Facrissake. You both lose. Those fonts are awful, and so is whiny slapfight threadjacking.

It seems like a lot of the 'problem' is that people like Tymeaus think it's somehow unfair for a hacker to have low Logic, that they're cheating at life or something. I think that instead of 'encouraging' people to raise their Logic, it will only mean a *lot* more hack-a-boxes. Agents fighting agents is my definition of *less* fun.

It seems part of the problem (discussion?) is about what it takes to be a "good" hacker, whatever that means. IRL or in SR ? Probably they don't match up, even though the rules of SR Matrix stuff sorta tries to imitate RL stuff.

I think that option #1 is good - it encourages "investment", in a variety of ways. High logic, high skill, high program rating. You don't have to invest in all 3 to be good. But if you do invest in all 3, you'll come out ahead of everyone else.

The only downside I can see to this is that there will be people who don't like that they might not be able to have an uber-hacker right from the start.

It's nice, but it's not a strawman - you are advocating socially unacceptable behaviour on the base of it "doing no real harm". It's not any different than advocating public nudity, defecation, playing loud music in the night, and what have you.

Yes, of course, I am exaggerating a bit. Surely you've heard the word "hyperbole" before. You can stop the fit now.

Google is your friend. In top 5 for me, but the results are country-dependent.
Btw, doing some research before asking is a part of netiquette, as well.

Its also part of netiquette to not hijack a thread on completely off-topic comments. If you guys really want to talk about font selection and readablility, why don't you start your own thread and discuss it there. It really sucks the value out of this rather informative discussion by having all this off-topic stuff littering the place...

And yet, that is not what happened at our table. Hackers actually upped their Logic Attrributes, while Script Kiddies use agents. At which point, you have a good delineation of who is a professional HACKER, and who is a poser. Yes, I know, Anecdotal, but true nonetheless...

My table had the same experience as Tymeaus's. Dedicated hackers focused on getting there Logic up, in the same way a gun bunny focused on getting their Agility up.

Now, anyone in the group could still hack. Getting a decent skill (even with low logic) and programs. Plus, they could always invest in an agent. No one at my table seemed to be bothered by that and frankly, no one else wanted to play hacker, so it played out fine. What I found, was that my hacker player felt better about his role, since he could work toward getting better.

I do understand, in a different campaign, how the core rules would work, with the flavor being its all about the gear. Get some high rated programs and careless about attributes and invest low in skills. That works too, if that's the flavor you are going for.

For the millionth time, Tymeaus, your table is never a valid source of even anecdotal evidence.

deek, I agree the the ORAW doesn't make hacking impossible. However, skills (and attributes) are a hell of a lot harder to get than programs. To be any good, you have to plan from chargen. That's fine, but it also removes an option.

I disagree... But then, what else is new... Besides, Deek uses the same ideas at his table as we do, so our table is obviously not as unique in that regard as you are implying.

If you are a Dedicated Hacker, it does not happen overnight, so yes, you have to plan for it. Using Option 1 enforces that paradigm, rather than someone, on a whim, deciding that they want to be equal to Fasatjack in Hacking prowess, which is what the game base rules allow...

Next people will be complaining about color.

Fatum, do not make trolling flame bait posts.

Tanegar, do not feed the troll.

That not quite true: RAW already has Skill as half the DP. You *can* buy great programs (and the node to run them on, both pretty expensive if you branch out at all), bringing your DP to 6 or 7. You can invest (heavily) in 'ware that boosts, again really expensive. You still need to invest tons of karma in your Computer and Hacking skills, plus specializations for that extra nudge. You're overstating the problem in your favor.

I understand that we've been talking about two different views: yours is 'hackers are special like mages' and mine is 'anyone can and should hack'. Still, let's be realistic with the comparisons. RAW: must invest in skill (karma), and programs (cash); ORAW: must invest in skill (karma), stat (karma), and honestly much *less* in programs (much less cash). *shrug* If you want to invest tons of karma, less cash, and be *very* special, just be a technomancer.

