end up with the Matrix™. But that still calls on the game designers / GM to effectively have an entire second world mapped out, which is NOT the case with Astral Projection.

Basic projection/perception would be more akin to AR. Visiting metaplanes would be a closer analogy to VR and ultraviolet hosts. Beyond that, it really doesn't require that much more to describe the basics (<-- keyword). Instead of spellcasting, you have programs and coding. Instead of spirits, you have agents and sprites. Instead of Astral Perception Tests, you have Matrix Perception Tests. Icons are just virtual constructs rather than astral forms, combat works along the same principles just with your commlink/persona/program's stats being used rather than your mental/foci/spell's stats (and even that could be up for debate), and transferring or recording data is its own basic rule that doesn't need a direct analogy. You could diverge greatly beyond that point, with each having their own specific rules to better describe the individual experience. But the point is, you can describe both experiences using similar rules. One is not nigh impossible if the other is possible. They're all but identical in nature; only the means of their creation and interaction are all that different.

That said, I never claimed that all of the rules would be the same. I'm saying that if you can describe a completely imaginary and made-up world that exists purely in your mind for one side of the equation, it shouldn't be all that difficult to do the same for the other side. Especially in relation to TomDowd's anecdote about how they couldn't figure out how to, and I quote, "translate a primarily visual/sensorial experience into dice, tables, and goofy rules."

This



Actually, no. To use an analogy, I know Jack Squat about how to make clothing. I know there are patterns involved, yadda yadda, but I couldn't design my own clothing style if my life depended on it.

That said, I do know when a shirt doesn't fit, or if the cloth isn't right (too scratchy, doesn't stretch in the right places).

I do not need to be an expert and fix the problem myself in order to tell someone that what they did was not the right way to do it.

This comes up all the time in Flash Game programming. People constantly berate people for harping on a popular game with "so make a better game yourself" when individual skill at making a product has no relevance to the validity of the opinion about a product.

Here's the point you missed, though:
An argument needs evidence to support it. Otherwise, it is invalid.
I never argued the rules are great. I never argued they are the best that could be done. I never argued that you could not use similar rules as for astral projection, either. All I said was that if he states his opinion that the same basic rules could be used, despite the massive difference in core concepts, he needs to elaborate as to how. He doesn't have to present a complete ruleset or even a proof of concept. A simple idea as to how he would envision it to work would suffice. Instead, his reply was "I don't feel like I have to prove myself to you" (paraphrased). That's not an argument. That's a copout at best. He's just too much of a coward to admit that he has no clue how he would make it work, or how to even remotely make it work. Instead, he flings around phrases in an attempt to appear right.
He said to use programs like spells and the metaplanes like VR and UV hosts, completely ignoring resonance realms and/or technomancers. He doesnt address the issue of access restriction of data storage. He doesn't address how the same basic rules could encompass elements like hardware architecture or processor speeds...

I never claimed that his assertion was wrong. I said that it was invalid and it will remain as such until he supports it with viable evidence.

I don't even think it's a matter of evidence backing an argument, really. Personally, the reason why I would like to see alternatives is because otherwise I have trouble caring. As the saying goes, opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one. Yes, you don't need to know anything about making shirts to know the shirt doesn't fit. Okay, great, so your shirt doesn't fit, that impacts me how exactly? The only person who cares that your shirt doesn't fit is you! But if someone says, "now here is how to make a great shirt", suddenly I may be interested, because I wear shirts too and would love to know how a great one is made.

Which is why I find Frank's alternate rules interesting. Not because they are perfect (judging from more of those opinions here, they aren't), but because it was intriguing to see his point of view by example and fascinating to see how he approached a solution. I'm a gamer, not an editorial writer, I like to read about these systems and see how people figure them out and how they work.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I don't mean to squelch opinions, because it is interesting to get an idea how people feel about different facets of Shadowrun. But once I know how you feel, repeating how you feel loses value to me. I've moved on and I'm looking for more.

They don't have to, agreed. But they cannot treat their opinion as fact, if they can't support it.

