(spinning off from the thread on encryption)

Has anyone here read End of the Matrix, Frank Trollman's Matrix rules rewrite? Has anyone tried them? Thoughts? How do they work "in action"?

Yes he posted it here many moons ago. Interesting read.

definetly stole some of flavor if not the crunch.

This is exactly why I wish FT could avoid fits of internet hate whenever someone disagrees with him. His stuff is really good.

I didn't like his comment about bone lacing and essence. Claiming that bones are dead tissues is false.
Also, essence represents the body's integrity. Since bones are actually alive (they do contain live cells) and the core is responsible for the production of red cells, I assume that bone lacing would compromise all that.
Thus, essence loss.

I'd have to re-read it, but I agree. Bone is definitely a living tissue, and Essence is meant to be a holistic kind of thing anyway. I wonder if Frank's thoughts on that have changed any.

It's an interesting read. The fluff is rather impressive. But I just couldn't see myself using the rules in my group. A lot of it seems overly complicated, which is something that SR4 has really helped my group avoid. Most importantly, it changes the structure of the game in some basic ways, by having brains be a hackable thing. I'm really pretty sure that my players would get bored pretty quickly when they need to be looking at that many layers of defense. There's enough "necessary defensive measures" creep in SR4 as is.

I read through all of the fluff and for the most part I think I'm down with it. The crunch was...a little too crunchy for my (1am) tastes, so I skipped over it. But if it was as well thought out as his fluff and conforms to his fluff then I'd be willing to try it. There were a few parts that I disagreed with off the bat, but forced myself to not object and keep reading. I don't recall what those parts were any more.

I particularly like the fact that he included not one, not two, but three character attributes as being necessary or at least semi-vital to being a successful hacker (rather than having a 1 in everything, thus giving you 200 more BP to spend on more important things and not really suffering for it).

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/841961522_7krbF-L.jpg
This was the end of the matrix. The new thing is just a fad.
Also: Yes, Franks Matrix Stuff is awesome. Complicated too.

I'm not too wild about the brain hacking* either, and there are some fluff parts I don't like so much (mostly the high density signal stuff).

The crunch however, was quite clever; basically using the Spellcasting system for computers. Hacking is a lot like "casting" programs at computers. That's really quite the Gibsonian/Hollywood interface thing to do.

We'll probably adopt the system in our group, but without the brain hacking. Excising it is going to be a chore however.


*I'm not saying it can/can't be done; it's just not the flavor I want.

Didn't Frank put out a simpler version at one point that used the existing rule set with fixes for the "broken" parts? Does anyone have a link for that?

Just to repeat myself from another thread:



The complexity is a possible issue, but it's hard to solve the "Matrix is too simple-minded!" criticism without creeping into complexity. The brain hacking is another possible sticking point, but his reasoning for it is solid. For his interpretation of the Matrix to work, it sort of needs the possibility of brain hacking. And since internal consistency is one of the big criticisms of the existing Matrix system, I can't really knock Frank for being internally consistent.

What it does is it means that Technomancers aren't immune. Because without brain hacking it'd be like saying you can't cast spells at a mage. Not because of counterspelling, but just because spells simply do not work on awakened critters.

Yeah, as a study in logical game design this is a great model. It's internally consistant, supports it's own fluff and fits into the game world without judicious use of a crowbar. But the complexity runs counter to the stated objectives of SR4: namely simplicity.

Are the existing matrix rules simple? I don't really think they are...

Agent Smith..

Hall of Mirrors...

Are they less simple than any other portion of the rules?

My only knock on his system is that someone with no implants, comm-link, or anything like that are not only susceptible to brain hacking, but moreso. Otherwise I fully enjoy his rules.

Actually, I think the SR4 Matrix rules are fairly simple. But the side effect of that simplicity is they've been pretty easy to break or take advantage of in specific situations.

And there's also consistency issues, separate from the complexity/simplicity problem.

Its an issue, but it entirely fits within his fluff. Besides, the only people who wouldn't be part of a PAN (your clothes have chips, by wearing them you have a PAN) would be your fresh-out-of-the-woods shapeshifters.

Who either very quickly get hooked up with a PAN to protect them, or get brainwashed. And brainwashed shapeshifters would explain why there are so many in an urban environment: they've been told to think a certain way and have been "integrated" into society.