Once again I find myself totally in agreement with Yerameyahu. Must be something wrong with me.

Well, true, that, but it's not the first time OP's using that goddamn font, and it's getting really tiring.


At least color doesn't bring tears to the readers' eyes.
Also, how is a legitimate complain trolling? Or is everything ever that's not fuzzy-warm-cheers trolling?

Two Different Things in my opinion. I prefer the flavor that Hackers are indeed Specialists (Like Deckers were before them). Script Kiddies can get by with an agent, a few programs and low logic and skill. This is as it should be. Those who want to hack as a sideline can have average stats, average equipment and average programs, for average results. 3 Different Results for the realm of Hacking. Or you can be truly one with the Machine (for a 4th option) and be a Technomancer.

I like the tradeoffs of Option 1, MUCH more than the Basic Rules. With the Basic Rules, all you need is skill and equipment, and Stat does not even figure into the equation. It is this paradigm that I think breeds similarity in characters. Now, Logic has absolutely no bearing on how good you can be, which results in everyone throwing 10-12 Dice (or possibly even more) with unlimited hit potential. Using that paradigm, no one has programs rated any less than 6, because why would you? This scenario is unacceptable to me.

Of course, all three options will work. It just forces the GM/Players to choose which flavor of Hacking that they want.

Anyone can hack in Sr. That is true. I think anyone should be able, maybe not /hack/ but use computers with certain competence, beyond teh defaulting and using high rating programs. Actually it can add a lot of flavor for a non-hacker to be able to take care of some background processes that makes the rigger and hacker's commlinks too cluttered with stuff (How about someone in the team taking care of communications? Jamming?).

Now, being a /great/ hacker is something that does demand a lot, and weakens them. Hence the concept of combat hacker is one that balances it out, just like the combat mage, who balances physical and magical support. Then again there are the specialists, Astral elven mages with charisma to boot and astral combat who, or hackers with tons of gear towards programming and hacking with lots of dice.

These are all valid concepts. Now I do like the idea of using attribute+skill capped at program rating, because in makes the rules go more in line with the rest of the system. But I think the problem underlying in the discussion is: How do you like your hacker? And that, like meat, depends on the customer.

I share your pain Fatum (I cannot read the font either), and find it sad that the OP is causing problems,

Playing with fonts is about like using bad grammer. Some people don't care. Some people really care and are offended by it. I find it sad that the OP doesn't mind offending people. However we are here to argue about rules, not fonts Lets keep the discussion on fonts

I'm all for the theory of capped hits as a means to add an additional axis to a series of rolls, as a way of incorporating some third thing (be it an attribute, a skill, a spell's force, or a piece of gear) that should influence a roll. Ultimately it's an attempt to influence the core SR4 mechanic, which is otherwise entirely just "add or remove dice," and the only other way to incorporate that third thing might, otherwise, be to roll skill + stat + [program rating as direct die pool modifier], or something like that...which could get pretty crazy, pretty fast.

In theory, capping hits based on a program rating, an attribute, or a spell's Force is all fine and dandy.

In practice, however? It kind of robs players of the fun of just slinging their dice around and sometimes getting lucky and feeling awesome. I wish there was a happy middle ground where you could still make that third whatever it is matter (be it gear, attribute, or skill, whatever is currently getting ignored based on the series of rolls in question), without making it matter by robbing players of the thrill of a good die roll.

If it has to happen -- a cap on hits is inevitable -- I, personally, would rather see the cap based on the program used, if only because it hits home that sometimes the user is better than his gear.


For someone so obsessed with "netiquette," it seems kind of funny that you're going to bicker with a mod in a thread you've been repeatedly asked to stop derailing.

You do realize that the OP has been using that font for what... going on 4 or 5 years now... You are the first I have seen complain about it.

