This was something that was brought up as a possible explanation for how the writers doing the gear section imagined wireless bonuses working, given that many of them don't seem to have any reason to communicate with the Matrix as a whole, but make sense for PAN connected devices.

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be what the actual matrix rules say.

That's quite gamey. Is there any fluff justification? You'd think a hacker would have thought of doing something like that...

No, it's not impossible. If I'm reading you properly, this is essentially what's happening when you turn off the wireless. Turn it back on again and you're back on the Matrix.

This is a contradiction: a wireless protocol that's unintelligible by the matrix cannot work if you turn the wireless off.

But saying that everything wireless has to be interpreted by the matrix means AM and FM radio signals also communicate with the matrix, which is kind of weird.

The fluff justifications I've heard here on DS are...not satisfactory, imo. I'll wait to read the SR5 rulebook but at the moment it does seem that many (new) game mechanics don't have good fluff justifications.

Which is what player imagination is for. Fluff supports a strong rules framework not the other way around.

Matrix stuff in Shadowrun has always been super-gamey. One-time pads don't exist in Shadowrun, for example. Elaborate protocol manipulation would probably fall under the same abstraction used for encryption (Unwired, pp. 65-66) or count as something Firewall does.

My understanding was that, being online and using any given protocol, the matrix would provide any intended receiver (or listening) node access to the protocol required to translate that data.

Then again, there is this.

Fixed that for you. You pay money for a rule book - this rule book needs to create a consistent, sensical world with crunchy rules and fluff to explain it. The two go hand-in-hand. Crunch divorced from any meaningful fluff gives us crap like D&D4.

Player imagination is reserved for using the fluff and crunch together to create a living world. In programmer speak, player imagination instantiates the classes that the rule book provides.

(all things above, imo )

What if you build that protocol from scratch? Like, create something new, the way Bluetooth's creator did at the time?
I mean, surely that could be something a small team of hackers with decent skills could jury-rig in a couple weeks, no?

with the crazy powerful decryption techniques that seem to be available in shadowrun, i'm not sure that would actually work.

i mean, stuff that would literally take all of the processing power in the world running for millenia to crack takes usually a few seconds in SR4, as i understand it.

so, if anyone was serious about it, they could probably crack your super-secret language in short order.

Okay, I guess. It's like that because computer magic and fairy decryption.

To put this in perspective, even using non-normal simsense data to encode your traffic is just a speedbump for a decker (see Cryptosense Sculpting in Unwired, p. 72) and is bypassed entirely with a reality filter.

It's telling that the Communication Protocols entry in Unwired has absolutely nothing to do with communication protocols except in an administrative sense (i.e. social engineering).

The issue many are having here is that the games fluff doesn't coincide with the fluff they have in their mind. The game is providing it. They just don't like what is being provided and can't use their imagination to justify the imaginary game world. I personally think the rules are pretty solid so far, and I can work with the fluff.

Then the protocol is on your node; available to your mesh electronics, and available to the mesh network.

Software Suite: Agent / Encrypt. Optimisation, Ergonomic, Virus Resistant options. No? It can encrypt your node & signal at hotsim speeds. Even if someone can decrypt faster, the chances of them being fast enough to both take it down and do other things before it goes back up are slim to none. (still only working on SR4 understandings, for ref)

I can buy the magic decryption, but this doesn't make much sense, however. If my electronics (and my node) aren't connected to the matrix because my protocol is non-matrix, then you can't access them via the matrix without first 'decrypting' my protocol. What you just said is the equivalent of "your bluetooth signal is available on the wifi".
Some of the fluff descriptions contradict each other, like needing distributed computing in SR5's world of powerful commlinks.

How are you getting the signal out, Werewindlefr? How do you think mesh electronics work? What effect do you think the death of strong encryption has had on wireless protocols? What is a 'non-matrix protocol'?


What you've just said sounds, to me, like, "I use an Encrypt program." You can route encrypted signals. Mesh electronics have no problem with precisely relaying or sniffing encrypted signals. What's so special about your 'non-matrix protocol' that they fail at some point in the process?