His ideas were cool and the fluff well supported but the rules were not for me and I really didn't agree with some points.

That said, it was a solid set of rules, just not a good rule set for me...

I'm about on the same page as Darkeus. FT posted an interesting and consistent system based on how he thought it should work. A particular point of issue for me is the brain hacking. While I actually agree with a lot of what he said, brain-hacking is one level of GifS I'm not interested in miming.

One thing I really like about his document is that it really made me think about the matrix, just how the rules work and how integrated it is into the system. Not that I hadn't...just not from the perspective of the different framework he set up. He makes very good points about datajacks, ways that a Simrig can be useful and he does some really neat stuff with Decompiling that I really like.

I plan on reading through it all more in depth and looking at it from some different angles before I really consider using it. Some of the info, even the simple things like separating the programs into categories other than just Common Use and Hacking make a lot of sense (especially tying the various computer skills to particular groups instead of per skill).

An interesting read overall.

I agree that the matrix rules need work, but I don't think Frank's is the right direction. He does good work for what he does, but I don't think it would fit with the over all game.

Brain hacking and his stance on essence are sticking points I couldn't agree with. Getting that lacing material in place and the rest of the body dealing with the weight and presence of it are too big an issue to hand waive, even if the bone itself isn't drastically effected. Essence is a holistic concept, and mechanically it's a tool to balance. Brain hacking is something one of my players would love to see. However I could see it not only turning Shadowrun into something else entirely in short order, but the rest of my group would see it as a burden. In game we've had things like that before, and have tools that do similar things now, but nothing as widely available or easy to use. I'll stick to ASSIST conditioning, thank you.

If you don't fill some role in Shadowrun, you need to protect against it. To protect yourself you either rely on someone else or spend some of your resources on it. Being a classless system it doesn't lend itself well to the Fight/Mage/Thief/Cleric dynamic. There are party roles, but they are muddy to begin with. I've seen too many shadowruns stopped for lack of someone bringing some simple tool with them, let alone a PC death because someone hadn't expected the opposition to have a paracritter. As a player the last thing I need at character gen is another frontier to defend.

Of course this whole conversation is rather uncharitable on Dumpshock as Frank has been banned and can no longer defend his system. I'm sure there are people here who prefer that, and the rest can find him easily enough.

Brain hacking is easy to add into a game without it needing to be a concern:
"Brain hacking can be done, but the knowledge and tools required are generally beyond a PC's ability to acquire." As well as stating that a human brain has a signal range of 0 or less, and that any device that the person in question might be using to increase their signal range would subvert any brain hacking attempts.

Technically, Black IC is the brain-hack tool. But its not refined to the point of allowing brainwashing and is the current SOTA in the field of brain hacking.

Programmable ASIST Biofeedback is refined to the point of allowing brainwashing and exists in the game, but it does require a bit of set-up.

Haven't heard of it, but see my initial text:
"Brain hacking can be done, but the knowledge and tools required are generally beyond a PC's ability to acquire."
Which is basically what you said: it takes a bit of setup and special hardware.

Why would he need to defend it anyway?
Of course, none of us know what he intended to do with certain things in there.
But then, none of us know what he intended to do with certain things in there. .
His system is perfectly valid for people who want to use it. And people can and do change stuff in their games.
If you don't like it, don't use it or change it so you do like it. It's that simple. Why would that need to be defended?

I agree. Most of the feedback has been complimentary. Everything else has been down right civil. And anyone who's interested can find more than enough debate about brain hackin in any number of threads from 3 years ago including Franks thoughts. If you're interested in chatting with him about it, all you have to do is follow the link in the original post.

Unless you're trolling I can't see any reason to say this is "uncharitable".

It's in Unwired, page 189. And yeah, it requires a PAB unit--which start at 14R Availability--and the process requires Extended Tests with a week interval, so it's not easy or fast.

Not trolling, but thank you for being the first person to openly accuse me of that. I was only pointing out that discussion of the system and it's specific points and the philosophy behind it was happening on a forum that had recently banned the author. Sure that's common knowledge to most of us but I thought it should be mentioned. I'm no follower of Frank but I know that if something I wrote was being talked about somewhere I would want a detail like that mentioned, not that I intend to get myself banned anywhere online. To that end I'll stay out of the this thread, having said my piece.

