The passage we've been quoting back and forth says MSR or subscription. Anyone who wants can subscribe (on a Public account) to an Active node, so it's a non-issue and you really in practice just need any connection. A Passive/Hidden node will not give anyone who asks public accounts because you need an account to talk to it, so it's no longer a non-issue. You then either need MSR, or you need to get an account some other way first and then hack your way to the account you want.

That passage is totally generic, though, right, as regards device modes? It doesn't refer to Active or Passive or Hidden, only that in order to hack, you need MSR or subscription through the Matrix.


Okay, I'm with you so far. But how does having MSR help if the node is Passive or Hidden? In Passive mode, you'd have to poll the node, and then get approval from an admin [or, on a nexus, either poll the node and get approval, or have a pre-existing account]; MSR won't change that. In Hidden mode, you can't connect to the node at all, MSR or not, right? So where does MSR come in? [This all from p223, SR4a.]

Right, the passage is generic.

You can hack if you are in mutual signal range, or if you are subscribed. Ergo, you can hack passive devices if you are in mutual signal range. The only reason Passive nodes are harder to hack is that you cannot meet the "subscribed" option as easily, because they'll ignore requests for public accounts if you don't already have one.

First. The whole Device Mode rules are shit. Way too vague to use. Of very little value even if you wanted to.



Points of criticism:
1) The restrictions on accessing Passive devices aren't applied to Hidden devices. Presumably because of writer oversight. "No way" to see them wirelessly equates to 4-16 hits on a Detect Hidden Node test, by the way.
2) Presumably any form of hacking attempt includes accessing a node. I mean, MSR implies that you'll be accessing, hence the need for back and forth communication. But Passive nodes are categorically "immune" to that. Does that mean any device becomes immune to hacking if it's Passive?
3) You "can see what's on an Active node", but what exactly that means, is a mystery.

Technomancers' Bionodes are always in Hidden Mode (Unwired p. 135), but can be hacked by other technomancers (also Unwired p. 135). No mention is made of any special rule needed to hack hidden nodes. Nowhere is there any

Passive Mode is mentioned only four times in Unwired, and nothing about being impossible to hack (which would be noteworthy) or only hackable from MSR (also noteworthy).

Active Mode is mentioned only twice in Unwired. Mainly to note that only Active nodes route matrix connections. (It turns out that there are wifi routers in most of the civilized world; it's not actually consumer electronics that carry the mesh.)

---

TL;DR version:

If there are nodes that can only be hacked through MSR, not indirectly (assuming a route exists) because of interesting node properties/settings, that would be important enough to note explicitly.

There is no such explicit mention anywhere that I can find.

MSR isn't mentioned in Unwired at all.

If there are really nodes that can only be hacked through MSR, there should have been at least some mention of it. There is no mention whatsoever.

Your argument would be very convincing if the matrix rules in general were not a convoluted shitheap spread out over two books and written by several authors who weren't talking to one another.

You may argue that, but that is not what it actually says.

It's pretty self-serving to quote a bunch of rules is support of your argument, and then crap on someone else's argument because "the rules are convoluted." That's going to apply to any argument involving the Matrix rules, whether yours or his or mine or Dunkelzahn's. The solution seems to be to find the rule that best fits what's written down, makes the most logical sense, and best suits the purposes of the game [whatever that may be; it'll be different at different tables].

He's not arguing about what the matrix rules ARE, though. He was trying to deduce what they are from the premises that if MSR was important, and the matrix rules were well-written and clear, then Unwired/SR4A would talk more about MSR. But they aren't well written, they're a mess; probably one person wrote the MSR rules, and a different person wrote all the stuff about Matrix Security while not being aware of the MSR rule.

I'd argue that the solution is:

Know what is written down, regardless of how stupid or nonsensical it is.
Decide what rule you want to play with, preferably based on playability. Then say "I am houseruling the matrix to work like X," so that everyone's on the same page.

What annoys me is when people have some sort of bizarre aversion to houserules, so instead of just houseruling something, they feel the need to squint their eyes and turn the book upside down until it looks like the houserule they wanted is a "careful reading" of the book, and then insist that it's not a houserule. This does nothing but confuse and annoy players (when they could have just said so up front) and start arguments on the internet.