What you're saying, to use an analogy, is that bluetooth is just an encryption of wifi. If I turn of the wifi on my cell phone and communicate with another device via bluetooth, I'm not using "encrypted wifi", I'm using another protocol entirely. Using encrypted wifi would be sending encrypted data packets via a wifi protocol.

Similarly, I'm talking about using a custom-made protocol that's entirely different from the ones wifi use. It's not encryption per-se, although you can probably treat it as a sort of "weak encryption"...

...except now I'm kicking it up a notch: my protocol won't be different on the digital level, but the analogue one. Either I'm using frequencies that are almost never used for wireless communications, or I'm encoding bits in an entirely different way. Basically, a wireless communication that is different from the ones used in matrix-connected electronics the same way FM is different from AM. For physical reason, the enemy hacker is boned unless he brings expensive hardware close to my character for analogue analysis. Decryption won't do anything, because it works on data that's already converted to bits. And I don't believe that the wireless-enabled device in the flower pot or color-changing wallpaper can do anything about that (I don't see those devices having the complicated electronics or bandwith capabilities - you don't put an oscilloscope or frequency analyzer in a flower pot's wireless transmitter).

A good, dedicated hacker with a hardware shop will have no problem doing this. Anybody with a master's degree in electrical engineering can.

Which is exactly what I'd expect a hacker to do if he knew the target and had a chance to prepare before hand.

He or she could slip through the cracks, maybe seed a few microviruses to allow a backdoor attack.

But not on the fly against a team of experienced runner they have just meet and are currently having a run in with.



Now suppose you had a decker watching a team of runners.

I would expect he might find some exploitable weaknesses if he had the chance to observe the runners for a while.
Do some research.
Maybe slip them a Trojan horse of some kind.

I'm not entirely sure this is a bad approach DWC.

That it is really silly to bring up realism against the rule that everything works better connected to the matrix if half of the stuff should not even work to begin with and the matrix is and ever has been a magical wonderland, which just does what it wants.

And lets be honest, a lot of people say they have an issue with that, but they actually don't. Critias pritty much prooved it by suggesting to meed demands for realism by introducing DV from destroyed ware. If the problem would be that it is unrealistic, well it would have been a start. But somehow people did not like it.

Like nobody cares about the fact, that smartlink is unrealistic, or that most of the cyberware is unrealistic.

The thing I am saying is, that most people (I would eve go out and say nearly everybody) has a problem with this rule based on a gamist approach. (Partly based on faulty perception because some seem to be under the assumption, that a bonus die means the same in SR5 as it did in SR4. I do not know that and everybody who hasn't read the entire book doesn't neither.
But since a lot of people tend to have a problem with comming clear about the fact, that they dislike something because it takes power away from one character concept we have a discussion that in the end can't lead to anything. If we get more realistic rules about that concept and due to that sams get even weaker, how many in this thread would argue that it was a good thing to have this change?


Honestly: I would buy a piece of nice cyberware or several connect it to a commlink and load it full with malware.
Here is the thing: Risk and reward have to work both ways. And here is the point: If you are not allowed to build traps for hackers, then we have a problem. Because at that point it is an attack withoug drawback.

Most people have a problem with this rule not because of realism, nor because of the penalty it gives to their character, but because it is illogical in-universe that highly trained soldiers with expensive equipment would leave themselves so vulnerable. In this paradigm, mages and hackers rule the world.

Then you, quite simply, don't leave yourself vulnerable. Having your wireless connectivity enabled is an option. Make a decision and choose to stay off-line if you want to; you're perfectly allowed to do that (it is, in many ways in fact, the default).

Every single character, with every single piece of gear they have, is free to do their own risk/reward analysis and make that decision for themselves. People keep talking about gear hacking not only like it's nigh-automatic, not only like it's nigh-unstoppable, and not only like it does things it doesn't do -- but like it's absolutely mandatory that people open themselves to it.