No offense intended, otakusensei. I just didn't want another thread to degenerate into a "Frank's ban is weaksauce" debate. Ban aside, this is one of Frank's greatest contributions to this community and I am rather pleased that people can still read his work, discuss it in a civilized manner and even use it at their table to enhance their enjoyment of the game. If you ask me it would be a damn shame if everything good Frank ever did here was tainted by his self-imposed end.

Now enough of me derailing the thread...

Martix.

Not easy or fast, but a basic field PAB can fit in a briefcase...

I agree with the consens that FT's Matrix rules are a big "Wow" for everyone interested in game design.
I just wouldn't insert them into shadowrun. For me, i just can't find a resonance in his Technomancer rules (pun unintended) and the overall mechanics.

I rather liked the weird powers technomancers get. By comparison, they're rather dull in the standard rules. Not weak, but just.. not so different from normal hacking.

In practice, having used it in three games now, Frank's rules are much, much, MUCH simplier than the core rules - most stuff is 'bam, 1 dice roll straight up' then you roll on with whatever your doing. And as the rules are exactly like the spellcasting rules, it's even simplier to use them. Hacking a door is one roll rather than the multiple required in the core rules.

Most people houserule the core rules though, so it's pretty hard to do a 1:1 comparison.

Yes they're well written but I still have several issues with them:

- First of all, they make hacking too similar to magic: not only does it use nearly the same ruleset, but the matrix actions themselves also feel a lot like spells except that some can target computer elements. It's as if the hacker was just another kind of mage. In a lot of games, I'd have been ok with that but in Shadowrun, it feels like oversimplification.

- They have quite an impact on the fluff since they add a lot of elements that were never mentioned before.

- They revolve entirely around 2, IMO, fallacious statements about the actual rules. The whole purpose of the rules is to work around two supposed holes in the current rules:
1. that everyone can hack everyone's brain easily and that it's such a threat that nobody sane in his mind will use the matrix
2. that any character can easily become a god in the Matrix by using tons of commlinks through a button interface
I disagree with these ideas and though I agree that patching the issues of the existing rules is necessary for good house rules, I don't think it's a good idea to focus on those fixes and drastically change the fluff and rules in the process.

It's as if you wanted to fix car chase rules because you found that the ramming damages are too high and decided that everyone is driving mechs because cars are too dangerous and used the walking rules for vehicles instead of specific vehicle rules.

I actually like that they're similar to magic. It fits both the Gibsonian ideal as well as resembling Hollywood-style computer use. It really isn't any more OR less realistic than the RAW rules, but it's easier.

(Of course, the Gibsonian ideal is a bit dated; back then there weren't as many people who had an inkling of how realism would look. The whole Sculpting thing is rather silly; we'd be better off with a new, more plausible way to visualize hacking.)

My disagreement with FT's rules are basically these;
- He believes in "high density signal" to connect to devices in LOS range. I think that's dubious; it'd probably cause cancer, and any semi-secure device is probably shielded against EMP, so why not against high-density signals?
- He takes the step from "AR exists, and Sim enables VR" to "AR is beamed directly into your brain". I rather like the idea of AR goggles and all that, which he accidentally renders irrelevant.

That being said, these objections don't make his ideas unusable, and when I write my interpretation I'll probably base it heavily off of his ideas.

Well, technically, with a Trode-Net, AR IS beamed directly into your brain.
There is nothing else there, it gets emitted by the trodenet into your brain.

True, but it's quite a leap from trode nets to AR-from-across-the-room.

I hold that all brains are subtly ore less subtly different, and that each brain has a different DNI "translation"; a new trode net either needs a translation file, or you need to spend some time on mental exercises to derive a new translation. Since the amount of signal a brain emits tends to get completely lost in the noise created by other wireless devices, this kind of two-way communication isn't possible at greater than trode distance. Hence no remote-brain-hacking in my game, AR, VR or otherwise.
(If you've put someone in a Probe Chair, all bets are off. Likewise if you can hack someone's datajack.)

EDIT: it's not just "rules"; while it might be theoretically/technically possible, it's not the flavor I want in my game. Remote brainhacking is reserved to scary AIs like Deus. It's a Plot Power that isn't available normally.