As "him":

There is no explicit mention that some nodes are only hackable through MSR. There's only one vague passage that, "with a lot of squinting", you might read to mean that, but there's no support for it anywhere else.

Given the lack of any confirmation anywhere else that MSR does something special, I don't think it's all that special.

Agreed... MSR is not anything "Special."

*Sighs* I wanna know what happened to Peg.

It seems to me there are two major sides to this discussion… One side says that MSR is absolutely required to access a hidden or passive node (one that is not allowing public connections), the other side says that if the node is connected to the Matrix MSR is not required.

Let me start by saying I’m on the MSR not required side of this discussion and here’s why (sorry I don’t have rules quotes only an example or two):

Ex1: The tele-hacker is sitting safe and sound at home as his team is getting ready to enter company XYZ. XYZ has a security node somewhere within the building which is in hidden mode but wirelessly connected to the security cameras, door sensors and other fun security tidbits it is not subscribed to the Matrix. The hacker hops on to the matrix and find a public router very close to XYZ’s building (after all public routers are everywhere to allow for the wireless mesh network to exist). The hacker has a public account on the public router. He then scans for hidden nodes within XYZ from the router. Eventually he finds the security node. Because the security node connects to all of its devices wirelessly the public router is within MSR of the security node. The hacker then hacks access to the security node via “hacking on the fly”. He is now on the security node and can do his magic. If the security node is directly connected to or within MSR of any other nodes for XYZ then the hacker can hack those from this node.

Ex2: Same hacker and company from above, however change the target node to one that is signal 0 and adjacent to a satlink. The team realizes that a satlink is in use (pretty easy to see a dish stashed somewhere on the property, or maybe they just spotted the satellite antenna). With a little leg work and research the team needs to determine which satellite XYZ is using. Once they have that information the hacker also needs a satlink. Once the hacker has that hardware, he is now within MSR of the satellite and can gain an account there either by using a public account (if the satellite is public or hacking an account if it’s private). Now that the hacker is on the satellite he is within MSR of XYZ’s node. Rinse repeat.

These are examples of why I don’t think that strict MSR are required. Now I may have misunderstood how the rules are written or maybe just misinterpreted the rules as written and if either of these is the case I guess our group is happily in the house rules area. If my understanding of the rules is not way off then I’m happy.

-D

All the hacker needs is a node within range of another node (with signal strength to reach)

It does not matter where the hacker/tm is if there is a junction between them and the hidden nodes that allows for them to find them.

It's like saying you have to be at the cray connected to the internet because dialing in doesn't have you within range of the keyboard.

I think by now we've said all there is to say about the need for MSR; you believe in it or you don't. All sides have been argued, make up your own mind about it if you haven't already

I'd like to go back to the desirability of a remote hacker as a PC.

I've played one, and enjoyed it. While there wasn't all that much hacking to be done, partly because the GM had a fetish for urban primitives, it was fun. The part I most enjoyed was playing a sort of overwatch role; looking over people's shoulders, advising the rest of the team, digging up information as the need arose. At times it was a bit annoying not to be able to take a more hands-on role, so next time I'll want to have a couple of drones with functional limbs (perhaps Renraku Manservants, or Bust-a-Moves) to walk along with the party.

We didn't have the whole "we're risking TPK and you're safe!" kind of arguments at all. That's like the fighting in D&D complaining the wizard won't stand in the front line: it's rarely useful. You play/hire a Sam to fight, not a hacker. Not having to worry about fragile teammates getting shot up makes a Sam's job less complicated. Some sort of forced "equal sharing of risk" out of "solidarity" makes little IC sense and OOC it isn't all that useful either.

There can be a lot of things that bug GMs and players about (remote) hackers. Some of the problems and possible solutions:

1) Hacking takes too long, it's a subgame, etc.
This has nothing to do with remote hacking. Know the hacking rules well, both as player and GM, know when a hack is interesting enough to play out completely, and when to (as GM) waive the full crunch on hacking a minor node. Make sure that anything you do play out completely in front of the other players, actually matters to them enough that they'll be excited about how the hack goes down. Even so, keep it focused and quick.

2) The hacker seems to be too safe from general combat
3) The hacker has nothing to do in general combat, because he's not there
These two things are best solved together: play a hacker-rigger and have some drones with the party so you've got a role in the combat too. Combat drones are sufficiently expensive that losing them is actually a bad thing for the player, so the GM can "threaten" the hacker too.

