This is actually a commonly offered view, but in practice a very bad one for games.

Why? Because if you're trying to present something in a game as "It's a computer." then you must expect players to deal with it as one, and get angry when it's disallowed. If you're trying to present something as "It's not a computer." then you must expect them to use computers for things computers are good at. If you're trying to say "There are no computers, and this is the closest approximation so deal with it." then suspension of disbelief flies out of the window precisely because you're challenging the very underlying concepts of the milieu.

The game source materials explicitly say that commlinks are computers and that the matrix as a whole is the network environment. Blanket responses to the effect of "Yeah, all those computer things which computers are great at and we use computers for all the time and have for decades and decades in the real world just suddenly don't work because it's not in the rulebook." don't fly. Not at my table, not at any table I've been at.

Get it? It's not the `real world constraints' or the `real world mindset' which matters except in the presentation and the player expectations - and there it all matters deeply, and irretrievably. Shadowrun (to refer to another thread) doesn't have explicit animal husbandry rules either - that doesn't mean animals don't breed.

It would matter a lot less if the game source materials provided a whole new fundamental set of principles on which electronics (or the game equivalent) functions - but it doesn't. Not even a little bit. It just offers gaming abstractions, and describes VR as being an efficient way, within the game, and within the VR metaphor, for interacting with computers. It even makes explicit references to where the VR interface is not an adequate metaphor for what is happening under the skin (the Fastjack fiction snippet in the anniversary rules also make reference to this, as source material example) and reflects the fact that you are loading programs onto an electronic device.

So go ahead - call it house rules, call it gamebreaking, call it what you like, but at my table, commlinks are computers and ingenuity in their use, recognising that what you are using is a data processing device and using that information to buttress your in-game decisions, will be permitted. You'll roll for your electronics and hacking skills - of course you will. But if you have the skills, the technology has the flexibility.

To develop the point about the milieu, it even goes further - Shadowrun juxtaposes very well the rise of technology and the rise of what people generally have regarded as nontechnological or even antitechnological, in parallel, very well. The social questions which are raised, the implications for the elite nature of magic, and the democratising nature of technology, make for a great situation to examine. Reducing the high technology of the system to just another set of inflexible buttontwiddles eviscerates this aspect of the milieu, to the loss of the game's philosophical depth. All right in a beer-and-pretzels one-shot game, but lousy in an ongoing campaign.

The problem here is that it's not just that SR doesn't have rules for doing every single thing real-world computers can do - it's that its rules specifically make the Matrix not work like modern computers in a huge number of ways. In the real world, public key cryptography exists and lets people send messages, fairly easily, that can't be broken before the sun burns out. Real world decryption is about hoping that someone doing the encryption was sloppy or made a mistake, or stealing the key. Shadowrun cryptography does not work like that. At all. It's not that there are not rules for encryption. It's that there are rules for encryption and they are nothing at all like real-world encryption. This is a really fundamental thing and that it works so differently in SR and in the real world really does say that Shadowrun computers are nothing like real-world ones.

And obviously, I disagree with you.
In Shadowrun, becasue the rules work the way they do, oftentimes, the player's intimate knowledge of Computers gets in the way.
Honestly, if hacking were to emulated realistically, in game, you would never get anything done, because you would be unable to do anything as a Hacker to a properly defended system.
BORING !!!!!

The rules are the way they are to make Hackers viable in the game. SR4A is a much better Hacking system than the 3 previous editions in this regard, because it is streamlined. Even if there are a few issues, most, if not all of them, can be addressed with the optional rules presented in the books. Making them more reaslistic just drags the game down and kills all the fun.

Oh, and I never said that computers were not computers in Shadowrun. They are, they just work on different paradigms than they do in the real world. Basic Electronics aside. Besides, Even with the simplicity, Hacking is still one of the most complex (and some would say confusing) aspects of the game.

I see our incident response tickets, I can assure you that you can find a way to get in.

Actually, given plausible advances in technology, that's not quite true. Already quantum computing is finding real use in special situations. Give it a couple of decades, and decoding just about anything short of a one time pad becomes plausible, if not outright provably feasible.

Also, as kzt observes, security gets cracked all the time - some systems just aren't well designed, like many wifi systems. People use poorly chosen passwords. Or the Johnson has a password for you. Or a key file. Or people fall for social engineering. Or get sloppy about trusting certificates. It doesn't matter how fancy your encryption is, if the person actually using it doesn't follow the processes and procedures set up by the guy who designed the security system in the first place. Even today you have tools to get you access to systems all the time - or you set up a man-in-the-middle attack.