<shrugs>

In this case, it's solely about the concept and has jack-all to do with the exact rules. Unless other people want to demonstrate why you can't "translate a primarily visual/sensorial experience into dice, tables, and goofy rules" for one "primarily visual/sensorial experience" (ie, the Matrix) but you can for another "primarily visual/sensorial experience" (ie, Astral Space and the Metaplanes) for some bizarre, mysterious, and inexplicable reason, well... whatever. I'm certainly not going to waste a significant amount of time plotting it all out solely for the reason of demonstrating it to someone who can't get the basic concept. Now if you want to pay me to do all that work, that's another story. As I'm sure you can relate, right?

For the record, I don't really understand that part of Tom's post either. I'm not really sure what he was trying to say there, since large parts of Shadowrun are about translating abstractions into mechanics (such as magic, as was mentioned). Where the Matrix rules are difficult is not in their abstraction, but the balance of abstraction and concrete ideas, because it is still based on something that exists in the real world. Magic is easy, by comparison, because no one can really say, "no, I have a PhD in Magic, this doesn't make sense at all!"

I'm not really sure why the Matrix rules get more criticism than the combat mechanics in this regard, though, since those are also based on concrete ideas and there are people familiar with martial arts or guns in real life. I have to think this has more to do with playability and less to do with realism. People are more willing to suspend their disbelief because combat is fun for everyone, but the Matrix isn't really there yet.

Try this...
...The main bulk of rules for SR, any version, are reasonably streamlined. The rules for Decking are almost a separate game of their own.
To make them streamlined would probably require a redesign of what they are meant to accomplish. However to get there, many of they necessary Decking things have to be redesigned.

If it's streamlined, individual program ratings, etc just aren't there anymore - in the same way as that level of detail isn't there for any other part of the game.

The Decking rules were based on a room-by-room electronic dungeon crawl, with programs replacing magic items/swords/etc, because that was the main way for people to visualise the insides of a computer system.

It could be worse...
...The Cyberpunk spinoff, Hardwired, has rules for writing code and using that in the game.

I just had a massage, so I had an hour to think over the hacking rules. What I came up with is so stupidly simple it's sublime.

Attribute + Skill + (Equipment) is the basic building block of all ShadowRun tests (the meaning equipment varies from skill to skill and does not mean your gun, it does however cover your smartlink)

In the matrix you cannot perform a matrix action unless you have the program for it, this is similar to not being able to default on (some) skills.

Attribute + Program + (Skill)

Voila.

Every program now has an associated attribute and relevant skill.* Passive tests are made at Attribute + Program only (programs are always running, attribute takes into account the character's ability to react to sudden situations). Skill is not necessary to perform a matrix action (how many people today get by on Windows, Internet Exploder, and Google? A lot of them**) but having it helps.

Suddenly as a side effect this puts the matrix into the hands of anyone with a comlink: the mage, street sam, and face don't need to spend precious karma on the skill (and not having it is the same as not having a smart link, first aid kit, or other equipment bonus) and can drop a few hundred nuyen and get by.

For TM it gets a little messy, but what I came up with was this (not all costs are final, just ideas floating around in my head):

TMs get a list of rating 1 complex forms just for being a technomancer in the same way that any off the shelf comlink comes with R1 Browse. I did not make out a list, but it included: Browse, Edit, Search, Exploit, Firewall. A TM may know as many complex forms at rating 1 as they'd like. This represents the basic ability to simply operate on the matrix at all.

For a small amount of BP (Karma) (2 (1) for common, 4 (3) for hacking) you can buy any complex form they know at R1 to R3. Raising further would be a flat cost, eg. 2 BP/3 Karma. TMs will still get the shaft relative to mundane hackers for getting better, as a hacker who upgrades from R1 software to R6 pays a single one time cost (eg $6000) for that rating, whereas the TM needs to pay for each intermediate level. Keeping the costs low encourages improvement. Maximum known CFs over rating 1 limited to Logic x2 at a maximum rating of Resonance+1 or 9, whichever is lower. This puts a hard limit on just how good a TM can be, while at the same time allowing them to be significantly better than the mundane hacker in their chosen field.