@ Werewindlefr
They do not have to leave themself vulnerable they can JUST FREAKING TURN IT OFF.
Sorry, but that exectly the point I am going for. You see boni which were a given in 4.01 now as an "optional" and you go "fuck you, I want this without drawbacks I am entitled to".
The point is that is a silly notion if you do not know ALL the rules.
Smartlink now gives +2 limit instead of +2die.
That not more of a change than from a modified TN to +2 die.

As a player you can totally ignore the matrix boni and you will never be bothered with them like ever.

So by all means I do not see your problem.

When the rule is pure gamist bullshit with no ingame justification, is that so surprising?
Especially when it straight up goes against fluff.

You can repeat that till the end of time, doesn't make it any less wrong.

It is not more gamist bullshit than 80% of the freaking rest.
Honestly the whole matrix rules are "pure gamist bullshit". You roll some die and magically stuff happens.
Why? Because everything else would just slow the game beyond measure.

You do not like it that ware gets better with Matrix connection? Ignore those boni. Nothing of the game will change. And even if you group plays with them, you can still ignore them as a player.
So honestly thats about the least problematic rule EVER.

As a matter of facts in most cases the replacement of the dicepool bonus with a limit bonus is much more realistic.
Take for example cybereyes. If my vision gets sharper and I am a good observer I can notice even the smallest details. But a sharper vision DOES NOT make me a good observer (dice pool bonus).
Now a magical bonus is getting back in through a magic backdoor. Wow, what a "gamist bullshit", really...
And having this magical bonus in the first place was realistic... Yeah, totally.

How about this. What if these wireless protocols have ALWAYS existed, but it wasn't until GOD implemented the new wireless standards and cyberdecks hit the black market that people found out that there were such large security holes in smartguns or cyberware?

You can say, "my stuff still worked the same when I switched off wireless in SR4." That'd be because you didn't know that they had a wireless backdoor running in the background the whole time.

A possible fluff explanation but regardless it doesn't matter.

I like the idea of expanding the deckers role to be some kind of odd cyber debuffer class so that he can help the team in a firefight more so then turning off and on lights or setting off the fire extinguisher.

A Sam is not an island. Heaven for bid he has to rely on his team to operate at maximum efficiency. With that said, are there draw backs to being a physical adept in SR5? Adepts and Street Sams have always filled the same role, but only had some flavor of how they did it. If Adepts are able to keep up with Sams without any of the draw backs or needing to rely on the team, that could be problematic.

Please quote the fluff from SR5 where it states that "they make it easier for anyone to hit a target."

Hint: It's not there.

And to be anal: The smartlink does not do much, it basically just recieves information from a smartgun. There is no bonus for having a smartlink wireless, but having the smartgun wireless gives you the bonus.

They were develeoped during Stormfront. Not 2034, when the Matrix was designed.

And to answer your question: then the people would simply turn to their 2074 version of skinlink and smartlink. You know the one who is not online and not bothered by new wireless protocols. And they would use the 2974 version of reaction enhancers, wired reflexes, chemical seal etc. Because they all give the same boni and functionality while not being online.

SYL

Nope. didn't check that one, and you are right.

But the Red Dot gives the same bonus as a laser sight in SR4 (+1 Die), and since a laser sight in SR5 gives +1 Limit I'll bet you that if/when the Red Dot is introduced to SR5 it will give +1 Limit,

Assuming it would give +1 Die would break the base mechanics of SR5.

Thats a silly reply because those boni did (after the new edition) did not exist. You could neither use your SR3 smartlink and reduce the TN to your rolls.
Or use your "old" gun with no limiting accuracy etc.

So you mean that in the world of SR5 the smartgun always only gave +2 limit and only 2075 with wifi protocols give +2 limit +2 dice?

No they don't.

In SR5 an old (pre 2074) Smartlink/Smartgun, will work exactly like a new Smartlink/Smartgun (post 2074) giving +2 Limit.

The difference is that the new Smartlink/Smartgun can wireless connected for a +1 or +2 bonus to your dice pool.

It's right there in the book, just look under "Throwbacks".

But what about things that aren't really optional, like having Wired Ref + Rea En work together? I guess you could call this a "bonus" and optional, but many see this as basic functionality that isn't available unless wireless is enabled. It starts to sound like a false choice.

