I've noticed a lot of noise made about clustering cyberware to allow for greater processing power and persona limits. This is especially tumultuous when dealing with deltaware as it has a device rating of 6. However, even alphaware and it's DV of 4 seems a little heavy for some.
I've always viewed Device Ratings as less of a hard and fast rule and more of a short cut for lazy GMs like me who don't want to give every piece of hardware full ratings when the team rigger invariably tries to spoof a command to some irrelevant NPC's earbuds.

The way I've come to see it is that, in my game, if a PC is clustering a piece of cyberware, or anything for that matter, that piece of ware no longer "plays a passing role" as it's stats will now be used for hacking, counter hacking and Matrix combat; a significant theatre of play.
I therefore ruled that when one clusters cyberware, that cyberware now "plays an important part in the adventure" and is subject to the game master(me) assigning a full compliment of Matrix attributes to it.
I think it's safe to presume that cyberware is a peripheral node as it it neither a nexi nor a standard node. Using the sample peripheral nodes from Unwired, I usually rule that the cyberware has a Response of 2, a Signal of 1 and a System & Firewall of 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 for second hand, basic, alpha, beta and deltaware, respectively.
I find this reasonable as peripheral devices' System and programs aren't limited by their Response and the fact that some cyberware is much cheaper than Response it would have were I to use it's device rating.

My question is: Does this seem reasonable or is this a Draconic GM fiat?

Seems reasonable to me.

Ack, I can't get into this again.

Yes, Device Rating is only for shorthand/time-saving when the GM needs to pull numbers from hammerspace.

Yes, 'ware (if it has electronics at all) is 100% Peripheral nodes… except the implanted comm, heh.

Those look like good Matrix Attributes to me.

Because I can't resist: clustering *should* disable innate functions, because the devices are wholly subsumed into the new *single* node. Hmf.

--
… A nexus, two nexi!

That sounds rational. What if I were to say innate functions take up a processing slot?

Stop, you're dragging me back in! That was indeed one of the suggestions that came up once, but honestly the penalties for processor capacity use are so slight… It's worth exploring, anyway.

I think they should have just had clustering do two things:

1) use the average attributes for all clustered devices and combine them into a single pseudo-device. So if you've got several pieces of deltaware chained together you get a single R6 device.

2) Require a minimum of rating x 2 devices to create the cluster. So if you want an R6 device from a bunch of deltaware, you'll need 12 implants (all delta).

Combine that with a more comprehensive peripheral devices table and you've got a system that lets people have no commlink but still have a node, while not being so powerful that 12 toasters and a microwave can rule the world.

That's probably got a few holes and needs some work, but you'll have to forgive me as I put it together in the time it took to write this post.

why would you want more persona limits?

Persona Limits are only for limiting the number of people accessing the Matrix VIA the commlink directly. It's a limit on the number of people wired directly into the commlink. It has nothing to do with the number of people who can be logged into it remotely, or have subscriptions.

Persona Limits are a stupid, worthless stat, that's not even worth worrying about.
It's like limiting the number of people who can sit at the keyboard and access the system, but not caring how many people remote in.

Which is actually a really good analogy.

It is also presumably much more difficult to generate an entire persona, than to simply receive data from said persona. It's kind of like an online game. It takes a large portion of your computer to run the game, but a small fraction of it to accept the info from other people's computers about what they are doing in the game.

So, I can see the reason for the limit, I just don't see the limit being... particularly limiting since it will be fairly rare to want to have more than one persona generated on a device.

How many people are you going to let sit at your arm, to connect to the internet

RAID-Infinite Clustered RFID Tags hooked up to a few Nexi and a really big Jackpoint Pipeline?

A higher persona limit lets other folks on the team use your commlink stats if they have crappy commlinks.
Not the best reason in the world, but there it is.

Lots of old Cyberdeck Cases out there that can have their guts ripped out and a cluster of CommLink guts installed to give you as much power as you'd need.

Right Bull?

Except that each persona, and each program they run counts against your response.
So much cheaper to buy them a real Commlink. But then, why do they need that commlink?


Do you really want to be red-lining the response on your cyberleg? Does that sounds like a good idea
As a GM, I'd be just waiting for you to do that so I could mess up your cyber.

At which point, if that is your intent, you should be using a Nexus anyways. That is what My character does...

I think I'd only do such a thing if I were storing data I wanted safer than on my street sammy or mage's commlink. Or for data searching simultaneously. Like I said, not the best idea in the world.

