Inspired by the thread on the 5th ed. Matrix I have a question for you all.

How should the SR Matrix rules look in your oppinion? What would be the core mechanic? The underlying goal? What should the processes involved in hacking be?

I've been considdering the matrix rules for a while, and to be honest I still haven't made up my mind on how I would like to make them, if I was designing them from scratch. However, given the amount of experience here on Dumpshock, collectively we really ought to be able to come up with some decent, functional rules for hacking.

So, anyone up for a discussion on how the matrix rules could be made, and why they should be made that way? No holds barred. Forget history and how things have been done up until now, and let me know your thoughts on the matter.

I'll pitch in at a later point. It's crap O'clock where I'm at right now, and I'm heading for dreamland.

Very simple

1) Open up the CP2020 core rule book
2) Convert 1d10 + skill + attribute into the skill + attribute d6 system.
3) update the rules to reflect a little bit more modern version of the dark, dystopian Sixth World, like mini drones, tags, online connections etc.
4) Improve them where necessary (they had some quirks too)
5) ???4
6) Profit.

No, really, its that easy. Fast rules, easy rules, highly abstract, but not brainbending stupid. I can live with that.

SYL

TBH I don't have huge issues with either of the systems in SR3 or SR5 and am looking at a blending of the two concepts as an update to add into My SR5 House Rules.
For what I've run to date I take the SR5 system as my base but add or alter the follwong:

Using Matrix Perception to see icons outside of the 100m limit (basically I add 1KM of Matrix visual range per hit on the perception check. This I have as it's own Simple action "Extend Matrix Resolution").

Adjusting the wireless bonuses to make more sense (typically switching the Limit Boost vs DP boost etc, that's all in the My SR5 House Rules thread) which influences to a degree matrix related stuff.

I use Hosts a lot, a Rating 2 Host goes a long way. It actually helps keep things together from an GM organising PoV and also lets you play around with the challenge of doing x or y without just hacking devices willy nilly.

For the Hidden Icons/Running Silent and the RFID tag rules mesh, I use an expanded freer concept of applying the Matrix perception chart. You can use hits as you wish off that chart on any one roll and also I allow the use of a "Detect Hidden/Silent Icons" to ping those in the AoE of the roll (but I do that as a separate Perception roll to the standard using it's own action) and then I allow the Decker to apply a Hit to flag Icons of (declared) type. IE: The team's decker scans a host for Hidden Icons succeeds on the roll and picks up a couple of hundred. he then uses a Regular Matrix Perception check and applies his 3 hits, spending the first to identify UnAllocated RFID tags which wipes those few hundred down to around, lets say, six. The second he applies to Automated Systems flagging two and the third he applies to personal weapons which picks up two as well. Leaving him with 2 utterly unidentified Hidden icons. He could perception again and either spend time or hits identifying those last two Icons or he could actively get info about/hack etc the ones he has already flagged by type.

I think the Matrix would work a lot better if a step was taken to separate the rules from the setting. There should be rules from doing things with computer, just like there are rules to fire guns or drive cars. To establish rules utterly specific to system design of 2050-2070 is ultimately just as meaningful as having the firearms rules refer to standard corporate open-space layout regarding cover, or chasing rules that measure distance in number of exits on the US Interstate Highway system. It would be for the better if a novice player could understand what he can do without having full knowledge of what the Matrix is. That knowledge, as with the rest of the setting, is in the gamemaster's hands to describe the action (or handwave it to speed things up). Besides, as far as network security go, there's not really in point in using different rules to deal with firewall, authorization privileges or encryption because actual security relies on all of them and defeating it is to go for the weak point.

I think I'd go with, like, seven rules...

Matrix Perception - What to roll to notice something on a computer system.
Matrix Stealth - What to roll to do something on a computer system without being detected by character doing Matrix Perception.
Matrix Break - What to roll to make a computer system do something it isn't supposed to do.
Matrix Crash - What to roll to make a computer system stop working.
Matrix Kill - What to roll to kill someone connected to a computer system
Matrix Range - When those five actions can be performed on another computer system than the one you're using.
Matrix Character - Non-living software like Agent and IC and sprites qualify as "character" to act inside the Matrix.

Then you have a description of the Matrix setting that speaks about using virtual and augmented reality, the way corporate grids defend themselves and how everyday objects establish wireless networks between them, and what devices on the Matrix do that you can act on, from transmitting communications to controlling elevators.

Obviously, the divide between rules and setting wouldn't really be seamless. Modifiers for each of the action would likely refer to how the Matrix actually works, for instance different modifiers for AR and VR Perception. The way the Matrix Range rule would be written would actually define the Matrix (going one way or another, from SR4 unlimited wireless meshed network that put everything into range at all time, to SR1-SR2 Matrix dungeon modeling where you need to break into one system to access the next on the map).