*note: I apologize if I don't have this situation correct, as I don't have the book yet and am relying on what I've read here on DS.

That would be me. Didnt look it up at the time. Although I had 4 years of Latin under my belt I was never very good at it (and to most of the time, plural of us is i).

So yes, the plural of Nexus is Nexūs not Nexi.

On limits an dice pools





I spent some time thinking about a simple method to determine the propability of a given limit affecting a given dice pool. I came up with this formula for use in spreadsheets (I made it up with Excel):

=BINOMDIST(f;d;(2/3);1)

Where
BINOMDIST is the Name of a built in formula for Excel
f = max number of failures
d = number of dice rolled
(2/3) = the probability of failure per die
1 = is a binary switch (can be 0 or 1)
if you set it to 1 you get the cumulative probability (the probability of F or less failures with D dice).
if you set it to 0 you get the exact probability (the probability of exactly F failures with D dice).
So we leave that at 1.

This formula determines the probability of having F or less failures with D dice, which is the same as having (D-F) or more successes.

Example:

We want to know the probability of a limit of 7 affecting a dice pool of 10:
2 is the max number of failures (we have to get at least 8 successes for the limit to kick in; so 10-8=2). 10 is our dice pool

=BINOMDIST(2;10;(2/3);1) = 0,003404 or 0,34%

Now a pool of 12 with a limit of 5 (6 or more successes; 12-6=6):

=BINOMDIST(6;12;(2/3);1) = 0,177722 or 17,77%

That way you don’t have to code a single line, and all the math you have to do is one simple subtraction. And you can use it for any limit and dice pool.

Neat, innit?

A more apt description would start, "In a future where all wireless devices have the ability to receive most (if not all) wireless frequencies..."


So we can scratch out non-standard radio frequencies. However you happen to be encoding bits, we can probably scratch that out, too. It's just not feasible (as I see it) to hold out something as untranslatable in SR2070+. Something that will cause a "Do you wish to install a relevant protocol? Y/N" popup - sure. If you don't have that auto-enabled. That may even to a type of metamorphic engine (see Unwired, p120-121, Spy Games p148-149) that will spit out the protocol from scratch for you.

Which is the same thing exactly.


Maybe that's because this is exactly what bricking (as described) would do to the implants replacing a character's vital organs (as described)? Oh wait, I forgot, it doesn't matter what the rule is meant to represent, you just lose the bonus dice, make up some bullshit to explain that!

Is that in the book? Judging by the fact that you and Aaron think up options on the spot, it isn't. If so, your "clarifications" are not rules, and are just as valuable as anyone else's opinions.
Need I say anything about the quality of the book that offers a way to break something, but not an explanation of how it is fixed?


Because those benefits worked without wireless in the previous editions. Because the whole idea of needing wireless for the implants in your body to communicate is retarded, just like the idea that enabling wireless on a chameleon suit makes you stealthier. Again: it only makes sense from the gamist point of view.


Incredible. The math is all off (and it's kinda cute to use categories like "like" or "dislike" in a math question) and it makes no sense from the in-character point of view (see the example Max used), but we're sticking to it just because that's what we decided we're doing. Glorious gamedesign.

You don't agree that higher Accuracy does not make it easier for a bad shot to hit? Or that a piece of gear that has been described as making it easier to hit for what, four editions now, should make hitting the targets easier? Or maybe you don't agree that the mechanics and the fluff should reflect each other?
The more I read this "it is what it is, deal with it" talk, the less I want to support the development team with my money. Great job if this was your goal.

I would say that's still pretty optional, in the greater scheme of things, and I can't control how people see it (whether as basic functionality or not, like the difference in how smartlinks work).

A new edition brings changes. The way I see it -- as a player and a GM, and someone who didn't, y'know, write the gear chapter or do anything but brainstorm, bitch, and fight over it (and trust me, it'd kill you guys to see/hear what side I was on in those arguments) -- the NPCs have the same changes and challenges to face, so it's all fair in dice and war. If everyone takes a hit of a Reaction point or two, PCs and NPCs alike, unless they choose to be more vulnerable, that feels fair to me. It makes it the new normal, in my opinion.