The issue most folk have with clustering cyberware is that you can get a Response of 6 with a cheap deltaware implant(like 3k for a Single Cybereye) and cluster that with the idea that since deltawaer has a Device Rating of 6, all it's stats are 6.
This way hackers and the like won't cluster other commlinks, but rather buy a bunch of cybereyes, keep them in their pockets and get the increased processor limit for cheap.
I maintain that once you do that, the device graduates from device rating to peripheral node the GM sets stats for.

I wanted to know people's opinions on this. I like to be as fair as possible and wanted to get other folk's opinions on whether this is too heavy handed.

Well, after all, peripheral nodes always come with a few disadvantages:
They only have admin accounts and to hack this specific account, a hacker does not get a -6 penalty.
From that account you have access to every other function of the node, so the hacker would end up controlling the clustered cyberware. Redlining a cyberarm will bring down everyone way fast, as an example. Switching off cybereyes is nasty, too. Once you got access to one node in the cluster, you control all of them.
Nexus (plural, really!) may gain benefits from modifications and plug-ins; it's not so clear whether clusters do as well. So it's essentially a cheaper, less powerful configuration.

In Shadowrun the plural is Nexi. The vernacular probably changed over the next 60 years.

You'd do well as a time traveler it seems

Well, I did give some blonde British girl a shirt from Witchita Falls, TX. Her skinny friend in the Converse was none too happy about it.

Ahhhhh... But were they Cute?

Upon clustering, they're not peripheral nodes any longer. They're one standard node.

Well, technically, the accounts themselves are to hack without penalty. It's just the case because they are from a peripheral node. And upon clustering, all accounts from before stay in place.


Ah, yes, I see. Well, I didn't gain much knowledge back in latin class in school, yet I thought I might put some of that to use. Well, my bad... Thanks anyway

Well, I keep watching Secret Diary of a Call Girl and my lady friend keeps watching Single Father, so on the whole I'd say yeah.

(The above was an obscure Dr. Who reference. Series 2, The Girl in the Fireplace. It's streaming on Netflix, so go watch it now. I'll wait...

Done? Wasn't that awesome! Steven Moffat is the man! While your at it, the run of Coupling, Jekyll and Sherlock are on there too. All good times!


This is true.

It should also be running a Medical OS, and programs that do what ever it is the cyberware does. Really, at my game, if someone tried to use implanted cyberware as part of a cluster, I would take him out back and beat him senseless.

I'll do you one better. Volatile Memory: Frag Grenade? Meet Smartlink mod. 70 nuyen meet bulk orders, and their friend, mister Cluster.

Even if they're using a cluster made out of hackware?
I mean, you need a sim unit to hot sim, why not cluster it?
You probably have a datajack to connect to your commlink, why not cluster it?
when you think about it, it makes sense to cluster your Math SPU in with the 'link actually decrypting the things the SPU help out on.

People make such a big deal out of clustering.

Seriously. Its a cloud computing toggle that can be setup in a single IP. And turned off. Its not a fantastic, permanent rearrangement of the item's base function. Its a simple 'are you idle? Yes? Okay, do something'in concert setting.
Think Seti@home, run locally.

Hacker: Man, my head is killing me.
Rigger: Dude. The thermoscopic vision has ware in your head cooking itself! What did you do?
Hacker: Oh. I clustered everything. I figured it out to run at full power 24/7. Simple software solution.
Rigger: But the hardware wasn't designed to handle running 24/7! You're gonna BBQ your brain! Turn that drek off!

This is different than cyberware running 24/7 already..... how, exactly?

You presumably aren't overclocking it.

Come on, you know your hacker HAS to be Overclocking his Rig. Unless, of course, we're talking about some Skript Kiddie.

Rules for overclocking cyberware fall under Redlining, in augmentation.

No, this is more along the lines of using spare processor overhead - unwired(or is it aug) mentions that many users with smartlinks carry a backup copy of Command running in their smartlink(not commlink) just in case - just in concert with other nodes.

I feel you're talking about clustering in a modern sense of the word. What you're talking about isn't clustering in a game sense, it's networking. It's your PAN. Making all of those things talk to each other and communicate seamlessly is a good thing and that is what your PAN does.
Cloud computing is more like the botnet description.

Clustering, at least in terms of Shadowrun, is making all of those things into one node. The reason you don't want to do that are varied, but off the top of my head, it turns each node into a single Standard Node, rather than a peripheral one.
Now your smartgun, which you were running with a System of 3 could run on it's Response of 2 because it was a peripheral node. Now it can't because it's a standard node. Same thing goes for any number of peripheral nodes, most of which have a Response of 2.
So if you cluster a whole bunch of Response 2 nodes, enough to degrade the Response down to 2 then your smartgun no longer works because it can't run it's program. The Response that would have sufficed in it's peripheral node can't function when it is a standard node.