Or, you step one small victory on another until you own the whole place. One badly chosen password gets you user access. A poorly secured system gets you network scanning capability. A man in the middle position lets you identify a couple of keys. This gets you a higher privilege for a different system. From there, the administrators, for the sake of convenience, can use that level of access to hop around the systems. Pretty soon you can read an online backup containing passwords in the clear, or you can identify an SQL injection attack in some source code or script left on a system. Not long after, you're downloading paydata.

Sounds almost like the system as presented, doesn't it?

Obviously, kzt has counterexamples. So do lots of people. Anonymous gets data from people like Sarah Palin. Banks lose credit card lists, government agencies lose personnel data. This isn't speculation, this is real, in our newsfeeds today. I think that the rules can be used as an abstraction of that.



Hackers don't need the rules as an excuse for viability, and the rules don't afford an excuse for straitjacketing intelligent play. Nothing in what you said suggests that hackers shouldn't have one system monitoring another, or monitoring Matrix links. Part of the whole point to hacking is the ability to work outside the constraints which others try to impose. And as for killing fun? What's more fun than outsmarting the opposition? Breaking the mould? Seeing another way through a problem?



Well, you pretty much have to select one of the three positions I mentioned. Either they're computers as we understand it, or there are computers as we understand it but commlinks are different, or commlinks are all there is, and they aren't computers as we understand it. Judging by what you write here, ("they just work on different paradigms than they do in the real world") you're choosing the third option. If you're choosing the third option, then building and carrying along a conventional computer, different from a commlink, but equivalent to what we understand by the concept (since you appear to be happy with basic electronics in-game), makes a hacker massively more useful. Or should I suddenly say that for reasons of *hands wave furiously here* you can't build conventional computers any more?

You're at liberty to state that, of course, but for the reasons I gave above (effects on suspension of disbelief, confusion of terms relating to the understanding of what is or is not, or can or can't be a computer, impoverishing the philosophical implications of the milieu) I decline to accept that at my table, and will reward intelligent play on the shared terms offered by the source material.

Basically, that's why I prefer pen-and-paper games to CRPGs.

Quantum computers are very different from modern real-world computers. Saying SR computers are quantum computers is one way of explaining why they are so different.

Quantum computers, as general purpose computing devices, not only don't exist but there are no plausible (non-blue-sky) proposals on what they might be like. The current uses of quantum computing largely relate to uses of entangling in communications, and some laboratory quantum computing units (although they're creeping out of the laboratories).

The strong points of quantum computing are roughly similar in style (though not in implications for computational feasibility) to the strong points of having a graphics processor. The quantum computing unit isn't going to run Windows any faster or better than a Xeon, but can be used analogously to an FPU for doing something a lot faster than the conventional processing unit. Basically, quantum and conventional computing are not mutually exclusive, but complementary.

In other words, if commlinks are quantum computers, there's utterly no reason to believe that they aren't also conventional computers. Today we can fit an entirely conventional computer into something the size and shape of an iphone. We call it an iphone. Granted, Apple crippled it because the hell with the general public, but Nokia has built quite a few, as have other companies. Look around. So even if your commlink is a dinky thing which sits on your belt, worst case it's slightly fatter, and has a conventional SoC on it. Even if you want to stick at 1980's handheld technology (why would you?) HP had some nice programmable devices in those days.

And any hacker with Electronics skillsets could certainly combine the two with a little intelligent work.

So why would I stop him? Because the rules don't cover it? No. That's my challenge as a Game Master to overcome.

It's not that you can't make hacking in SR work, and even work in a way that makes sense to people. It's that you can't do it without house ruling like mad. Which is not a sign that you have great rules.

And SR has chosen option 3 as the choice for the setting. "Commlinks are all there is, and they aren't computers as we understand it". I'm not defending this choice, I'm just pointing it out. It's a terrible choice for all the reasons you mention, but it is what it is.

Maybe you are not as secure as you think you are... Which is my point.
And I can guarantee you that your penetrations did not take on the order of seconds, like they do in Shadowrun. Different Paradigms at work here.

of course, and yet, these hacks do not occur over night, nor are they generally considered easy hacks.



Never said that. I said that the paradigms are a bit different. Computers do not function in Shadowrun QUITE like they function in the real world. The Tricks of the trade you describe above are all viable in the Shadowrun world, they just do not work quite the same way they do IRL. And I would contend that the rules do not straightjacket intelligent play. I have played a Hacker for years, within the rules (OPtional Rules in use) and have had absolutely no issues with the hacking System. Is it different than what I am used to IRL? Of Course it is... is it unworkable to the point of annoyance? Absolutely not.