All I can do now is try to convince people the sky isn't falling (just like it wasn't when SR4 hit, or SR3 before it), so they can sling some dice and have some fun without convincing themselves the game's no fun (before they even see it or play it).

Worst statement ever from someone who writes game rules.

We have a huge crunch - fluff disparity here:

Repair rule that does not match the fluff (you roll a hardware test even if you have no access)
Brick rule tat does not match the fluff (sparks and smoke but only firmware damage)
You only lose boni when bricked although your whole body part got replaced (can you still use your bricked cyberarm, and just dont benefit from augmented attribute values? If no, why can you use your nervous system in case of wired reflexes or your muscles in case of cyber muscles?)

Horrible game design.

Same here:

You can use two simple actions in a combat phase, but if both are interpreted as an attack you can only make one, as in:

You can punch into the air two times (no attack action), but you can not punch a human two times (some miracle prevents you from doing the second punch).

Again, horrible.

Cyberlimbs does not get any bonus from being wireless, so as default they are not, and thus cannot be bricked.

Sad to hear. Hacking a cyberarm would actually give a hacker some interesting options (if you are already on the track to promote cyberware hacking like SR5 rules do), compared to, say, hacking wired reflexes.

People are saying bricking does a thing that bricking, by the book, doesn't do. When I say "Hey, that's not what it does, it's okay you guys, it's not as bad as you're all saying it is" you give me grief for that? I didn't write that rule, man. I'm just telling folks how it works so they stop freaking out thinking it means their sammie's gonna lose his Wired Reflexes or Cyberlimbs first thing when a fight starts, and lose all kinds of nuyen and essence and get turned quadraplegic at the drop of a hat.


It's right there on page 228. I'd give page numbers more often, but I know I wouldn't be helping very many people, and folks would just accuse me of gloating or something.

Believe it or not, I'm not just giving opinions here, Fatum. When I say "that's not how it works," or "that's not what it takes to fix it," or "that's not what the book says," no matter what you might think, I'm not just making shit up. I'm genuinely trying -- on my own time, just here to help out the community -- to just tell people what the book says, and keep them from freaking out about stuff that's not what the book says. The book doesn't say bricked stuff is broken forever. The book doesn't say it takes major surgery to fix bricked stuff. The book doesn't stay bricked cyberware causes anything but for that cyberware to stop offering you bonuses.

I share what the book says to try and cut down on the hyperbole, and I catch flak for it, get basically called a liar? Really?


Need I do anything but point to shitty fucking lines of text like this one, to show how some people are interpreting everything to do with SR5, and every word we freelancers say, in the least charitable way possible?

You're a hair away from calling me a full-on liar here, you're implying I'm making things up instead of sharing what's in the book, and then you're also implying that the book must be crap because I'm making things up. It doesn't matter that none of your assumptions are correct, and none of what you're saying is actually what's happening, but you've just got to take a second to sneak in one more little dig at a product you haven't seen yet.

You guys want to know why a book with fifteen writers has like three of those writers bothering to stop by and try to explain things? You want to know why so few of us still feel like taking our personal time to try and reassure folks, try to share info about the book since not everyone can see it yet, try to communicate with the community, or try to keep coming to this forum to try and talk about this new edition? It's you, and people just like you, Fatum. We come here to try and hang out with other Shadowrun fans, for years and years, for thousands of posts, and once we start writing for the company, we get called liars, people threaten to stalk us and grief us at conventions, and we get words put into our mouths time and again. Screw that. We're not your punching bags.

So...

The three and a half cents a word I get paid for the stuff I wrote isn't worth taking your shit.

Melee attack is not a single punch, it's a series of jabs, blocks, kicks and punches performed over the course of the turn.

Nitpicking, that was just an example. Make up your own where situational circumstances change an action from an non attack action (like running over some coordinate in spacetime) to an attack action (like running over some coordinate in spacetime occupied by somebody else, aka charging).

To make a rule where actions of a character are not restricted by a resource (time, nmber of actions, action points, whatever) but by intent and outcome (being an attack action) is just silly.