To put it another way, it's trying to put a round peg in a square hole. Does that make sense in game terms?

EDIT: For the record I'm still not on board with calling a datajack a separate node. It eats up a subscription with no benefit to the hacker and it opens the door to some schmuck claiming he can Spoof a biofeedback signal.

Not especially. Its small-scale cloud computing. Just because the large scale is effective doesn't mean the small scale isn't (Botnet bonuses for mass probing start at +1 per bot, so, like clustering, a handful is still worthwhile.)
As much as you might like to think that 'modern' 'networking' and 'shadowrun' don't go together, they do.
Frankly, its just just that nobody has a well developed habit of statting their pan connections and subscriptons. And, really, the PAN doesn't work like that. The PAN provides no game benefit. Its just a term for your own wi-fi.


If people DID have good pan-statting habits, you would see a whole lot more of small-scale 'networking' in your runners gear. A long time ago, there was a character post that actually broke down their PAN into Sub-Pans of stuff that tanked to each other, internal networks, a second wi-fi network not connected to the first - i really wish I had a link handy to use it as an example. If you actually take the time to list out your PAN connections, you're going to see a lot more use of 'networking' common sense. (cluster the internal cyberware, use signal removal and skinlinks to make gateway nodes, slave essential functions to non-gateway nodes, create sub-networks for things that don't need to talk to other networks. Stuff like that.)

Your point is based on a flawed example. Of course using hardware with bad stats isn't going to be effective. You're trying to make a cluster with what is, essentially, a rating 2 commlink, and then complaining about it being a round hole. If you're familiar with the matrix, you should already be used to programs having their ratings adjusted down if being run on lagg nodes: A high rating program being reduced in rating, or a roaming agent having its rating reduced by being loaded onto a sub-par node is no different than losing a point of System because its too high.
Commlinks already do this.
Its not an apples and oranges situation, its how it already works, and exactly like installing a rating 5 System on a Response 3 Device: Not hard to figure out. Because the rest of the matrix already works that way, and, as always, you get what you pay for.

So, would you say that statting cyberware the way I did in the original post is reasonable or unreasonable?
If unreasonable, how would you change it?

Which part? You want to replace the standard device rating rules with something more complex, and less abusable?

Device Ratings are just for things that only play a passing role in the game. For things that are important, like a PC's Matrix stats, the BBB says the GM should assign a full complement of Matrix attributes to it.

Since I, as the GM, have to give these things a full complement of Matrix stats, I deemed that cyberware should have a Response of 2(as per all peripheral nodes), a Signal of 1 and a System & Firewall equal to it's former device rating to represent it's increased capability.

Do you feel these stats are reasonable or unreasonable? How would you change them and why?

I think its within your purview to change something like that within your game. However, as a player, I would be most annoyed with an arbitrary nerf that wasn't at least discussed with the party.

I think its a decent idea, but could use better implementation. Here's a few things to think about.


Why are you changing it? What's the root cause you're hoping to fix?
a) Subscriptions suck/processor limits suck. These are inherent problems with the matrix system. Cyberware being cheaply abusable, however, is a concern


Getting a higher device rating is one of the main benefits of paying for a higher grade cyberware. If you remove that benefit, then you need to adjust things elsewhere. Therefore, I would make the following change.
1) At/before installation, cyberware can have its matrix stats increased per the usual table for the appropriate cost. In light of this chance, any hardware rating increases are not subject to the Higher Grade Price Multiplier. (You're removing the benefit of higher grades, and its unfair to make your players pay double/4x/10 as much for the same benefit. Instead, give them greater freedom to customize their matrix stats for an appropriate cost.)
a) Signal starts at 0 or Non. Good Wi-fi costs extra. (all wi-fi cyberware is ANNOYING to keep track off, and many players just turn it off anyway. This would now be formalized).
b) Response and System start at 2 or 3. (fuck peripheral node rules. Don't use them if you don't need to, which means don't bother giving one a higher system or whatever just because you can. In general, just keep them the same.)
c) Firewall. That honestly feels like an 'oops, I'm screwing up your clusters, but now you're less hackable). I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, its a nice freebie perk. On the other, there's absolutely no reason that better hardware would automatically merit a better firewall - thats the domain of Software.
d) Trade-up/upselling rules. If people want to bump their response up to the next on the table, let them pay the difference for the hardware chip instead of billing the whole cost. (would you like the better model for only x more?)
2) Later upgrades are covered under augs repairing/upgrading cyberware.
3) balance concerns. Per Arsenal, any smartgun is device rating 3. Adjust or fix these, or cross-check balance with it. Either way, its a potential issue that people will be going 'wait, why is this different' at.
4) Stat it up. Make test models/commlink/notes. Post results. Compare to current system. Decide if its sufficiently adjusted.