I barely got to Threading/Sprites when my session was up, so no real insights there other than Fading being resisted with Logic + Willpower (mages and adepts don't resist Drain with Magic, Technos shouldn't get Resonance either). Threading would also be a simple action (to cut down on the "aw, I didn't do well" factor as well as the "I thread Attack, then thread Armor when it attacks me" cheese).

May edit in a while, meeting new cat. New cat socialized with.

*I most likely would borrow from Frank's list, The End of the Matrix. Also, I say "associated attribute and relevant skill, as the program in question is replacing the skill from the standard model, so has an associated attribute. But it is also "equipment," and per usual equipment only comes into play when using certain skills, or using skills in certain ways, thus retains a link to the skill as well in order to maintain the standard model of Attribute + Skill + Modifier.

**Some people think their OS is "Dell" and their web browser is "Google." I'm not kidding.

Allow me to try and be a little clearer. (A lack of clarity when talking about the SR Matrix rules? I find that hard to believe...)

The Gibsonian model of "the matrix" was Shadowrun's targeted experience... and as previously pointed out it is pretty much the cyberpunk expectation for such things. The problem is that the Gibsonian system is so completely abstracted from "reality" that the actions the characters take in Neuromancer or Count Zero have no relationship with what should be going on when hacking a system beyond the author assuring us that that's what they're doing.

Game systems should exist to support the experience, but stringing them together to get the right experience can be a tricky thing. It's not about the dice, tables, or goofy rules per se, but how all those mechanics stand individually and work together to create a system that replicates the experience, and we couldn't get all the pieces to work well together, and ultimately generate good gameplay.

The matrix rules in SRI, SRII, and Virtual Realities 2.0 were slaves to too many masters. We were trying to replicate the Gibsonian experience, while still acknowledging "how things are supposed to work", and the two schema are not compatible. Gibson had no idea how computers, let alone computer security and networks worked, and when you try and overlay the abstractions of the Gibsonian matrix on some attempt at even vague rational network topology and security, it doesn't work. Our middle ground was effectively a dungeon crawl with a sometimes cool visual overlay and hand-wavey technobabble.

Ultimately, its not about dice mechanics individually, its about how they all string together to help tell the story. Its about how the systems mesh to replicate that sensory experience that Gibson depicts, and SR tried and failed to replicate it adequately. It was too concerned about too many things. Had we tried to depict what Neuromancer and other works felt like, we might have succeeded better. We were probably trying too hard.

I'm not sure if that makes things any clearer, or any worse.

BTW:
Paul Hume, who wrote the magic rules, is a practicing hermetic magician and wrote the SR rules to match to a great extent his world view. And yes, there were a number of discussions about 'reality' versus 'playability' and 'realism' versus 'game balance'. At different times different concerns 'won'.

TomD

TomDowd, thank you for that excellent post. I must admit that I don't envy your position of having to justify design decisions made 20 years ago...

Anyhow, I'm proud to say that I play the RPG with the most realistic magic system available.

EDIT: I don't mean to poke fun at anyone's beliefs - rather, the distinction is that most of us have everyday interactions with computer systems, but I imagine that few of us have everyday interactions with magic.

They are not, not in the slightest. The Gibsonian experience is "there's a locked door between you and the target" which has many solutions (break the door, pick the lock, and climb in through the window) all of which are represented in the Matrix as a single program: Exploit.

In so doing this you leave it up to the player to decide what "Exploit" does, except that they don't give a damn (as well as leaving it to the GM to describe the "door," which only matters to one player, so often gets left out). What you want them to be able to say is, "I climb in through the window." *

Unfortunately, what the matrix is doing is being the locked door in the meat world, which is where those creative solutions come in, and the Hacking part is the "I pick the lock" (combat is breaking the door, and stealth is climbing in through the window).