Yes, thats what is happening if you change the rules. Like the old Smartgun always would have been giving a bonus die or something around that. (Or even less)

The point is you can't really go thorugh editions and increase the boni with every edition.

So sorry, mechanically speaking this rule is a vast improvement. It tells you what the differane is between turing cyberware wifi or not. Before everybody just said, alright I have it offline and it works the same. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the rules this was actually stated. All those problems existed before too. (Can you hack cyberware, how does it work, can you actually deactivate the wireless connection of cyberware and what are the resulst)
Well, in 4E the answer was just: Fuck it, lets ignore that wifi crap and use it "offline". You are free to do the same in 5E. But if you now want to play with hackable cyberware, you got the rules. How the rules look like we will see if we can get our hands on a book or the release a preview.

@Serbitar
Yeah, well. Great to complain about rules you do not even know...

@Fatum

An to all the guys who think "bricking" or whatever the fuck you are calling it should have to kill or cripple you, I pray to all gods you never ever get to design everyhing I will be using.
Who in is right might would design such a thing. So honestly it makes PERFECT sense that for example if your wired reflexes get compremised they shut down into a safe mode and deactivate making you lose the bonus. That's perfectly logical. No one in their right mind would do it differently if he could prevent it. And considering the fact, that they are around for much more than 10 years, I guess they should have had enough time to make cyberware save. There is no passage of the electric secondary effect, that your cyberware starts exploding and ripping you to shreds. And thats several times more severe than everything any hacker could do to a device. Don't believe it? Right, you get to hack my computer and I hook yours up to 10.000V.

But when asked what bricking does you fly into a fit of hysteria, got it. "-Does a bricked implant get disabled? -It does. -Does that mean that disabling implants that replace vital organs, like a cyberheart, is similar in effect to disabling the organ? -It does. -Why then does disabling the implants that replace vital organs only remove the bonus abilities they give? -You don't appreciate us enough!"

Is hacking implants a viable tactic for a hacker? If yes, why wouldn't a sammy be afraid? If no, why is it there, and a good deal of rules twisted to fit it there?

If so, why the guesswork? "Maybe your ware now has external access points. Or maybe you have to perform a surgery. Or maybe it can be fixed via wireless". Those are all opinions heard in this thread from freelancers. If there's a rule in the book, why not quote it, or at least point out what is there?

I do not think there's anyone here who did not get this much on the first go. However, I am still yet to see any kind of calm answer on the accompanying questions: if only bonuses are gone, why? If no surgery is required, why, and what is? Instead of pointing out the rules existing, admitting no rules exist or even simply refusing to answer you prefer to swear at the people asking? Good going.

I've never called you a liar, nor intended to do so.

It's hard to interpret hysteria instead of answers charitably.

Jesus, what do you expect him to do? Give you a full list of every piece of cyberware, the rules on hacking and something else why we are at it?
In general: It makes sense, that hacking can't disable live supporting functions. Thats really basic security design. Try to establish a mode of operation which is inherently safe. Thats how we build nuclear reactors and medical equipment today or try to.



Because there are maybe several possibilities depending on the implant and the situation. To flesh this out he would need to copy paste everything about repairing implants...

Because thats how you build shit in security sensitiv areas. It is not about making sure you can do a lot of stuff with it or have many individual settings to play with. The main concern will be safty. That means that even a complete system failure should result in the device going into an safe mode, where at best it is performing basic functions or not endangering a persons life.

Now reseting is also not a problem, because you do not need to save any data! Again it is just the matter of dropping everything on the harddisk (the basic functionality should be hardwired anyway). And at that point simply reinstall everything.

Maybe it is even an safty feature added to cyberware. In 4E we did not know what would happend if ware go hacked. Maybe there were several unpleasent incidents. Anyhow: Now ware is build to enter a safe mode to protect itself and the user from harm if it is compremised. That sounds realistic.

Do Adepts have to become very vulnerable (dual-natured is a working approximation of going wireless, I think) to combine an attribute boost to reaction and adept-boosted reflexes?