In fact, strict adherence to IRL models will tend to break the game by eliminating the straight Hacker as a viable archetype.



Nope - I reject your third option, as it makes no sense, since there are obviopusly other Computing devices in the world... there is another option you forget to include...

Computers/comlinks are similar to what we have now, but operate on different paradigms. You cannot say they are exactly the same, because we both know they are not. There are significant ways in which they differ, which many have stated, over the years. This has been my stance on Hacking from the start.

SO... you can take what the game world gives you and run in that paradigm, or you can try to inject real world computing paradigms into the mix, which leaves most people wanting, because the paradigms do not work well together (and in fact are often contradictory). You can do everything you describe, within the rules of the Shadowrun Matrix, without resorting to the technobabble of real world computing. You just have to allow that certain things are not the same. If you cannot allow for that, then you will be unhappy with the result.

Just becasue I have 20+ years in the Computrer Industry (Between College and Work Experience) and have taken my turn at White Hat endeavors from time to time does not mean that I cannot suspend my disbelief of a world that is 60 years in my future, with a differeing technological basis and development. I tend to (or at least try to) not let my RL knowledge interrupt my fun with the Game World that I am playing in, even if I do have some issues with it. History, as well as technology, diverged in the early 80's in Shadowrun, and they have had 2 world-wide technological crashes since then. Assuming that the technology is different is not a stretch (and in fact it is, by the world description). Why is that so hard to assimilate for you? You are trying to make a divergent world fit your concept of modern day computing. They are not the same.

As for the conventional Computer buildiing crack, Shadowrun Computers ARE NOT what we would call Conventional Computers today. Obviously. They are both a bit better (they can do things we can only dream about currently, such as near-instantaneous decryption of the most secure files, and virtual ly unlimiterd storage space and transmission bandwidth) and worse (they lack some capabilities in areas that Modern Computers have currently, such as making a backup of a data-stream prior to decryption, odd but okay). That is to be expected of a technology that has had to be re-constructed twice in the last 90 years.

And for the record, I, too, prefer Pen and Paper games, and for many of the same reasons I would wager. What I do not do is try to bend the game world to my understanding of it based upon my Real World experience. Some thing just are not required to have fun.

Except that Comlinks are NOT the only computing devices in the setting. Nexi are not Comlinks.
And you do not need House Rules... Simple application of a few of the Optional Rules will do just fine. The issue is that most computer Nerds (Most of us, right?) are not happy with that sort of fix. They (We) want it to work like they (we) know it should. And that is the trap.

Hacking does not create an account, except when the intruder elects to install a backdoor -- which will be a hidden account if the hacker is any good, and thus hidden from the script.


And that still is not available for matrix attributes


Which part of "the average commlink" left you with the impression that I was talking about a device with Firewall 6?

Um. Yes, yes it does:

" Hacking on the Fl y is an Hacking + Exploit (target’s Firewall, Complex Action) Extended Test. Reaching the threshold will get you a user account on the node. If you want a security account, increase the threshold by +3, for an admin account increase it by +6."

SR4A, p235, emphasis mine. Second paragraph under the heading Hacking on the fly. Literally, "SR4 Hacking 101".

So, again: set your System/OS so that there are zero allowed User accounts and zero allowed Security accounts - by the same mechanism that allows you to decide there are no public accounts on your link (or CHN, or whatever).

So now, it's "Admin or bust", and that lovely +6 threshold comes into play.

So, do your 18 dice beat a threshold of 12, as fast as 11 dice beat a threshold of 6? (Answer: not statistically, no. It shuld take two rolls of an 18 die pool to reach 12 successes; it takes only about 1.5 rolls of an 11 die pool, to meet a threshold of 6 (which means, functionally 2 rolls - but with a wee bit of buffer against a spot of bad luck.)

And that's with Analyze 4. Add in some Optimisation for that program, and you can push the 'link's DP to 13 (Firewall 6, Analyze 6, Optimised Link +1), giving even more of a buffer against poor rolls.

So, gee. The best starting-legal link, turns out to be reasonably good at resisting some pretty high-end-for-starting-characters hacking attempts - wihtout being unreasonably HARD to hack, either. Go figure, eh?


Firewall is a Program, in addition to being a matrix attribute.


First, you said:

Then, you said:

... and I replied:


I was responding to the bit where you mentioned "the kid at the table next to you without any serious skills or programs".