4) The hacker sits at home waiting for a commcall, not having enough to do otherwise.
Play an overwatch hacker, constantly listening in along with the PCs, doing background research, offering strategy tips and useful information. I enjoyed doing this immensely.

5) If the hacker's home base gets attacked, he's toast, and that's a GM dick move
A wise player makes sure he's hacking from extraterritorial soil, or at least soil that his target has no easy access/jurisdiction over. That reduces the speed and ferocity of invading teams to something that can be handled.
Second, he has a deal with building security/a local gang to protect him. When the (inevitable) occasional attack does happen, let the other players play the security team trying to protect the hacker (along with the drones the hacker keeps to defend his home, of course!)

6) Some facilities allow no entry to the external Matrix
True, research servers are often stand-alone, but on the other hand, a lot of companies have research spread around the globe, or perform offsite backups. And then there's the accounting department, which needs to make bank transfers which really do require external access. What this means is that you could have the team lay some new hardware connections to link it all up to the outside world. Not easy, but a good mission ought to be challenging, right?
And it's okay if you need to come out of your home occasionally, and complain about it - just not every mission. It's good if adventures take place out of your element now and then.

I didn't provide a response because the answers have been given multiple times over multiple posts from multiple people, not because I didn't have them. Since I last logged in you've been given a billion examples so I shan't pad my post with them again. If you need more examples of nodes which can't be hacked remotely, I would be happy to provide them.

I'm not arguing that MSR is needed to hack a device. In point of fact, I said that only the node that one is in needs this.
What I am saying is that you claim no run is unreachable by a telehacker, therefore there is no reason not to play one. You are taking the stance that playing a telehacker is not hamstringing a GM, because literally every scenario a GM can some up with can be reached remotely.

Speaking of lack of responses, you've yet to point out any hacker/decker in the 20+ year, 100+ published material history of Shadowrun that could operate entirely remotely.


But if he could hack everything remotely, why would they need to do that?
I'm saying hackers need back-up. You are saying they don't because everything they can do can be done from their living room.


So there are scenarios in which one can't hack remotely. These scenarios can be designed by GMs. So playing a remote hacker is hamstringing a GM?
Or not. I'm not sure which argument you are trying to make here.


A quick search-fu of "dragon PC" will show you a myriad of threads in which people will claim that playing a dragon or great dragon by the April Fools rules isn't disruptive to the game because of the way a character role plays(i.e. "It's never been done before" "I have a great idea for..." "I want to play someone who...")
However, present this same individual with a sub-standard character, a dragon hacker for example, and they will cry to the moon that such a character is too underpowered and is unplayable.
This fools no one.
A remote hacker is an invincible character. He can't be hit by spells or bullets and if he's an AR hacker even IC offers no deterrence. From a storytelling standpoint, he is am invisible, benevolent force at best and an absentee one at worst. A GM may send a squad after him in his wheelchair, but if this is done either the hacker is killed(which is entirely GM fiat as there is no action any PC could have taken and is therefore a dick move) or is kidnapped, in which case the player is rewarded by being the center of attention.

This means that a remote hacker has no jeopardy. He is never in any danger. He never needs back-up and if everyone dies there is no reason for him to care. A character who never has to worry about dying is not a character anyone should want to play. It's boring and provides no motivation to do anything.
It is the ultimate power gaming tool that fresh GMs may fall for, but anyone who with a modicum of experience under their belt will dismiss outright.

Yeah, I think you're painting this way too extreme.

AR-multiple-IP hacking is a bit of a mistake by the SR4 rules designers, but given that VR can take you to 5IPs, it's not the only viable choice.

Just because a hacker is in a wheelchair doesn't mean he doesn't stand a chance against a corporate team. If he knows he's been Traced, he can shut off his commlink and flee. If his building has a good security system, he'll notice it's being assaulted and he can flee through his secret escape tunnel, or rely on a security/drone team to protect him. (Let the other players play the security team, so that all players can participate! Bonus level!)
Also, if the hacker is on Ares soil when he's hacking Shiawase, I'm sure Shiawase will not immediately barge in. And while Ares drags their feet processing an extradition request, the hacker can flee to the neighboring Horizon mall. And generally lay low until the heat dies down.
A hacker who doesn't take security precautions is a sitting duck, but if the player refuses to take precautions (after a fair pre-game warning about possible risks), then he's got it coming. If the Sam refuses to wear armor, the GM is still allowed to have security shoot him if he starts a fight.