Matrix rules are difficult to balance, because while the Matrix is a country of its own like Astral, it doesn't really map to the real world. My personal design goals for them are something simple.

They need to be :

1. Fun - For both the decker and the rest of the players to watch; same as watching the face con someone or the stealth expert sneak into a place.

2. Uncomplicated - Things should run smoothly and in obvious mechanical directions that fit the game's overall resolution mechanics, and the bookkeeping required should not be onerous.

3. In-genre - The existence of the Matrix should serve the setting, rather than defining the setting based on what fits the rules desired. SR5's wireless bonuses and bricking rules do this very poorly.

I honestly rather like the 3e base-book version myself, with a little fudging it works well. I haven't really run into the Pizza Problem that people here go on about.

If I was going to fix it for 5e, it'd be pretty simple. Cut out wireless access to anything without a legitimate reason to be online such as commlinks, make the wireless bonuses into 'connectivity bonuses' and let people use DNI for them at a slight nuyen premium.

Nath's selection of actions works pretty well, with the caveat that just like firearms, I'd run with device-based limits. My personal preference would be having programs specifically for each action with a rating that acts as the Limit for that action, and an overall total of Rating numbers that a given 'deck can support. That way deck loadout matters like gun loadout does, without it being terribly micromanaging.

Also, I'd cut the prices significantly across the board, so that Decking isn't an exclusive ability to buy into at character creation, given that it is equivalent to Astral Projection, which is a very small part of a Mage's overall suite of powers. Pull Rigger Emulation out of decking abilities for the same reason, it devalues Riggers if Deckers can spoof their abilities. Technomancers get to not pay for decks with cash, but in exchange don't have the option of turning ASIST into dumb mode to not get wrecked by Black IC. Bring the meta back to the old standard, where Deckers accessed what they could remotely, but for truly secure things, had to be able to do the B&E to get past physical firewalls.

I'd prefer the Matrix to be less abstracted and played more like the rest of the game.

What I mean by that, is I want the Matrix to take into account movement and cover. If I'm in cyber combat, there is no tactical advantage i can get. I can't take cover. I can't flank. I can't run around a corner. Well...I can because the system is abstracted in such a way I can describe it like that, but mechanically none of that stuff matters.

Like in SR5, you need to make a hide action, which then can be described as running around the corner of the Matrix topography and breaking line of sight. In SR4 once you're spotted you stay spotted. That's kind of lame. Also since in SR4 not running with Stealth on was kind of a death sentence, and also with high enough hacking skill and Stealth program you would then become undetectable and could do whatever you want without fear of Cyber combat ever.

Like wise, Cyber combat in both systems just came down to who had the higher dice pools. At least in 5th there is a bit more tactical decisions that need to be made with reconfiguring your deck to improve your attack and firewall and coming out of stealth if you're marked. But I'd like it if I could take cover behind another icon or if my opponent is behind an icon, I could "shoot" a dataspike through the device acting as cover and do damage to both the enemy and that device, kind of like the barrier rules. Also AoE attacks would be cool, allowing me to damage multiple devices at once in a host.

The entire point of the Matrix is that its a realistic metaphor for computer networking. It'd make sense that they'd make it as much of a simulation as possible. It's also allow host architecture to be used to help defend itself. Like having to suddenly play with the ZeroG rules or the underwater rules, or the extreme heat rules. Right now host architecture doesn't matter to the game at all. It's just fluff. And that's lame.

Hacking should be simplified to one skill. The Computer skill. And that's used for actions that don't have a clear metaphor. Like commanding a door to open or edit camera footage. While everything else, like cybercombat should be using a firearm or melee skill. Moving through a host should require the run/swim/freefall/etc skill. Matrix perception uses the normal perception skill. With Matrix attributes instead of physical or mental attributes. Or maybe use mental attributes and use Matrix attributes as limits like it currently is in SR5. That'd make sense to me.

This is actually how the UV host rules work. And you know what, that'd make sense. UVHost were cutting edge in the 2050's. Its been almost 20 years. So why wouldn't the standard Matrix of the 2070's be on par with 20 year old bleeding edge tech?

1) Get rid of wireless. Who cares why (It was never secure enough, Crash 7.0, Revolution style sattelites)
2) Clarify the 5th Ed ruleset. It's good, I like the abstraction, but in it's current format it's all over the place.
3) Replace a lot of the fluff with examples of things people do in the matrix. There's a couple but there needs to be way more.
4) Hackers need to have impact that's fun. In 1st - 4th edition they just aren't fun (Technomancers in 4th were but that's because they were OP). People can debate this, but the anecdotal evidence is pretty strong that people don't like playing them. They need to be as cool as SAMs or mages.
5) Get rid of technomancers (Crash 7.0 turned them all into AIs or something and we've been wiping them all out ever since).
6) Tinker with pricing a bit. Decks should probably be a bit cheaper and programs could be a bit more, with more impact.

and...