This, IMO, is very important for RPGs and SR especially. If you just can't bear the inconsistency of a future computer system that won't accept tricks you know can be done today then perhaps you can be mollified by considering that your character himself has no idea (unless you were playing a world-leading computer historian, perhaps). There have been times when as GM I've refused an action based on a player's RL knowledge because it was unbelievable that the character would have said knowledge too. I've done it to my own character too and so have most of my players at one time or another. It's not c***blocking, it's investing in the shared gaming experience where the system needs only to maintain integrity within it's own framework. You might not accept the fundamentals of the Matrix, but your character must and that's why you should too.

After all, if everything were about what you would do then it's not really roleplaying.

It is stated in unwired somewhere (since I never bothered to buy a PDF version of that POS I can't cite it) that you are bypassing accounts when you hack. The computer rules are full of this kind of contradictory stuff.

You don't need a PDF copy to at least give a page number.

Also, you're wrong. Unwired says that you are bypassing the usual authentication process ... but you're still making an account:

"Hacking and Authentication
When a character hacks into a node, whether on the fly or by probing, she is actually circumventing normal authentication routines and setting up a fake account that the system believes has access at the privilege level the hacker chose at the start of the attempt. [...]"
-- Unwired p65, emphasis mine.

I checked UW, as I too thought hacking did not provide an account, and could only find it in the very special case that is hidden access points (under Backdoors - sorry, forgot the page number). Elsewhere Pax is right.

Not according to Unwired, p. 97. Yep, the extended rulebooks occasionally contradict the BBB...


Uh huh, so each system needs to set aside 2 program slots for Firewall and System, and a TM can thread both...



...while apparently still being unable to read the first part of the sentence. So once more and just for you: A device with FIrewall 6 (the maximum allowed by the BBB) is not an "average commlink", which Joe Wageslave would bring with him during lunch time. The standard Device Rating is 3, and at that point hacking becomes trivial. The system itself is OK, but it simply is too easy to hack stuff, and security ratings max out too soon.

For one very special, limited-applicability edge case: "hidden access point". Furthermore:

"IC or security hackers that perceive the hacker will immediately recognize him as an intruder."

Thus, immediate Restricted Alert, and therefore, VOILA, "Terminate Connection". All you'd have to add to my setup is a lowly Rating 1 Agent.


Don't be a complete ass.

Oh dear, reading comprehension really does not not seem to be at an alltime high today...try reading the whole page again...


Yep, hacking is total magic. It gives you access to an account, but it neither requires one nor creates one. If you want an explanation, maybe those accounts are system accounts

PS: Just FYI, here is a list of users (and similar objects) that come with various windows versions.


Hey, I'm just drawing the logical conclusions. If you want something to be a program, it becomes a program with all the consequences

Fuck you.

I read the damned page. Did you?

First off: "If a node has been hacked on-the-fly, the hacker has found some gaping hole in the system security that allows him to access an account on that node." (Emphasis mine.)

Now, the four actual options discussed under "Backdoors" ...?

• "Re-useable exploit" - provides a bonus to future hacking attempts. Nothing more.
• "Legitimate account" - is an acount. Duh.
• "Hidden account" - is also an account, duh.
• "Hidden Access Point" - I've already addressed this one.

FIREWALL Firewall is the device’s built-in security software. It protects against unauthorized access and fends o hostile access attempts and exploits. A fi rewall will, for instance, instantly block access to multiple icons using the same access ID. Firewall is also used to defend against Matrix attacks in cybercombat (p.236)."
-- SR4A p221, emphasis mine.

"SYSTEM System measures the power of the device’s operating system (OS) so ware.  This includes its stability, multitasking properties, ability to control hardware, resources, and the general quality of its code. If the System software ever crashes, the entire device crashes. System limits the rating of programs running on the device, and sets the limit on most devices for the number of programs that can be run without a Response drop.  The System program is limited by the base Response rating of the device it is on: if the base Response rating of the device is lower than the System rating, then the System rating is set to equal the Response rating. System also sets the size of the Matrix Condition Monitor of persona programs running on the device (Cybercombat, p.236)."
-- SR4A p222, emphasis mine.

"UPGRADING DEVICES
If you are looking for more power in your device, you can upgrade its Matrix attributes. Upgrading a device is simply a matter of having the proper hardware module (for Response and Signal) or software package (for Firewall and System)."
-- SR4A p222, emphasis mine.

See also, page 119 of Unwired - top right corner. Big table, hard to miss, titled "Advanced Programming Table". Deals with coding yoru own software; includes entries for Firewall and for System. Funny how that works.

...

Now, please; stop being an ass.

Slow internet and not really in the mood, sorry.