What gives rise to the Gibsonian experience is allowing the player a range of options to solve a problem, not telling them that the problem is an abstract construct of your imagination, and the solution is just as fuzzy. They'll give you a blank stare, look at their sheet, and go "I use the Exploit program. There's nothing else I have that would do that," which is boring.

*I actually built a technomancer like this once, where I would--on the fly; it was a pbp game, so both I and the GM had the time to come up with these details--decide what form my CFs took when I used them (being a crazed lunatic with sever identity issues), only to find that in practice I'd built an unplayable character: I had no Stealth (the concept was originally designed for a campaign where it wouldn't have mattered).

Thanks Tom, I do understand what you were trying to say now. And I agree with it. That division between Gibsonian presentation and mechanical structure is very difficult to reconcile. I think Fourth Edition tried to address it in its own way, by trying to take some of the Gibsonian presentation out of the equation, but it was still challenging.

I think the problem lies in the fact that a Gibsonian presentation turns hacking into a subgame that rivals D&D 3.5's grapple rules. You can't get that level of detail without forgoing the abstraction.

You have to realize that the two ideals (Gibsonian presentation and an integrated mechanics) aren't just polar opposites but do not even exist on a continuum. There is no middle ground and any attempt to create one will merely destroy the two ideals (the sum is less than the parts).

Fortunately in this case I'm not having to justify anything, but rather elaborate why I agree with everyone that they didn't work.

TomD

Anyone got comments on my suggested fix? People screaming left and right that if I can't offer a fix I can't bitch.

I think that increasing CFs is too expensive in your system. You're charging as much as RAW between 1 and 3 (twice as much for hacking CFs) and then more for every point afterwards. The prices in RAW have been called too expensive when you rolled skill, and attributes are more expensive than skills.

Which is to say that most rolls are Computing or Hacking, and each point of Logic is equivalent to 2.5 skill points. Assuming that you don't link some programs to other attributes entirely, that is a general loss of half a skill point per dice. I think that CFs have to be cheaper than RAW under your system, else TMs will see their DPs shrink relative to Hackers. They certainly shouldn't be getting more expensive.

Given that I was face down on a table getting a massage at the time, I couldn't have looked up what the costs were by RAW, so I guessed. I pulled a number out of my ass.



I had intended for them to be cheaper, but I picked a number that "felt right" and happened to pick one that was higher than RAW.

And I would link some programs to other stats, but I'd have to sit down and take the time to map out each one. The post was a 1 hour contemplation followed by a brain dump onto the forums before I forgot it.

It's not like I'm concerned. I figured you'd not remembered the RAW costs. My signature says "</pedant>" for a reason., though. I had to explain why the costs needed to go down, and couldn't even stay at the RAW levels. There are 26 or so CFs, but the actually useful subset is generally something like 9-12. TMs need to be able to acquire at least 9 CFs up to the 4-5 level.


The idea of using Attribute + Program (+ Skill) is interesting, since Agents don't have Mental Attributes, and neither do Sprites. That intentional?

My first impression is that your fix doesn't start from where a matrix re-write needs to start. You'll note that Frank's systems starts with answering questions like:

Why do people participate in the Matrix?
Because not participating in the Matrix is more dangerous. (See: naked brain hacking)

Why does the hacker need to be a guy, rather than a box of computers that my mage pushes the 'Go! Go!' button on?
Because actually having a brain hooked up to the computer makes it a whole lot more effective.

Why does the hacker need to be a guy that actually comes along with the team, rather than a guy in a wheelchair in Malaysia that we just call on the phone when we need any hacking done?
Because most of the really cool hacking stuff needs to be within high-density signal range, which is quite close, compared to Malaysia.

What does the hacker actually have to do during the parts of the game that aren't directly related to getting the paydata out of the target computers?
Why, everything. They can Jedi Mind Trick, they can Taxman, they can bake you an orgasm in a cake...

And once he has all those questions answered, the actual rules mechanics of Frank's system follow. You've stated with the rules mechanics first.