A telehacker isn't immune from risk, but he's also not defenseless. There's enough jeopardy.

And the "not caring if the rest of the team dies" is really a player mentality thing, not a character thing; I tend to play with players who like each other enough to care if their characters die.

You're saying that a wheelchair bound tele-hacker has multiple defenses against even the most off scene of GM intrusions, yet you're claiming he still suffers jeopardy?
If he is safe in his living room, how is he ever in danger? He can't get shot, he can't get hit by a spell, if AR he's immune to IC(if not then he's only vulnerable in his area of expertise, which makes him a decker and we've seen how that works out) and, according to your scenario, he's also likely to be immune to attacks against his living room.
That's less jeopardy, not more.
Even if you decide to run a storm troop into the remote hacker's apartment, that is running a scene away from the rest of the party. And if you do, now he's protected from that. So what's to be worried about. Ever.
Sure, the other runners could come to help him if he's in trouble, but who's to say he's not a continent away? Or on the moon? And if he's got a boat load of security, why do they need to bother? Heck, how do they even know where he lives?

The remote hacker player never has to ask "Will this work?" because in the absolute worst case scenario, nothing happens. Sure, he won't get paid, but he's safe in his living room and if the on site team dies, he can just find another team.
Why not charge head first into the MCT Zero Zone if you know there is no danger? Why be cautious? Why weigh pros and cons when you can almost be guaranteed that nothing on earth can ever hurt you. Not magic. Not bullets. Not IC. That's better than playing a Great Dragon.


Sure, the player may be upset that his fellow player's characters have died, but in reality it's no skin off his back. An on-site hacker needs the mage and the sammy to survive so they can protect him from bullets and spells, just as they need him to protect them from Matrix threats.
Without that, it's just role playing. He can be as callous or as empathetic as he chooses, but ultimately he has no dog in that fight. Whether the team lives or dies is, crunch wise, irrelevant to that remote hacker.
He may feel empathy for a fallen comrade, but it doesn't ensure his survival. He doesn't need them to live. He just wants them to live. And that makes all the difference in the world.


Again, OP mentioned that GMs hate remote hackers. I'm explaining why GMs hate remote hackers. It creates an invincible character and limits GM creativity. Folks who play remote hackers may not see that. But folks who play Great Dragons don't see why those aren't allowed in games either.

Being forced to fight or flee. And you're calling that "immune" and "no jeopardy".




I disagree completely. First, roleplaying is more important than crunch. Crunch needs to serve roleplaying, not the other way around.

Also, I said that the player would care about the other players' characters' fates. It's no fun watching your fellow players' characters' get gunned down.

I don't find it necessary to show "solidarity" by having the hacker put himself in the line of fire just so can get shot like everyone else. Everyone being equally at risk isn't a game goal for me.



You across as having a grudge against evil people trying to ruin everyone's fun on purpose by playing remote hackers.

I don't think people want to play remote hackers to screw everyone else. Maybe some do it as powergaming. But by and large, I think people want to play remote hackers because they're cool. Because they've got a certain flavor, a mind-over-muscle charm that people buy into.

Remote hackers are indeed harder to GM for. They require the GM to step out from the "we will all go down into the dungeon together" thinking. They require the GM to be creative, to make something that a player thinks is cool, work in the game.

It also requires some cooperation from the player. He should make a character that cares about the success and/or wellbeing of the rest of the team. He needs to check his desire to live in an invincible bunker; he should know that at some point, his base will be attacked. He should be ready for that, so that it's not an insta-kill but a fair fight. The player's base is really a kind of reverse dungeon - he tries to prevent the enemy team from getting in to kill him, by any means he deems necessary, while the GM can bring a team that's reasonably matched to the challenge. Neither victory nor death should be certain.

It helps if the player uses drones, so he has something to run and play with if the team gets in a fight. Otherwise the player will be bored, because fights take long, from a spectator perspective. SR4 rules accommodate rigger-hacker combinations quite well. Also, a tricked-out drone can be a big investment, financially and emotionally. It's something the hacker could lose in a fight, something the GM can attack on the "battlefield", that the player cares about not losing.