7) To reiterate: The solution is not to make hacking more accessible. It's to make it cooler so you want to specialize in it. 4th Ed's hacking was basically throwing in the towel to try and get hacking into games without making people get out of their favourite DAKKA style archetypes. It was just bad, no more.

The problem with #4 Smash is that YMMV applies so very much to Deckers. See, for all the complaints about decking and hacking, I have never run a game of Shadowrun where someone didn't want to play one in 3rd or 5th edition and that's been with 4 different gaming groups over the last 13 years. It's very hard to define what 'Fun' is as obviously different people will react to it in different ways. The best way I've ever found to handle the rules was to make sure the Decker player was either coming to the table knowing the rules (this happened in one of four groups) or, as I was introducing the game to them, the decker player had a cheat sheet for what they could do in the Matrix and a small copy of the rules specific to them

When it comes to Decking I don't think it's the Rules that are really all that much at issue, I think it's how we let people play Decker characters and how prepared the GM is for them. I said above I like to use Hosts a lot, small ones. I'll expand on that by saying I like to encourage my Deckers to slice into systems and hack things, so I typically have a few Hosts of varying level sitting in my GM folder. That way when they're doing legwork the option is there to use the Matrix as much as anything else (although for differing results), and like in most games my runs start off with smaller and simpler as the team works up towards the bigger scores. This means the decking literally only takes a few rolls and happens along with everyone else doing there bits, no time monopoly (unless the group wants to wait for the decker) and only a few minutes needed. By the time they've done a couple of sessions the option to deck is as familiar as the option to look astrally, chat to the local gangers, do a stake out or meet the fixer. What's more so are the mechanics of the system, by the time that they're looking at bigger hosts or multiple hidden devices and so forth the Decker already knows exactly what actions he wants to take, what programs and attributes to run, what his dice pools and limits are. His options are ion his head not just hidden in the book or on the cheat sheet (and those he can't recall off hand are still on the cheat sheet) and at the same time I'm used to the Host responses the types of IC it may be running etc.

If your Decker isn't getting to do cool stuff, that's a GM issue, not a systems issue. There are plenty of cool things a Decker can do in any edition. They just suffer worst from being gimped by GMs not knowing the system and therefore not knowing what they can do.

Well, a little bit its an syste missue, because complicated rules, long roll sessions and tedious gameplay is a system- not a gamemaster issue.

SYL

Your experience with those rules are much different than mine. As I said, a GM who knows the rules can keep things moving along.

Yes... For Hacking to Flow, both participants need to understand how it works. Since our GM is very familiar with the system, he manages to keep it flowing quite nicely, which is why we never really had a pizza problem with Hacking in 4th or 5th. But it IS incumbent on the Hacker player to know their stuff too. I still use a cheat sheet for 5th because it is just different enough that I cannot rely upon 4th Edition knowledge. And yes, I played the Hacker in 4th and am playing the Hacker in 5th.

Yes, but it is far easier to learn his stuff as a streetsam, mage, face or rigger than a hacker. And that turns a lot of people down. Easy rules are better for everyone, despite the mechanical proficiency of the player and the GM.

SYL

That's certainly possible. I feel that TJ and others have that experience as well. I certainly haven't and in fact the few times that hackers have been chosen (which is actually my experience right now in 5th) is that the GM tends to just gloss over it which makes the character feel somewhat redundant. I do believe the general concensus is that more groups share my experience and that seemed somewhat evident from the direction taken by the writers early on in development of 5th Ed.

I disagree though that the rules aren't the problem. In 5th Ed they are less of a problem, but still not the best. I think we need to get decking out of the 'Advanced player only' mindset and make it more accessible to players. The whole game needs it, even the bits that everyone knows.

More accessible means different things to different people, though. For me, it means easier mechanics, but longer resolution time (for Hacking). I am not a fan of seconds long hacks.

Since I started this thread, I guess that I’d better chime in with my own dream concerning the Matrix rules for SR.

First off, I actually kind of liked the feel of the SR4A matrix. It had a suitably futuristic feel to me. Unfortunately it also suffered from some issues that would be nice to address.

Completely ignoring established canon, weight of history etc., the first thing I would actually change, is the prevalence of VR. I don’t mind the concept of VR in itself, but I dislike the form it takes in SR. The reason I dislike it, is because of its prevalence in everything, and because of the effect it has on the game. Why on earth would anyone create a VR environment for every single damned node!? Code doesn’t write itself you know. As for the effect on the game, having VR exist for every node, all over the place, and being accessible by anyone at any time and in half a heartbeat, it also has the effect of effectively “splitting the party” during the game. It can be done, but it is usually one of the things that an RPG advises against, given that it significantly increases the “workload” of the GM. VR is effectively the same as having the Wizard in a D&D game planeshift to another plane during a combat encounter, and then having his own little adventure there, while the rest of the group is engaged on the prime material plane. It just annoys me. For that reason I’d remove VR environments from places where it doesn’t make sense, and I’d make entering and exiting it a minute or more long process, which should mean that it would cease being useful to do in combat.