As to the real topic...
I am more in favor of Attributes + Skills (max hits = Program) like the magic system. For basically all the reasons others are in favor of it. I also dislike game systems that change the rules for similar situations. It is much easier to teach the game when you can say, "Here are the 3 rules you need to know... Attribute + Skill (+ bonuses) to do something, Attribute + Skill (+ bonuses) to defend against something and Attribute (+ bonuses) to resist something..." When you change things half way through or introduce situational rules (essence and healing but not direct combat spells I am looking at you) adds a level of complexity that is unnecessary and completely avoidable.

The only problem with capping at the program rating (or anywhere, really) is that the likelihood of actually passing the hit cap in most circumstances is extremely low.

At 20 dice, a rating 6 program will just be limiting enough to cap you over half the time. At 18 dice it will cap just over a third of the time. At 16 dice it'll cap just over a quarter of the time. At 13 dice it's 1 in 10. By the time you get down to 10 dice, it's less than 2%. However even with a lesser program rating, there's not a huge incentive to care about upgrades. At 12 dice, you're still only passing a rating 4 program's hit cap a third of the time.



So here's what I'd propose:

When hacking, use Log + Skill (depending on the action). Then, treat Program Ratings like Reach in melee combat. On an Opposed Test, the person with the higher relevant program rating gets a bonus (or can impose a penalty) equal to the difference between the two programs. Decrypt opposes Encrypt, for example, and Analyze opposes Stealth.

When faced with a task that has no opposing program, compare against the Firewall rating of the node. Hacking/probing a target, crashing a program/OS, Editing a camera feed, and so on. Remember that an agent's Firewall rating = its Pilot rating.

Programs like Attack, Black Hammer and Blackout, ECCM, Biofeedback Filters, and Armor usually have some sort of static effect that increases with program rating. Attack does more damage, ECCM reduces jamming, et cetera. These don't need to be worried with. Likewise in cybercombat, use Log + Cybercombat, and don't apply extra bonuses for having higher Attack/Armor ratings. The benefit from having higher ratings in these programs is obvious by doing more damage / reducing more damage.

I'm not sure what direction I'd go with certain Browse/Sniffer/Scan actions..

Right. Which means it either does nothing, or it robs a player of a good/lucky/awesome/fun roll. Which is basically what I was trying to say (but might not've been clear about).

A little off topic here, but here's a question. I have a cyber commlink for my Chaos Mage and I put on it a Rating 3 agent, but I also bought Firewall 6. The Agent doesn't go out to do anything. It's (in my mind anyway) designed as ICE to protect my sorry hoop when the fecal matter hits the rotary air circulator. Does the the bad guy have to get past Firewall 6 or Firewall 3?

Firewall 6... Agents do not possess a Firewall Rating, they use the rating of the system they are on.

Oh, ye ghads. You are one of those tools who took [edit: just enough / precious little] Philosophy and/or Logic classes [edit: to be annoying as hell] in their Undergrad and feels like that entitles them to something!

Ad hominem or not, you are douche-tastic, ad nauseum.

I have house ruled capping hits by skill for most every test and, while it rarely comes up, it does have the intended effect of pushing players towards skills and away from too-many-toys syndromes.

Your ideas for using a Reach style mechanic by comparing program ratings is actually pretty boss. I always found the act of using Program + Hardware ratings for hacking tests a little absurd. I had thought hackers should be super smart... but in SR they can be drooling idiots with a whiz deck and trounce most rating 3 or 4 nodes. Sad Panda.

By comparing programs, you can make program ratings a real bottleneck for hacking larger systems. Further, you can make program degredation / upgrading a real thing. You don't want to let your Rating 6 Exploit drop to Rating 5, because then you will lose your edge against the nova-hot nodes you try and tango with.

Very, very sexy.

From p227 SR4 (I know, I don't have SR4A..), "Agents have their own built-in Firewall attribute, equal to their Pilot rating. Agents use the Response attribute of whatever node they are run on; this means that the attributes of an agent operating independently may vary as it moves from node to node."