------------------

Now, here's an outline of a 'carrot' based Matrix approach, rather than Franks stick based approach:

Why do people participate in the Matrix?
Because it makes you over 9000 times more awesome when you are hooked up. How does that work? It works a bit like google-fu and Wikipedia. But it's not like reading Wikipedia, it's like knowing everything on Wikipedia.

Say you get into a gun-fight, how the matrix going to help you? Because when you are hooked up to the Matrix you 'know' just about everything every human who has been alive knows about gun-fights. You 'know' what to do, what not to do, and so on.

And the Matrix is so 'big' and 'complete' that anything your runner could possibly want to do already has thousands of helpful 'guides' already up on the Matrix.

System Stuff
When connected to the Matrix, you get +3 bonus dice to everything. Yes everything. Shooting, running, jumping, intimidating people, singing, making love to your wife, everything.

But we don't want to roll a bunch of extra dice all the time, so we really only track who has a 'Matrix Advantage' over the other side. If you are connected, and the other side isn't, then you get 3 bonus dice against them.

For those who like to live dangerously, you can got 'hot' this gives you an additional +2 Matrix bonus dice. Of course, it opens you up to black IC and all sorts of nasty things, but sometimes you need that extra bit of edge.

The Smartlink is a precursor to this tech, in that is gives you a bunch of 'knowledge' about how to shoot guns. But the nigh infinite knowledge about how to shoot guns to be found on the Matrix can give you bigger bonuses. Your smartlink is now a backup in case you get dis-connected.

Why does the hacker need to be a guy, rather than a box of computers that my mage pushes the 'Go! Go!' button on?
Because the pattern analysis required by 2070 google-fu is not yet possible to program.

Why does the hacker need to be a guy that actually comes along with the team, rather than a guy in a wheelchair in Malaysia that we just call on the phone when we need any hacking done?
This system of rules is fine with the hacker contact in Malaysia.

What does the hacker actually have to do during the parts of the game that aren't directly related to getting the paydata out of the target computers?
What happens when a lot of how you are acting comes from 'Google' and a hacker Google-bombs you?

System Stuff
So you are having a conversation with a guy, both of you are using all the various facial recognition, lying detection, etc, etc stuff provided by the Matrix. So there is no net Matrix advantage. But then your hacker manages to Google-bomb the other guy with 'everything my guy says is 100% true'. So now you have a Matrix advantage on him, and get +3 dice.



-------------------

So now, everyone wants to be connected, even if it makes them vulnerable to Matrix shenanigans. And, sometimes, people will even go to hot-sim and make themselves vulnerable to Black IC, because they want a extra 2 dice to dodge those bullets you are shooting at them.

I know this has been beaten to death, but the way hacking (in the meaning of "gaining illegal access to a system") works IRL is that you need a good program and know how to use it. And what is so unintuitive or complicated about using skill+program, anyway? You have a program and a skill, you roll an extended test based on those two values against the system's firewall, the system uses its own programs against your stealth. The only thing which is a bit out of the line is the fact that the system uses two programs to detect you and not skill + program

I'll go post my own ideas later today, but I'll comment on the stats first; Programs are to Attribute+Skill in the Matrix as Guns are to Attribute+Skill in a gunfight. I think in my writeup programs won't have ratings AT ALL. They'll have some attributes and traits that describe what they do, however.

I'll try to make the system resemble guns&spells as much as possible. I'll try to downplay brainhacking, because that's just not the flavor I want (possible technical feasibility ignored.)

Importantly, I want to somehow insert something clearly missing: programs/attacks that damage hardware.

Finally, I want to downplay Agents, separate them from IC and Pilots. Frank did nicely with that.

The idea is pretty much the same concept as is. You just throw the attribute into all of that on top of the already used dice pools. It does not address any of the concerns raised in this thread, like conflicting logic of the matrix architecture, implausibe encryption rules and data security.

I may have missed something important and if I did, please point it out to me, but from what I read (which may include a lack of reading comprehension on my part), I couldn't see anything that would fix any of the true problems of the matrix rules in SR.