The 2nd thing I’d like changed, is that I’d like the matrix rules to require somewhat less book keeping. While all the interconnectedness between possible max program ratings, OS ratings, Response etc. is pretty cool, it is also (to me at least) a royal pain in the arse. So a reduced level of complexity in that respect would be nice.

Now, while I do like the basic hacking process from SR4A, I must admit that parts of it were a bit cumbersome, and while I agree with Tymeaus Jalynsfein that hacking stuff shouldn’t necessarily take mere seconds, there are problems with hacking attempts taking overly many rolls to perform in-game. Too easy and it becomes silly. Too hard, and it becomes so ponderous to work with, that players will avoid it, because they consider it useless. Personally I toyed around with a thought that you could only break encryption, if you either had the cipher for it, of if you had a Decrypt program with a higher rating than the encryption. Decryption should also require more net hits. Personally I had something along the lines of Rating^2 in mind, rather than just Rating. Haven’t had a chance to test it in practice though, but one consequence is that it does mean that Rating 6 encryption should be used quite sparingly in the game, and be restricted to the truly high security areas.

As for Technomancers I’ve never had a problem with them. I do, however, think that they would have worked better, if they had functioned more like Adepts than Mages, and if they had been more Real World/AR hackers par excellence, but had been unable to enter VR naturally. I’d also remove the Sprites. These few changes ought to, I believe, fix the main problems with the Technomancers in SR4A.

As such I have never had any problem with the concept of wifi in the game, but I do think that in SR4A the extend that almost everything was wifi connected didn’t make much sense. Some things don’t make sense to be able to access by wifi, and in places where security truly is paramount, running things via wires do make more sense. It will also make it necessary for Deckers to be on-site on some runs, where they will need to hack into a system by physically hooking up to a terminal.

I'm not sure what edition of Shadowrun you've got most experience in, but I find that this has pretty much been the case since at least 4th Ed, maybe even 3rd ed (although my memory of that is a bit hazy). VR now isn't really played as a seperate world, it is much more abstracted and runs in real time alongside those in the real world as if the hacker had wired reflexes.

Conceptually, getting rid of it or making it less prevalent would be like getting rid of d20s in D&D. I just don't see it happening. You shouldn't really apply the realism measure against these sorts of concepts. VR makes the matrix better in 2075, because.............. magic.



110% agree with you on this. 5th Ed made some progress on this, it really has, but I don't think it's good enough yet. A big step would be to get rid of stat distribution on decks and reduce the amount of matrix actions down to about 6... at most and just make them all more broad. No more marks, no more access levels. It's all un-necessary.



I don't think too easy is a problem, particularly if you got rid of bricking cyberware. I'm ok with hackers being able to mess with cyberware but just in temporary way. Turning off the 'cyberzombie with autocannon''s eyes with one roll is reasonable I think, he just has to spend a simple action to reboot them, but it stops him from wiping out your whole squad, or at least gives him -6 to -10 to hit. Everything else that is non-combat though needs to be less rolls. You want to open that door? simple:

1) Plug in
2) make 'manipulate device roll'. This rolls difficulty is based on the nodes defences. The end result is either it opens, it doesn't open or it doesn't open and some kind of alert is triggered.
3) That's it.



Rating to the power of 2? So a rating 6 encryption would require 36, net hits? I assume this is an extended test mechanic? personally I think the best place for extended tests is in the bin where 5th Ed more or less relegated them.



I liked them as things that you can't play, but once they became playable they just felt like OP hackers to me, not to mention the whole magic and tech not mixing thing that they just seem to ignore. I guess it's just a matter of taste but they just seem to add a level of complexity to something that's already too complex. I'd almost be ok with getting rid of hackers and just having technomancers, maybe the matrix just become too secure to hack and technomancers still can because they don't use measurable protocols? Let's just not have both.



It was really introduced to make hackers more flexible and interesting and to not be relegated to NPC status. Conceptually I like it, I just think that mechanically it just doesn't work, not to mention all the whinging that people do about how it works 'in the real world'. Getting rid of it, gets rid of the problems with matrix perception, armchair deckers, deck triangulation, noise, etc.

With the reduction of the Control Rig to a +2 dice bonus when jumped in to a drone or vehicle, I found that hackers can make good use of armed vehicles and drones as a secondary skill that allows them to contribute to fleshy reactions and take advantage of their VR bonuses. Even if the hacker is doing something else, they proceed in real time with the rest of the group at the same pace, and what you've got is merely an example of what seemingly every group does all the fooking time: splitting the party.

I wish that hacking in SR took the form of something a bit more realistic (as an IT professional, its not even close).

I'm actually happy it doesn't. SR's Matrix has no reason to look much like modern IT, given that the whole foundation of it is in the Crash virus and the cyberterminals developed to combat it.