Also remember that he makes fluff and technology assumptions to fit the genre-space. The 'high density' signal rage is, in part, there so that the hacker needs to be nearby. And since trodes exists already in fluff, which can both read your brain and can beam images and stuff directly into your brain, it's not too much of a departure from normal fluff. Sure you can change the assumptions about the range of high density signals, but then, if you want to keep the hacker on scene, you need to come up with some other explanation why the hacker has to come along with the group.

So it's not that high density signal isn't a bit odd, it is; but rather that the high density signal fluff is a way of forcing the world to follow the genre.

If the threat of naked-brain hacking is removed from Frank's system, then part of the problem that the system was written to solve is still there. People now have no reason to participate in the matrix, because the matrix can't threaten them if they don't want to participate in it.

Holy multi-post explosions, Batman!

Holy multi-post explosions, Batman!

I vehemently disagree. The problem with the Fluff As Written is that hacking is too easy (threatens you only if you participate), granting that level of security and then even less to 'offline' individuals makes the matrix Holy Fucking Shit Scary because the mere act of its existence threatens you. Participating doesn't exactly grant you any protection, it just makes it less scary.

Its like saying the only way to be immune to a zombie apocalypse is to be a zombie. If you're a zombie, no one will eat your brains. On the other hand, not being a zombie has the issue of a) getting infected and b) getting eaten.

I don't see a need to force people into the Matrix.

Not participating means you miss out on a lot of stuff, to gain more security. That's an interesting choice.

I liked some of Frank's stuff from his system. He clearly did a lot of thinking about the fluff, for example I really like his explanation why 'runners don't just commit bank fraud if it's so quick, cheap, and easy, to get a new SIN. In a game where you have an end result in mind (shadowrunners exist and run around doing this cool stuff) and you build reverse-create world fluff to support that end result, you sometimes (if not often) get weird inconsistencies when you "forward-create" the world from the fluff. Frank is really good at catching those things, but I'm nowhere near a "simulationist" (one of the dirtiest words in RPGs IMO) that any of that stuff bothers me. I simply say, "There must be a reason people don't do X" and move on.

On the positive angle of Frank's rules, I like the speed of resolution. The rules do get things done quickly, once you are familiar enough with them. That said, there is a "slippery slope" when designing rules for speed: characters can feel their talents marginalized, and be less inclined to play the archetype (and thus use the rules) when they don't feel they get sufficient spotlight time. Imagine all of gun combat slapped down to 1 roll (or 1 opposed roll):
PC: "This is going to be great, I'm totally going to waste those corp guards!"
GM: "Roll your Kill Things With Guns pool."
PC: "18 dice, I get 5 hits!"
GM: "Great, they're all dead. Moving on..."

The same danger exist in over-simplifying Matrix rules. If the Hacker gets all jacked up to do something cool and it comes down to 1 roll and done, then they're going to feel disappointed. The tricky line to walk, then, is to make the basic components of the sub-system simple but still allow those components to be assembled in such a way as to create interesting and exciting situations.

OTOH, there are many things I did not agree with in his rules. Frank made a huge stink about encryption with his rules but then (IMO) proceeded to make an equally ridiculous situation (from a real world physics standpoint) with his high-density signal stuff and powering circuits at ranges up to Line of Sight. I mean, people complain that Matrix security in the current rules is so weak that its better to "opt out" now we have a situation where electronics are not even safe if they are off. The idea that IC's can be powered at range "unwillingly" (when they are not designed to do so) is utter lunacy. Ohm's Law says that the amount of power required to do such a thing would result in lightning bolts arcing through the area from the source of the power (which is a person's brain) to the target, frying everything in between on the way. All of this ignores the fact that IC's in shadowrun are described to be optically based (that's why it's Mega Pulses) which means they are probably designed to respond to EM radiation in the visible spectrum, which is (naturally) blocked by any material that is opaque, the circuits would literally not care if they were bombarded with tons of wattage from EM radiation in a different spectrum, they are designed not to look for those signals. Granted, those circuits must use some sort of standard EM antenna in order to send and receive signals, which are then probably translated into visible spectrum signals (this is exactly how wireless signals get translated and sent via fiber optic lines currently) but Frank's rules weren't just talking about circuits running that have an antenna set to receive wireless signals, they were also talking about circuits that had no antenna and were not wireless enabled, or were turned off.