Yes. People should be better at hacking than computers.



I'll get to your list later, only have a few minutes right now. I wasn't thinking about all of that all at once, and some parts of it I disagree are required. For example: why do people participate on the internet now? Is it dangers to not be online?



Because Program + Skill means two things:
1) In order to be a "decent" hacker, you need to pay out karma for a minimum of 2 skills up to a minimum rating of 3, in addition to buying the 6 or so required programs.
2) Logic has no benefit. Einstein given the best software in the world is going to be just as good at it as a 12 year old "special education" student.
I addressed those two things in my post.



Having only pondered the problem for an hour I did not get around to solving those issues. Encryption is something very tricky to deal with in a game mechanics sense. If it can be broken in less than a day with little to no skill, then its worthless. But if it takes more than a few minutes, even with the best mind on the problem, the players can't do anything about it. ShadowRun has both forms of encryption (regular can be cracked in seconds, supersecure can never be cracked, ever). Finding a middle ground is not a trivial problem to solve (and I don't think FT's take on the matter did either).

I know you play Shadowrun now (please don't shatter my fragile dreams if you don't). Having seen the SR4 rules, and perhaps some other house rules tossed about, what do YOU use?



I can definitely say that:
1) Shadowrun got me interested in studying real magic more (not that I'm a magician, but I'm hugely into magic, mythology and Jungian psychology)
2) I always appreciated that, whenever I read regarding magic, it never seriously conflicted with what Shadowrun had already established in my head (except for the whole, you know, casting fireballs in three seconds bit - but that's just because we're waiting for 2012).

(Oh yeah, I would have to say 2012 is the one exception - when I was in Tikal and asked our guide if in 2012 dragons would reappear and people would transform into orks and trolls, he said no, the calendar would just restart. But I wouldn't call him a reliable source. He also said that the Mayans sacrificed primarily fruits and gourds, and only very rarely people. It's PR spin, I tell you.)

Logic should not factor into hacking rolls. Logic is an attribute that mainly correlates to learning capacity and memory retrieval. As Sengir pointed out correctly, actual hacking is about knowing how to use your software, how to exploit existing software and how to manage hardware resources.
Knowing how to use a softweare is not covered by the Logic attribute, but by the Software skill (or the hacking skill in the case of hacking). The skill represents the available, already leanred and ready to apply knowledge the character possesses. Logic would be relevant in aquiring that knowledge in the forst place, but once it's there, it shouldn't factor in as a main contributor anymore.
If you want to use Logic in its "raw brain power" function, emulating mental flexibility and solving complex problems, then you can use Logic as a limiting factor for your software skill. Just rule that your software (or hacking) skill can not provide more dice to the roll than your Logic attribute. I think that would be a much more elegant and much more plausible route than overblown dice pools.
And to answer a question not yet asked: why are program ratings still plausible? Because not all software can do the same task with the same efficiency. Compare MS Paint to Photoshop, for excemple, or Notepad to Word, or Windows Calc to SPSS... More sophisticated software allows for better functionality and should therefore be reflected in dice rolls.
You can be a math genius, but with Windows calc it would still take you several weeks to run a factor analysis on a questionaire with 180 items, when SPSS can do the same thing in seconds. Software matters.

Oh and as a minor sidenote: a skill a rating 3 means professional level knowledge in that field. What makes you think you should need more than rating 3 to be a decent hacker (given proper software)?

I don't have abetter solution myself, but I don't comlain about the matrix rules, either. Yes, they are unrealistic, yes they are defying basic logic, yes they are poorly documented and riddled with holes. But they work for the most part and if anyone wants to change them, they can always house rule them. For someone with no computerknowledge, whatsoever, they'd even be fine.

And what's wrong with that? Einstein would have no clue how to use a modern computer (=> low computer skill) and breaking an encryption does not get any faster just because you place a genius at the keyboard. It gets faster if you have an efficient (high rating) algorithm/program and are skilled at using it (high skill)...the former usually being more important.