Honestly I'm only familiar in details with SR4A. With regards to other editions I only have 2nd hand information and conceptual understanding. You're right that VR matrix stuff is handled in "real time", simultaneous with other stuff. But the way the setting is described, the scenery in every single node, is basically its own world, meaning that while a cybercombat attack is basically just another dice roll, in one node it might be a pair of knights battling it out, in another it might resemble a dogfight scene from a Star Wars movie, and in yet another node it could be some wierd scene out of a My Little Pony cartoon. VR is basically a near infinite number of worlds.

I do agree with you, however, concerning what you say about removing/reducing VR in SR. It is a very fundamental change to the setting. But that is also why I started out mentioning that I would like to do that, if I were to completely ignore the established setting I know it will not happen, but I would like to change it nevertheless.



I'm honestly a little up in the air about what the "right" balance might be. On one hand, condensing things down to just a couple of highly "symbolic" rolls might work on the mechanical level, but I'm tempted to say that I feel that might be simplifying things a bit more than I'd personally like the feel of. But at the end of the day we are entering playtest territory, if we want to find a "proper" balance, and even then I guarantee that not everyone will agree in the end *LOL*.



You are right. The idea there was based on the concept of the extended test, which as such I never had that big of a problem with. My goal is that it kind of buggs me that all encryption and hacking past firewalls etc. is so quick and easy to do. I realise that it's necessary for the game, but I have a conceptual problem with it being THAT easy and fast, because I can't envision that anything of importance would then seriously get stored on any form of electronic media. It just doesn't make proper sense to me.



To be honest I actually do think that it worked. Yes, it did create some other issues regarding believability, but frankly bringing back decks and connecting all kinds of stuff to the Matrix, which frankly ought not to be, is IMO not really an improvement.

Anyway, Merry Christmas

Is that not how it worked in third?

Only if you reduce the SR roll system on "you roll some d3 and count 5/6"

Basically yes. You had a target number of (for example) 10, reduced by the rating of the programm (for example 6) and so your target number for an operation was 4. Problem: dozens of specific scenarios, special rules, exceptions etc.

SYL

I would hardly see that as a problem, since having several tactical possibilities is a goal of a ruleset. Few want to play with the fighting-mechanic from Redbox-D&D for example, but I have to read the SR3 Matrix rules more closely before continuing.

Found this a while back, had some nice ideas.
It was posted in DS too, but if I had chosen that link it would have been a better fit for the 'Dumpchock, what happened?'-thread.

The Ends of the Matrix

There is a fine line between having several tactical possibilities (which SR4 or Cyberpunk 2020 provides as well) and a completely incoherent rule set, which was critized by a lot of people, including official support gamemaster banishing deckers from official demo games on cons.

In some ways there were even less tactical possibilities due to group time (lot of dice rolling => other player getting a pizza) and decking in SR23 was extremely ressource intensive. Even "normal" corp security hosts required a money investment into the middle / higher 6 digit range to just even start. It was one of the reasons why the most favored connection was the NPC decker.

SYL

I think a major part of optimal matrix rules would be to forget hackers for the first couple of pages and just explain how it works, what people do there and how they do it. If two security cams are connected to a commlnk, where does the data go, where are the users' personas etc. pp. Then you can go about adding hackers to it who bypass the cams.

For what it's worth, we tried a version of the SR5 Matrix with no marks. Instead, more difficult tasks were given dice pool penalties instead of number of marks. The results included a hacker playing with street lights like he was Dumbledore, an enemy samurai shoving his sword into his own skull with his cyberarm, and electronics blowing sparks at the snap of a sprite's digital fingers.

We went back to marks.

Whoa....

Pretty though.

I am guessing the Sammie had not previously oinvested in an Evo Cranial Scabbard™?

But yeah, it's tough because we want cool hacks but still be able to survive it if we are on the receiving end.

But was it because the roll were too easy, or because or the hackers (and sprites) were getting effect with a single Complex Action instead of several ones?

SR5 rules do include the possibility of a -4 modifier to get 2 Marks at once and -10 to get 3 Marks at once. If the modifiers were lower in order to get a similar result, it ought to make hacking easier. Higher modifiers would make the amount of time required more random, as the hacker may (or not) need to roll several times before getting enough hits.

If the modifiers are appropriate, the only thing that otherwise matters is the number of actions other characters may take while the hacker perform the two to four Complex Action (and rolls) his hacking requires. In which case the problem rather lies in the number of Initiative Pass a hacker gets because the trope wants that "mind goes faster than meat", while actual game balance requires the opposite.

It was partly that and partly the fact that Edge can get you a lot of things when you really want it.

A simple illustrative exercise would be to have on samurai against one hacker, each trying to kill one another in a one-block region of the Barrens. Try it both ways. =i)

So a complex matrix action that used edge resulted in someone dying and that was considered too powerful, while the same result could be achieved a multitude of ways with magic, firearms, explosives or melee weapons?