The other problem with the "high density signal" argument is that it's nascent building block contains a logical fallacy. To summarize Frank's logic: datajacks and trodes "just send signals" to the brain, signals can be sent to wirelessly to datajacks and trodes, therefore datajacks and trodes are not strictly necessary. This is a leap in logic that misses a very crucial point. Even though datajacks and trodes are described as simple devices that "just send signals" they likely perform one service that is considered "common" and taken for granted but still extremely necessary: digital to analog conversion.

A fundamental concept that must be understood in signal transmission engineering is that the human body is an analog device. A human is completely incapable of interpreting a completely digital signal, therefore somewhere along the way a digital signal must be translated into an analog one. In the "good old days" of early electronic engineering, all devices simply transmitted analog signals all along the way and no conversions were done. Nowadays, signals are almost always transformed into digital form (a string of "pure data" that represents the signal) to be transmitted, and then converted back to analog for transmission to the user: be that a computer that puts things into text, or image, or something like an amplifier and diaphragm that generates sound that a human can hear. There is a very good reason signals are translated digitally now: noise. "Noise" in an engineering sense is the random EM pulses that just "exist" in our world, be they from solar radiation, or man-made like shunting power through metal wires. All of that gives off bursts of EM radiation: sometimes big, sometimes small. Analog signals, are highly susceptible to noise because at any point in time the signal has a nearly infinite number of valid states: it could be valid for the signal to be at +0.6V or +3.7V or whatever. EM radiation will randomly change the value of an analog signal at any given moment in time, and it is very difficult to detect if any given point of an analog signal is legitimate or has been altered by noise. Digital is much easier because there only are two states: off and on. This allows signal recreation and retransmission with almost perfect accuracy, the retransmitter (or receiver) simply looks at the signal and sees if it is "closer" to off or on and says, "Ah, this must have been a 1 or 0" then sets the signal as such. Only when EM noise alters the signal intensity by greater than half the spread between "off" and "on" does the potential for misinterpretation (a "bit error") occur. By setting the signal intensity sufficiently high enough above the "noise floor" bit errors can be greatly, greatly, reduced (in the order of 1 in 10,000,000 bits or so).

What does all that have to do with Shadowrun? Answer: signal integrity. It's bad enough to get some information wrong due to signal transmission errors when you're talking about documents, or speech, or whatever, imagine how important signal integrity becomes when we're talking about brain signals. One random burst of solar radiation and that "happy" emotion signal can become "searing leg pain" or worse. Franks rules describe a situation where one does not need any electronic equipment in order to "experience" the Matrix: it is simply "beamed into your brain." Given then above mentioned constant that the human is an analog device this means that in Franks rules the Matrix is transmitted as analog signals. In a world a permeated with electronics as SR, the amount of environmental EM noise would be extremely substantial, meaning that transmitting information as vital as "brain thoughts" via analog signals is utter lunacy.

Matrix signals being as important as they are must be transmitted digitally in order to maintain any hope of signal integrity (and we are talking about people's brains here, not just their letter to grandma). Therefore, in order for a human to interpret Matrix signals a device must be employed that translates the digital signals of the Matrix into analog human signals: ergo a commlink. It also makes sense to me (from an engineering standpoint) that a further secondary set of checks would be made on any data that is going directly into the brain, so the employment of a secondary device that is dedicated to handling the very sensitive and specific task of brain information transmission makes perfect sense to me.

Malachi
B. A. Sc. Electronic System Engineering

And that my friends means the word is WORD!

Well said.

I was waiting for someone like Malachi to explain that. I know just enough about that topic to know it's an issue, but not enough to sound credible while explaining it!

In addition to digital-to-analog conversion, the sim module/commlink is also likely unpacking the compressed digital signal. I mentioned this in the Simsense section of Unwired: raw ASIST is a massive amount of information and what is flying through the air is compressed and encoded in particular ways to make the amount of data smaller.

Indeed, impressive.

Maybe it's because i am not a B. A. Sc. Electronic System Engineering, but why are brains analogue devices?
Neurons have either fire or don't fire right? That sounds pretty digital to me. Yes or No, One or Zero. On or Off.
Also, let me point to Technomancers. if their brains are analogue and thus incompatible, why do they work?