In summary: players don't want to play remote hackers to screw the GM, they want to because they think it's cool. It's not impossible to GM for, it's different and a bit harder. Making it work requires creativity from the GM, but the player also needs to chip in.

The GM just has to make clear that successful traces will happen, that you can be sold out by your hired guards, and that not all cops are stupid. Tasked with handling outside communication, the hacker will likely be the most traced member of the team.

Especially the global remote black hat will want a team. The wheelchair thing can really be hard to handle, hope you have a friendly mage with Levitation. Your closest guards should be friends if possible as mercs might sell out on you. Providing matrix overwatch for a runner team is a good exchange for getting their protection.

RP-wise whenever the hacker fails at something, the other team members pay with their hides. In RL that would lead to some interesting discussions if the hacker was the only person not onsite. The darker the campaign, the harder the claims of treachery. So plenty to consider and play out.

Whoa! If you think that's my claim, then there's the confusion! No, definitely not. Actually, several of my posts have had multiple examples of ways sites can be made unhackable remotely, but that has nothing to do with this "do you need MSR to hack" issue: that's a question of "can something be isolated from outside access," and the answer to that is 100 percent certainly yes! I mean, it's as simple as "no wireless access, and unplug the cable," and something can't be hacked remotely. Now, that doesn't mean the remote hacker is impossible, it just means there are some things he can't do, or that will require some kind of effort to make possible.


I'm not sure what's giving you that impression, honestly. When this was discussed upthread, this just wasn't anything like what I said, so I'm not sure where you're getting this. My first post in this thread is all about how GMs and players have to work together to make something like this possible, and the various challenges of getting a remote hacker into inaccessible locations, and how sometimes you even need to be prepared, as a player, to play a different character if your GM needs it. Sorry if I gave some other impression along the way.


That was addressed several times upthread, but at the time I think most people were under the impression you were talking about mutual signal range requirements, and not "possibility of hacking into any system in the world." Unidirectional datalines have existed almost as long as Shadowrun, as have simple physical switches: no decker in the history of Shadowrun has been able to hack every system in the world remotely, if only because you can construct any system to only have datajack access. But that's not what people upthread were responding to: the examples everyone gave were of hackers who didn't need mutual signal range to hack, which is apparently a different issue than the one you were discussing.


I think we have probably kind of different types of groups, in terms of the relationship our GM has to our players. For me, when I'm GMing, I wouldn't find something like this being hamstrung, it'd just be another characteristic of the group to consider when writing adventures. If it really troubled me, I'd work with the player to find a way to minimize the trouble. It's like if no one plays a magically active character; I don't force someone to play the mage, I just write my adventures with that characteristic in mind. And if sometimes it gets the group in trouble, well that's not really my problem, is it?


Oh, okay. I'm sorry; I don't have any players like that, so it's just not something I have experience with. We definitely have some min-maxers and such, but nothing on a scale like this, or even to the point of it being particularly disruptive. We try to work together to minimize problems like this, and make sure everyone has similar expectations at the table. Sometimes we don't succeed.


Well, that's self-evidently untrue. I mean, you show up at his house and shoot him and he's not much trouble. Cut the power to the hospital his vat is in and let him drown. Send a spirit to eat his insides out. The remote hacker is, in many ways, more vulnerable without his team with him. Am I missing something?


This is a discussion I've had before. Suffice to say you and I have different opinions on the matter, and that not every table is run the same, or is full of people who enjoy the same things. Jeopardy - of a totally false kind, since it's not your death anyway - isn't really necessary for me, or for the people I play with, to enjoy a game. We've played a number of different characters and different games and different systems in which mortal jeopardy wasn't really a meaningful consideration, and still had fun. There are ways to "lose" that have nothing to do with character death, and ways to "win" that have nothing to do with character survival.

That might not be something you'd enjoy, and maybe it's not something your group would enjoy, but it's incorrect to say that "not...anyone should want to play" such a character: different people find motivation in different things.


Damn, I've been playing and GMing Shadowrun since 1989, and I still don't have my modicum yet. Unless...wait, do you suppose maybe it doesn't have anything to do with amount of experience, but rather is dependent on types of experiences? Why, that'd mean that almost every table would be full of people who enjoy different things than you do.