Your example above doesn't put the decker at any particular advantage over the samurai unless they have scanned the samurai within 100m previously. In fact, if the samurai had any stealth capability and turned their wireless off (why not, the advantages aren't needed against a lone hacker) I'd have my money on them every time, marks or not.

*Skim thread*

A lot of people have said a lot of things I like.
Abstract it more, give me tactical options, fix or remove wireless,* fun uncomplicated and in-genre.

Do not make me roll 17 times to perform a simple task. I realize that "hacking an electronic lock" is not actually a simple task, but if "Pick the Lock with Elecropicker 5000" is one roll, then hacking the sucker should be no more than two.
Secondly, there needs to be sane durations on various tasks. Sure, doing a data-search shouldn't take 8 seconds, but I shouldn't also be tied up twiddling my thumbs at the gaming table while everyone else is off doing whiz-bang things. We need to separate and make distinct actions that require the hacker/decker's direct involvement and things he can delegate to software.

Rigging a drone? Direct involvement. Data search? Software. And don't even go around mixing and matching "You can do it in X time with Y dicepool if you do it yourself or you can have software do it for W dice in Z time." No. I don't care how much you think doing things yourself is going to get better results, you're still using freaking Google. The software is doing 98% of the work, done. It will do its thing, you can do yours.

(Hacking on the fly: direct involvement. Probing the target? Software.)

Oh, and by the way: location services on your phone? All that does is prevent the software on your phone from knowing where you are. The cell tower knows where you are and how fast you're moving down to a square meter. It has to, or the whole time-slicing thing doesn't work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U7ROVno2ys

*I don't mind the wireless net as a Thing That Exists, but the "hack anything from anywhere" result is Just Bad. I should not be able to daisy chain off a god damn toaster.

Isn't that what NetCat does with a toaster?

Wait... different meaning....

Nvm

On a more serious note I like the splitting idea between direct vs software

Two things:

1. Quick hacks and big cyber heists : I need hackers to be able to hack all the cameras in the perimeter with a single roll or to be able to turn the lights off in a single action that's quick to resolve. But when they have to attack the mainframe of Whatever Corp. it needs to feel epic.

2. A clear decision on what the Matrix is. 80s cyberpunk VR thingy or command lines?
I'd really like to split Shadowrun into 3 flavors: Shadowrun 2035, the techno-thriller, Shadowrun 2050, with 80s cyberpunk style and Shadowrun 2070, with a post-cyberpunk flavor. The Matrix would have to be handled differently in each case. In 2035 it's close to moder-day hacking. In 2050 it's VR and shared consensual hallucinations. In 2070 it's a layer on top of reality, similar to the astral plane.

I do not think that this needs to be seperated - similar to today website a node/icon can have 3 different representations from where you can choose, 2D normal display, 3d virtual reality and "1D" command prompt. You choose the representation according to your device and habit.

SYL

I see two ways to make an epic adventure, in this case an epic cyber-heist.

The first one is The Journey. Buy a Chinese military icebreaker from a Russian fixer in Istanbul, con a corporate executive to get his retinal print and "borrow" his comlink for five minutes, blow out a fiber optic in the basement to make the site back up on a satellite link... Whatever. That's the kind of magnificent planning many have tried to do for Shadowrun, not just for the Matrix, and many failed.
In the end, to make such "side quests" necessary, you need to introduce security mechanisms that cannot be beaten with a good roll and/or Edge. If you do that, you introduce in the setting security mechanisms that everyone should use since they cannot be beaten. If you don't, players will avoid doing epic stuff and favor the simplest, mundane route to their goal, like they always do.

( I nonetheless think Chinese military icebreakers should be a thing, but I have no idea how to use it to achieve epicness. So far my idea would have been to cap "standard" programs rating, and to have program above a given rating practically available only in a specialized form, kinda like "Stealth (MCT Matrix security)" which would expire after a month or so. )

The second way is The Battle. Try to outmaneuver the opposition in real time, muttering something like "Hell, I've never seen a dynamic encryption moving so fast. He's good, really good." My take would be to keep the stealth and lock-breaking simple, and rely on the Cybercombat subsystem to provide epicness as needed. Beating Firewall should straightforward, beating IC less so. This would first require more cybercombat options (however, I don't like the idea of making a cybercombat a full mock-up of actual combat, things like "hiding behind files" and so on).
Besides, one of the problem with SR4 Matrix was that regardless of how hard a Matrix defense was supposed to be, Cybercombat always came as a fall-back scenario once you failed to be stealthy (which was practically only possible if the GM had realized that actual security required an IC packed with Analyze to roll Matrix Perception all the time...). I would go for a way to make Cybercombat against IC a separate concern from Stealth up to a point. That is, that you could engage IC for at least several turns in Cybercombat without triggering an alert (with an half-assed explanation about Cybercombat targeting piece of codes at a lower-level than exploit or stealth hacking, hence the relative rudeness of the result, so as to stay below the radar of the IC smart system...). Then, once the alert broke out, you can go on with the epic fight against the spider and his army of IC.