For too-many-toys, I prefer capping the +DP instead of the hits. This mechanic does minimally exist in SR4 (yet *another* separate mechanic, heh).

In response to Critias's point of caps robbing the player of getting lucky, I'm of the idea that that is what Edge is for. You can choose before the roll to add edge and ignore any caps, thus giving you that "luck" back.

That's making your own luck. And it means you have to invest in Edge just to do what you used to.

*ding!*

How about capping hits at program rating x2 or program rating + System?

I don't see complaints about a rating 5 program being capped at "only" 10 hits, but I do like the idea of keeping rating 1 and 2 progs as bare-bones utilities that may work, but not work very well - inherently limited by their nature.

That works better than the more general 2xSkill cap that Inncubi uses, because there's no defaulting for programs (no program, no dice). A minimum cap of 2 hits seems twice as reasonable, and it quickly becomes high enough not to matter. The Logic fetishists are happy because Logic is still half the DP. Does it make high-rating programs (and the cash they cost) unnecessary, though?

Program + System works about as well, but it's more open to 'abuse' at the low end, and it's slightly more complex; I'd say the first suggestion wins.

It still doesn't address the (my?) more general concerns about Logic-basing, but there's nothing wrong with partial solutions.

Thanks for the feedback. I was primarily thinking about hackers rather than TMs for the use of System as part of the cap as you need good gear as well as good programs. Regarding high-end programs, I would submit that while the cap isn't going to be the driving factor, when you consider program rating as base DV or threshold, it's always worth going for one higher. Should the use of Edge override the cap?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that given the state of computing in the 70s, Logic is one of the factors that helps separate the great from the good. Computers and computing has become so pervasive, it's hard for most city-dwellers to conceive how things could be any different. It's the world they've grown up in. Based on my logic, I would argue that Logic is as essential to a good hacker as Agility is for an athlete.

Good point about program Rating actually having Rating-based effects. I'd forgotten about that. There are several things for which that's not true, of course, but it certainly matters for Stealth, etc.

AFAIK, the actual fluff is that the state of computing in 2070s is precisely that brains (Logic) are too slow to matter, which is why programs are the DP. Doesn't mean you can't invent fluff; by definition, fluff doesn't matter.

Wasn't there a line from the books that said the best hackers write their own programs? Makes it look like really good hackers know the limitations of their tools and write their own to overcome. From that perspective, it seems it's more talent over warez, but the talent makes it's own warez to get that additional edge.

Yeah, it was a story with Slamm-0 complaining about having to give up one of his custom programs to a sharing site to get what he needed for a specific 'Run, IIRC.

If brains are too slow to react directly, wouldn't that make hacking and other opposed Matrix tests into more of a chess game where both players are trying to out-smart their opponents by planning six steps ahead?

I dig what you say though. Lets see what programs have direct effects based on rating.

...

Reality Filter is a system versus system test, program and hardware ratings are the only things counted.

Armour protects equal to its rating, as do BFF.

Attack, Black Hammer, Blackout, Data Bomb base their DV on their rating.

ECCM is a straight add to Signal against ECM, or rather, a reduction of ECM effects.

Stealth uses the rating as a threshold and as a DP modifier against Tracking.

Common use programs are barely affected. It fits the notion that a regular user will just play with Windows Movie Maker rather than invest in Sony Vegas Pro, to use video editing as an example. Cybercombat demands the best ratings, as does Stealth. Seems like hackers will go for the good stuff.

So, from
#1) Use [Stat + Skill] Cap Hits @ Program RTG (like spell force).

#2) Use [Program RTG + Skill] Cap Hits @ Stat

I was thinking [Stat + Skill], cap @ 2x program rating. Then I saw the bit about comparing program ratings and applying the difference as Reach. Now I have something else to ponder.