No, changing clustering rules is an attempt to patch a more deeper, annoying thing with the matrix. You need to do a comprehensive fix to actually get to the root of it. Do this in a few following ways: by combatting the need to have big clusters.

Remind your players that the Optimization and Ergonomic program options exist, and that they're made to be easily installable patches to existing programs, and that you don't HAVE to take week long tests to patch them in automatically. If your players are using stolen software, remind them that options are available from their warez groups/contacts.
Allow 'group' installations of Firewall(and possibly OS) programs. This is a flat out change. If a player buys a system or firewall, let have the license cover several devices at once as a more thurough, comprehensive security patch(it covers the commlink, and the datajack peripheral you use for it, and the sim unit peripheral you use for it.) If you're going to give out freebie firewall for good hardware(instead of software, which doesn't make sense), just go ahead and get rid of the whole 'you need 9 different copies for firewall 6 for 3000 nuyen to protect each device on our pan. Toss that right out. One firewall, one PAN.
Remind your players that, per the FAQ, Firewall isn't limited by System or Response.
Change Pirated Software Costs to 50% base initial buy, patches at 10% in order to head off System/Firewall/program abuse before it starts and your players try to figure out how to game your new system.


if you enjoy some variety, Stat up a list of random manufacturers. (ares, wuxing, evo, whatever) Pick 4. Give each manufacturer +1 to two matrix stats, on top of any other adjustments. Roll randomly when people get cyberware. Specific manufacturers and differences from the competitor are always interesting.

And thats mostly it. People can still indulge in cyberware clusters, but its going to cost about as much as using commlinks for it.


If you're going to fix an issue, fix it right, and make an attempt to fix root causes instead of just hotfixing the most common ways to combat said issue.

Not at all. At best, it's an accidental side effect. Higher grades are about Essence, and maybe beating assensing/scanners. Players are not legitimately buying high-grade cyber for the purpose of running programs on it. The proposed house rule preserves the sole acceptable reason (better defense from high System/Firewall). This is perfectly reasonable for better *products* to have (ignoring your false hardware/software dichotomy).

Unwired already explains that almost all cyberware is no-wifi, and any device can have wireless turned off. Not an issue.

If anything deserves to be a peripheral node, it's cyberware. It's something with Matrix presence, but *not* really for running programs.

Program Options must be purchased with the program, or patched on by long Software tests.

Not following the entire debate here, but I have to strongly back this one up regardless. When considering upgrading ware to higher grades, it has nothing at all to do with its new and improved matrix attributes.

And also...

That's just stupid. I'd happily grab all the ultra cheap delta ware I possibly could and not give a damn about the matrix stats thanks to a little thing called DNI.

[sarcasm]Also, while you're at it, you should remove the grade costs of bioware, since they also don't get you any benefit at all with higher grades. In fact, all bioware should be free since it has no device rating and is thus utterly worthless [/sarcasm]

Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it.
Here is some feedback on things you wanted clarified.

It's not a change. It's following the rules laid out for me by the description in the device rating paragraph. If a device is important, I have to stat it out. I can no more ignore this rule than any other. Device ratings were never meant to represent hard and fast stats, but as a tool for lazy GMs like me.
The root cause I'm hoping to fix is the cybereyes in the pocket exploit. Hackers can just buy a deltaware single cybereye for 3k(or less since they don't need it implanted), cluster it and get the benefits of clustering for a fourth of the price of getting a Response 6 commlink.
This isn't just a game balance issue, but an issue of mechanical disconnect. If Response is the pure horsepower of a device, without OS or anything else, why is a cybereye's Response 6 so much cheaper than a commlinks? Can I just rip out the cybereye's Response and put it in my commlink? Why would cyberware need a higher Response if, as a peripheral node, it can run it's System and Programs independently of it's Response? Why would a corp waste money on that?
All these questions and more were never meant to be asked because they weren't really supposed to come up. A device rating was never supposed to represent all the stats for everything, it was just supposed to be a ballpark number.