That brings it to the point pretty much.

I actually think that 5th Edition went into the direction of the first type of hacking you identified.

Archives in 5th are not hack-able, which I actually like a lot.
If you need data from a server, and that data is not in use at the moment,
you need someone to get it out for you.

That forces the players to strategize, and either con, or force someone to help them,
which kinda mirrors how real hacking works.
I think more hacking in Shadowrun should go like that.
Getting into a secure system should sometimes involve digging up dirt about someone,
or threatening him, or bribing him, or kidnapping his family, so that he will help you.

On a side note, only tangentially related to hacking, but one that provides a "huh, I wonder if..." kind of point.

I'm reading a book called The Magician's Land (third in a series by Lev Grossman, the first two are amazing*) and in it is a card game called Push. Push is sort of a War variant. Higher cards beat lower cards, odd rules like throwing cards into a hat and when you get five in, scoring it like a poker hand, and so on. But the rules are irrelevant, as the point of the game is to cheat. Force the card you need to the top of the deck, steal a card from the discard pile, and so on (and because this is magicians we're talking about, that stuff is easy), and cheating is not grounds for elimination (you didn't cheat hard enough!). And it is not beyond reason that cards from another deck, another game, or even from suits that don't exist to be played (queen of glass, anyone? Suicide jack? The rule card for poker? A $10 bill from Monopoly?).

This idea has so entranced me I've been trying to figure out a rules set to enable people-who-are-not-stage-magicians to get that same kind of "cheat at the game of Push" experience, as its all about out-maneuvering your opponent (also, printing up 100 cards with poker backs and randomly detailed front faces) is just so interesting.

Anyway. Apply that kind of concept to hacking in Shadowrun:
A set of rules that essentially are about cheating, and cheating better, faster and harder than the other guy.

That would be an awesome hacking system. Sure, it would be a mini-game inside the game, but it would be a lot more interesting than "throw dice until someone dies."



OH GOD. HACKING WITH MAHJONG TILES. WITH CHEATY POWERS.
Playing a tile gets you that number. Running ProgramX flips a tile over (blank faces are worth 0, duh), swaps it with another tile (yours or an opponent's), drawing tiles, discarding tiles, stealing tiles....

Dear lord...

*Kind of a spoiler, but it sets up the series really well: main character grows up on Narnia--sorry, Fillory novels--and an unprinted sequel is what leads him to Hogwarts--I mean Brakebills--and finds that magic is real and so is Fillory.

Having GMed every matrix version I'd throw away the whole thing and build it as a fun side game that moves at the same speed as regular combat with meaningful rolls. Its more about rolling for how long it takes than success vs failure, this can be done passively or you could help out and go active if time is a factor. This would be demonstrated in missions where the decking examples are things like turn off the poison gas filling the area while the street sam is fighting off cyberzombies or something similar. Active is basicly for when it can be interesting while not requiring a pizza run and Passive would handle the rest. Its about how the matrix is presented more than what the rules are. You can avoid the pizza run even in 1e if you limit the nodes to 6 or less. If your spending more than 5-10 min on any one player there needs to be a cut scene with something interesting for everyone else to do before you go back to the one player. The rules should help drive this style of play not hinder it.

[edit] my advise for anyone having issues with split party stuff be it matrix, astral space or other is go watch the end of return of the jedi and time how much time they spend on any one group. Then try to do that same thing in your game, it will take practice and some tweaking but its all about flow control.

Hard to say, since the rules do state there will be a "dangerous process that is detailed in the forthcoming Matrix sourcebook" of which we know nothing about, how difficult the roll(s) will be, how long it will take and what flavor it will have.

As far as SR5 corebook goes, Host Archives cannot be accessed using Matrix rules, period. It says you have to "convince someone," which as far as I can tell is the sole province of the social skills (even if you first use your combat, magical or matrix skills to get a bonus to your Intimidation roll). It can make hacking epic by forcing you into "social hacking," which is a thing, but as far as the game goes, is a Face affair. It still doesn't give the hacker/decker/technomancer anything epic to do with the Matrix rules. Basically, to the question "Which epic act someone can do in the Matrix?" it answers "Go learn another skill."

It only makes thing worse that the actual archetypes most people have in mind when offered to play a hacker character is "the guy with awkward social skills that avoid dealing physically with people". Sure, it is a cliché, social hacking does exist and some real-life hackers are very social creatures. But it's still not what most people think (because of movies, TV and video games) when you tell them hacker is an archetype they can play.

Fair point about the reference to a future sourcebook.