Essentially, my quandary comes down to this: I like the idea of moving Hacking away from skill plus software, but without removing the role of software entirely. I dig the idea of success caps, because there's really only so much you can do with inferior gear. Just to give a out of Matrix example, the best driver in the world on a Dodge Scoot won't outrun a Suzuki Mirage in a flat race.

Grr.

RAW is fine, but I like the idea of tweaking it. I want it to be cool, thematically appropriate, i.e. in line with other similar success test mechanics, simple, and yielding predictable results.

Has Kerenshara gotten back to see what she's done yet?

EDIT: Yes, Slamm-O swaps a home-coded Black "Slugger" for a cracked S-K Stealth program to sneak into an AZT system. Under either tweak we choose to use, the trade makes sense for a quiet op.

Another option is the Stat+Skill+Gear model, which just means DP inflation. As long as it's for everyone, that's not a huge problem. Something to consider, I'm sure it was mentioned above.

Yeah, it is making your own luck (going back to the Edge suggestion I made). I was just wanting to show it was still possible to beat the caps if you wanted to use the option to limit hits by rating.

And along those lines, I did also add positive qualities for players to boost their own cap. But like I said, at my table, no one had any issue with the cap limits I put in place and rarely lost dice due to them, therefore not needing to increase the cap. But, I did give them an option, if needed.

I think the main point here, is that there are a lot of different options and they are all valid for the type of feel you want to bring to your table, in regards to matrix play. From what I am seeing you have:

1) Use core rules, if you want everyone to hack well
2) Cap hits by either Attribute or Program Rating, if you want players to invest more in their attributes and/or make lower rated programs viable
3) Add Stat + Skill + Gear to give each equal meaning

IIRC in the SR4A book, it mentions similarly that the reason RAW doesn't use Logic is because the technology is so much faster and easier to use that one's owm logic doesn't have time to impact the outcome. THis gets back to the Logic being used for creating custom programs--rather than the actual use of said program.

Yup, I think the reasons why the core is the way it is, is pretty well documented and those that like that flavor in their games can roll with it. For others that don't subscribe to that same flavor, there are several other options that a viable.

I think the first thing a table should do before making any changes to their matrix tests, is discuss how they want the matrix flavor to be. And once that is decided, then they can bring in the model that best works.

QFT. There is wisdom here.

The problem with Custom Programs, is that. There's no bonus for a custom program. Why does Slamm-O need to go out an trade for a S-K Stealth program, doesn't he already have a rating 6 stealth program?
What's so special about his Black IC bat?

It's just fluff, most likely, but it could also be that they really are different. Presumably, they have different Options installed.

Yeah, need to create more options.

Actually… that's a great point. What if the distinguishing role of programs *was* just the Options (for one flavor of Matrix rules)? They're limited (in quantity) by Rating, which is a start. Under RAW, I think the most common Options are probably Optimized and Ergonomic, but that would change under the ORAW (Logic, Program Cap) version. I don't think many of the Options are compelling enough to be a balance source as-is, but it's a thought.

Mute starts to look nice
Optimized looks worthless for the most part. (You're never running in less than a 6 Response unless you suck). Although, if you start having response degrading lower your system rating, then all of a sudden, Optimized looks better.
Crashguard is only good if you get into a lot of cybercombat
Viral Resistance requires your DM to actually use that stuff.
Area/Armor Piercing/Rust/Shredder/Targeting are all of dubious use as they are for cybercombat only.

We need more options that give concret bonuses in certain situations, or remove negatives in certain situations.

exploit program that's Ergonomic, mute, sleazy.
Where sleazy is an option that reduces the interval for slow hacking by 1/2, or gives a +2 bonus to slow hacking tests, or any number of options.

Yeah, I think that if you want to make Programs improtant in a stat+skill max hits = program rating or ratingx2 you want more options.

Wow.

Thanks to everybody who contributed to the discussion. Sorry I took so long to come back to the mess I started, but I was out on disability again and ... well, steroids and narcotics make things like being able to focus on an interesting discussion and consider the arguments fairly pretty rough.