Yet Software (or more accurately, Hacking and Computers) have the linked attribute of Logic. That's got to mean something, right?



Because at the best available software you have 9 dice. No one wants a mere 9 dice at hacking. In the entire game there is only one thing you can do that doesn't take into account your meat statistics: hacking.

Why? Because computers are doing all the work.

But that's the problem. If the computer is doing all the work, then what do you need a hacker for?

The 'problem' with assuming that your skill level fully represents your actual ability to do that task is that that's not how all the other skills in the game work. With every other skill in the game, your ability with a task is some stat + skill. So the greatest doctor in the world is not just some guy with medicine 6, he also needs the appropriate stat (logic?) to back it up. So the greatest hacker in the world should also need to have a high stat. Personally, I find the Stat + skill + program die pool to be clunky, but I find the skill +program rule clashes with how every other subset of the rules is written.

1) Why wouldn't they? The matrix enables faster communication to anywhere on the planet at a minimum of effort and skill. Ease of data storage, retrieval, and sorting.

2) This is one of the biggest problems that ShadowRun has: that the human is unnecessary. I am going to use the same answer as Frank, that having a human being involved makes the computer better.

3) This is another oddball. In the real world you'd want to be closer than father, due to latency, but apparently the 6th world doesn't have that issue (routing through two toasters, a vending machine, and three pairs of underwear doesn't have any noticeable effect on how fast you are). I don't think Frank properly explains why the human needs to be on-site (your summary made sense, but I didn't get that out of Frank's post). Personally I'd advocate latency reasons as well: the farther away you are, the harder it is to be good. But if you're sufficiently good, you can be farther away. Of course, even in a wireless world, there'd still be the equivalents of Closed Circuit systems. Systems that cannot be accessed from the outside, period.

4) Frank's answer goes too far. If the mage can't mind-trick because its too powerful (nearly everyone disallows Control Thoughts), why did we let the hacker have that power? The other things the hacker can do:

• Open locked doors
• Call the elevator, even though its been disabled for security reasons
• Cancel alarms
• Reduce automated security measures effectiveness ("haha, your turrets just blew each other up! Ooh, look out for that one though, seems its got its friendlies backwards!")

And that's off the top of my head. The hacker shouldn't be all powerful (Franks rules let them be), but sufficiently powerful to cause havok with machines. It should be trivial for a hacker to go "that turret is mine." On the other hand, they shouldn't be able to go "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" on the entire building's network from a safe location.

Frank goes a bit further in addressing that, doesn't he? I mean, by changing the test mechanics to include Attributes, most computers will no longer be as good as a human + software at hacking, because most computers don't have Attributes.

But that's a controversial rule change, as we can see from the posts above.

He wants everyone to willingly be a zombie, because then your brain won't get eaten by zombies.

He wrote up a ton of fluff on why its a Bad Idea to not be on the matrix to justify his rules, and people vehemently object to that fluff but are OK with the rules (except the brain hacking part) which adds attributes into the equation.

I can use the very same fluff (taking out the brain hacking) to justify doing it my way too.

The brain hacking is separate from the issue of justifying why hackers should be people and not computers, though. Both are issues that Frank addresses, but they aren't directly dependent on each other.

Crusher Bob, just use one of the alternate computer skill rules right there in the book.

I think "brains make computers more powerful" is a very elegant way to justifying hackers as well as spiders, AND eliminating Agent Smith scenarios. Add in the promise that "biochips that will make hackers obsolete are almost possible" for the proper desperate tone.

The best reason for on-site hackers is that any paydata will only be on offline systems; also, that many facilities have defenses that require combined hardware/software solutions (and hackers tend to excel at hardware too.) I don't see why this is such a big problem. The R&D server is simply not connected to the Matrix.

Be careful with "Brains make computers more powerful".
It can also mean that agents/CI are worthless and that a hacker will be able to hack everything that isn't connected to a brain, which would mean that you NEED a spider for a system to be secure.