This seems more than fair. If the player wants to spend 11k to give a peripheral device an increased Response, that's a-okay by me. Gives my technomancer an excuse to use her Cybertechnology Skill.
I would say that if they want to increase the System or Firewall they have to buy(or more likely pirate) that separately rather than copy it from their commlink. Much like certain Pilot programs can't work certain drones or commlink Systems and Firewalls won't work on Nexi or my alarm clock can't run Vista.
Insert Vista joke here.

I'll let this be a player call. One of my players has some of his cyberware broadcasting at a Signal 3. It's too complex to get into, but changing a Signal Rating should be easy breezy.

Again, I can't pick and choose which rules I follow and which I don't. Otherwise I'm not impartial and the game means nothing. I only stray from RAW when I feel it breaks the universe(multiple IPs in AR.) Besides, the peripheral node rules suite me fine. I don't find them any more complex than the scatter rules or any of the million other things I need to keep track of.

This is where I like the cyberware grade = System & Firewall. The better the cyberware, the less hackable it is. If nothing else, they can always buy a better Firewall and install it before implantation.

Cool, but surgery will be needed and standard upgrading rules apply(no more than +2. Otherwise, replace the Response)

As per Unwired, smartguns are full Matrix statted. Done and done.

And that's my only big concern. Heck, I like the idea of a clustered cyberware node because once you hack the thing or spoof a good command, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down rather than removing it brick by brick.

What do others think of this ruling with the above implementations? Fair and reasonable or not? Tell me what you think and how you would improve it.

I think what Udoshi was suggesting was that the cost of upgrading the ware's Matrix stats not be doubles/x4/x10. He wasn't suggesting that the ware itself not do so.
Also, I'm no mod, but let's keep it civil. Folks are giving me good input and I appreciate all of it.

Hmm, I think you're right, he just said it very oddly by adding

If he did indeed just mean 'don't pay extra for response/signal increases based on grade' then I completely retract my statement and apologize.

An apology on the internet is like a hot, redheaded Scot in a time traveling blue box. A rare, splendid and beautiful thing. My hat off to you, sir!

Well, I'm not a redheaded Scot, but I am a blond German, does that count?

I'm quite amenable to the rule that cyberware is Peripheral with System/Firewall (that is, specifically hacking defenses) commensurate with grade.

Let's see. English, Scots, robots, Time Lords... nope, no Germans I can remember.
Feel free to look through here if you like.

Or you could translate SOX for me. That should at least earn you a trip to the moon and back.

One is running under normal load. The other is running at full power. Normal load might build up heat during times of heavy use, much like your body does, but then cools down and does self-maintainance, like the body does.

Or you can treat your cyberware like a Jazz addict treats his body. Your choice.

No, its not stupid, its entire intentional.

Whether you like it or not, higher basic device rating IS a perk you pay for with better grade cyber, in addition to the usual detectability(cyberware scanner table) and essence costs.

Now, under the old system, a Deltaware datajack costs 5000 nuyen. (500 x delta).
Under the proposed new system, a deltaware datajack costs 5000 nuyen, and has a response/system of, what, two? Say you want to increase that BACK to 6, which is where it would have been before. But its delta. So it costs 10 times as much.
Compared to the previous system, there's an 80,000 nuyen discrepancy (8000 for response 6 x 10 for delta)) between your proposed 'fix' system and the old one. Thats bad.
It gets worse if you want a Signal for it, too.

I am not proposing removing the cost adjustment for high grade ware.
I am, however, suggesting waiving it for the very specific purpose of the Hardware Upgrade table, on 4a 222, as it applies to upgrading the hardware based matrix stats of cyberware.
If you still want to use clustering, this puts it back into a reasonable price bracket thats balanced against commlink cost.

It sounds like you're fixing a problem that only exists in your mind. Who said that a response chip for deltaware costs 10x? (You.) I assume you got the idea from the general 'parts must match grade' rule, but that's not for electronics upgrades… cuz they don't have grades. A skinlink on deltaware doesn't cost 500¥ (admittedly, a pretty minor example).

It's not a question of like it or not. Device rating is not a primary (or even secondary) effect of higher-grade 'ware. You're not supposed to be running anything on it in the first place.

Yes, I did indeed misunderstand what you meant. I agree completely that the cost of upgrading the response/signal should not be multiplied by ten. Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

That said, I don't see much point in paying a bunch of money to upgrade your ware and put it in a cluster so that it is suddenly vulnerable to hacking, when it would cost, basically the exact same amount to just get another commlink with the proper ratings.