I'm perfectly happy to assume that everyone here knows a lot more about computing both in theory and practice than I do.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that other people want different things from their games from what I want.

I'm even happy to accept that there are issues with the rules in the printed publications.

My sole position here is that:

1. IF Shadowrun's rules refer to notions which are commonly understood in common modern vocabulary
2. IF there's nothing in the books which suggests that related knowledge or technologies have been irretrievably lost
3. IF the milieu is deeply enriched by the assumptions of technological continuity (or would be deeply impoverished by the converse)
4. IF restricting the actions of a class of character (and by extension the players) to solely what is strictly described in the books is a substantial strike against creativity in a shared view of what the given milieu purports to present

• THEN it is not to the game's benefit to introduce artificial restrictions on player activity (and by extension ingenuity) in addressing IC situations
• AND at the very least, should I choose to make such restrictive choices then it would behoove me to make clear to anyone who sits at my table the nature of such restrictions and the implications for what they might have thought were otherwise perfectly reasonable actions, since these assumptions, when violated, could otherwise lead to protracted and convoluted retcons and general unhappiness.

So let's look at that list of conditions:

1. Absolutely true. Computers, wireless communications, RFID tags, even AR are part of common vocabulary, even for casual readers of online technical magazines like Wired.
2. True again. Technology is advanced far beyond what was, on many levels. Even if you ignore nanotechnology and monofilaments, prosthetics and neural interfaces are way beyond what we have today, including in energy storage density and data processing terms. The ability to describe and build conventional Von Neumann architectures is nowhere described, nor even hinted at being a lost art, and the milieu in general militates against that assumption.
3. Absolutely. I already touched on the juxtaposition of technology, and its incumbent, democratic nature vis-a-vis the parvenu elitism of the mystical world elsewhere in this thread.
4. Unquestionably. When something as trivial as recording a stream of information and examining it later is off the table, regardless of how common, obvious or technologically feasible it might be, it's a plain restriction on the flexibility of the player, and because of the previous three points a restriction which isn't supported by the milieu as described nor the bulk of inspirational literature which openly poses questions as to the values and limits of technology in defining humanity in the context of its advance, in a typically dystopian environment.

So go ahead, run the game you like. Just, please, if I ever sit at your table, provide a courteous disclaimer. That's all I ask, and I don't think it's very unreasonable.

So you use Houserules. Great, at least you admit it...

It wouldn't work. Prior to the SR4a re-write... subscription limit was like program limit... you could go over it... going over it would reduce your system response. So too many connections would slow your link to a crawl.

In SR4a, I've always read the new subscription limit as a limit on OUTGOING connections originating from your commlink. You connecting your icon to remote locations in the matrix.


IE: your persona's icon is present in your node, and is being projected through the subscription(logon) to the remote node. The remote node is not using a subscription as it's not present in your home node.

Bit late for a reply... and probably too late for the answer... but enjoy.

I for one think it was a huge mistake to disconnect uber hacking abilities from VR.

Used to be, system security was very effective agaist 99.99% of intruders.

That other .01% were the relatively rare VR jockies, folks who were insane enough to get bits of their brains scooped out and replaced with electronics. VR was the magic spell that let these folks hack the system effortlessly. It didn't need a deep technical explaination. You plug your brain in and you magically can run rings around anyone that didn't use VR. It had just enough pseudo-technical believability for most people to buy into the idea without questioning it.

It worked because it didn't call into question the stability of the entire game world. The networks were safe and secure for day to day use. VR hackers were rare.

In the current edition that all changed. Uber-Hacking is no longer rare. Anyone with a few nuyen for the right programs can do it, even without VR. Unfortunately this means the entire system is inherantly insecure, which can greatly break suspention of disbelief. If everyone can do it, it's no longer special. So you have to start coming up with increasingly bizzare excuses as to why the system hasen't collapsed if it's that easy for anyone to hack.



-k

Interesting point. From a game perspective that seems reasonable. However mapping to reality, the vast percentage of people will never threaten a given site. The issue is stopping those few people who really are motivated and skilled. For example, this guy who broke Chrome. So if your computer network is open to essentially anyone who buys a ticket to hack you can't survive. Now modeling that in a game is "complex".

SR4a doesn't directly contradict this, but it does specify that a subscription is a two-way communication. Your commlink is sending a stream of data that conveys your commands and the other node is replying with its own stream of data that conveys everything you learn about and experience in it. I don't think it makes much sense for a node to be limited one way and infinately capable the other.

Crazy, how life imitates art

It was hot, the night we burned Chrome...