1st: I wasn't so much asking IF I should cap hits as much as seeking thoughts on which limit was better/fit the flavor I was going for. It seems the overwhelming majority of people like my first impulse, so I am quite relieved.

2nd: My table(s) always - ALWAYS! - play with the skill based hit caps, Skill+Stat DP mod caps, AND the 20 dice max on skill tests except when using Edge. How often do we hit those caps? Not that often, because people design their characters around the ideas. It also means we can hand-wave a lot of incidental die rolls because some people couldn't really compete against a pro. Of course, I also like comparing naked skill to thresholds and if the target's lower than the skill and the check is routine (read: not exciting to the scene) I just assume the player gets what they want/need. A decker with both groups (Electronics and Cracking) at 4 should be able to best most non-military/banking/secrity systems with ease.

3rd: The idea of a "reach" style mechanic is in fact brilliant IMHO, but I don't want to use program rating there. How about, instead, using the Response of the equipment? That way, a drek-hot deck (sorry, 'link makes me think of Jimmy Dean) gives an edge, but doesn't LIMIT the decker in any fashion... it's only really relevant when going head-to-head. Ideas on that possibility?

4th: I Grok the discussion about programs and ware being faster than meat. But my favorite author (David Weber in the book "Honor of the Queen") talks about where the human comes into a near-AI digital battlefield when comparing the relative quality levels of the crews of HMS Fearless and MSN Thunder of God. He suggests that the computers process everything but report back a list of options for the operator to select from based on experience, goals and intuition. So that's why skill comes into it at all, really. And the ability to implement a skill is tied to your native talent (read: Attribute).

Now, with THAT in mind, her's another Kerenshara pattented monkey wrench for you folks:

Mix it up even more by making the linked stat in CYBERCOMBAT Intuition instead of Logic. After all, you're having to make snap decisions and take stock of the situation almost by gestalt because you ARE moving at the speed of thought. Use Logic for slow hacks and all the other things deckers do outside combat where the ability to analyze in detail is much more important. It helps make cybercombat feel like a virtual gunfight/swordfight than a chess match.

Thoughts on that part or my alternate "Reach" idea?

-Kerenshara

In another thread just earlier today, the idea came up to use Logic as Cybercombat's to-hit attribute and Intuition as the second Defense attribute (instead of Firewall, since Firewall gets its turn in damage resistance tests), making the attack roll Logic + Cybercombat, and the Defense roll Response + Intuition.

At least I think that it suits the system using the Mental attributes as analogues to the Physical attributes, where Logic ~ Agility / Intuition ~ Reaction. Other opinions may vary.

Except then you need Edge on top of everything else to be a good decker, instead of just being a good idea.

As far as the OT goes, there was a point where I was learning to hack wireless networks. This is perfectly legal to do, especially since it's the best way to test your own security. With the right program, I could set up the attack in about ten minutes. Using the advanced program, I could do it with a few clicks. I could crack certain networks in less than 30 minutes, with minimal training and skill.

Now, I'd be considered computer illiterate nowadays. The only programming language I can use is C64 BASIC, I can't even figure out Acrobat or Photoshop, and I don't even know what a spreadsheet is. But I can hack a wireless network with the right programs, and pull off the occasional nifty trick here and there with the right support. So, yeah, high Program values are the secret, mush more than high skill.

Ah, but any competent Blackhat or Whitehat will tell you that WiFi networks are the next best thing to unsecure. The locks are equivalent to the locks on your car or house: they only keep the honest people honest. Anybody who knows what they're doing who puts the effort into it will get in. In SR4X terms, the Firewall rating of the ubiquitous OTS (Off The Shelf) router is a 1 - pathetic even in it's own time.

Please, no, not again. *Goes back to my corner, crying and rocking back and forth*

That's not necessarily true. Some security protocols are much more secure than others. And even then, you're missing the point. Someone with no skill and the right programs can legally hack a wifi network, while someone with high skills and no programs cannot.