About the 'being socially awkward' thing though. I prefer hacking like it is in the movie 'Hackers'.
Flashy, cool, fun, and it is something that makes you popular in a certain circle of people.
Hackers in that movie are nerds, but they are cool, and socially accepted in their circle.

Sure, a sammy might still look down on someone who needs cyberspace to properly wield a katana,
but society in general should idolize hackers, as they are the most vocal cyberpunks within the setting.

Okay, let me preface with this: I've played every edition to date, although I have yet to fully grasp the SR5 rules. I could make the matrix work in any of the others; Sr3 was the easiest for me, although that might be familiarity.

Anyway, the first requirements for a Matrix system is that it's fun. It also needs to work, and be internally consistent. Of less concern to me is realism: I don't want a system that tries to mimic real-world computing. I know some people here are very skilled at this, but not everyone is-- and sacrificing playbility for realism has always been a bad choice in Shadowrun.

The next problem is how to deal with deckers. Deckers have this wonderful and amazing skill set, but they only get to use it some of the time, so they got shoved to the side often. I tried to get about this with spotlight time: I tried to include a scene or two where the decker got to shine. The sam got his time in combats, the face got his time in social-fu, and the decker's time was technology. Still, apparently some don't think this is enough, and the decker should be able to do more stuff in combat. This puzzled me, until I realized that starting with 4.0, hybrid deckers were much less possible than ever before.

I know this seems strange, because the gear became a lot cheaper, but gear isn't all you need to be a good decker. In classic SR, the elements of a good decker were the right gear and a high Computer skill, preferably at 6. So, any Resources A or B character could fit that in, and have room left for other things, like combat. In SR4-onwards, Computer was broken into lots of little skills. That wouldn't be such a big deal, except in SR4.5, you can't start with more than one skill at 6. Most of your skills were capped at 4, and since your dice pool was skill + program, it became much harder to actually have average dice pools that were notably stronger than a wage slave. In order to get better, you had to super-focus, and so deckers ended up less capable in other areas than ever before. SR5 removed the skill cap, but made decks much more expensive again, which didn't seem to help.

Anyway, so the real problem isn't deckers not being able to do stuff. The problem is doing decking in combat. However, if you make it easier for deckers to branch out, they won't feel the need to do this as often. You still need to make the matrix scenes meaningful, and tie it into the overall adventure, but it can be done.

I too have played in all editions, and I have had the reverse experience...

In SR1, 2 and 3, playing a Decker, while cool, was a lone proposition most of the time (though I do remember some great hacks in 1st and 2nd Edition), and so we made the decision to just say no to PC Deckers. When SR4/4A came out, it was a step in the right direction. Now, the hardware was not stupid expensive, and though you may have needed a couple more skills, they were not that onerous to pick up in Chargen or in play (though I was not all that happy with ignoring the Attributes associated with Hacking substituting Programs in their place). My Longest running character in SR4A was a Hacker (Cyberlogician). He was cool. He had good Hacking Abiliites (Hacking and EW 5 and Cybercombat 4) with the Electronics Skill group to backstop other options. He was always messing around with [what I called] the cool stuff in setting. There was never a lack of things for him to do, and when on the run, he was the controller for the Tacnet as well as several Surveillance drones. If the Target was not on the grid, no worries, because he had good skills with technology as a whole. I am still a bit stumped on the path that SR5 took, with an emphasis on Decker Combat capabilities. It just makes no sense to me. If you want to have a Decker in Combat, he should pick up a gun like the rest of the team does. Yes, that means he will likely not have as many kills as the Street Sam or Ninja Adept, but so what, when the chips are down and they had to get through a door, the Decker got to shine, while the others covered his ass.

That said, I do understand that not everyone plays like I prefer (Why do you need 20+ Dice again?), but in SR5, while the basic premise is interesting, and I do like a few of their design choices, I still feel that it does not play quite right, at least for me. Maybe it is just a familiarity thing, and some of that feeling may vanish as the system becomes more familiar.

You know Cain, I'm tempted to say that the issue you here present as a problem, might have more to do with player perception than it being an actual problem with the game. In my oppinion, given the mechanics in 4.X, having 10 or 12 dice for a dice pool for hacking (to which VR added an easy +2 dice), didn't make all that much of a difference. Yes, it probably deducts about 1 hit on average, but based on the setting description, a rating 6 program is top of the line military quality, and Skill rating 4 means "Very good at what you do; can handle difficult tasks with ease." and "Technical Example: Mid-career professional (four or more years experience)." Skill rating 4 is not bad, based on setting description, and Skill rating 5-6 is respectively the equivalent of a top-scientist or "superstars" of the world at the top of their game. IMO the average runner really shouldn't be in that area of skill. That being said, I do recognize that the mechanics of the game more or less promote hyperspecialization, which led to people hunting gigantic dice pools and viewing dice pools of less than 18-20 as virtually "not trying".

The way I've normally run games, the players have rarely been encountering stuff beyond Rating 4-5, unless they've gone into high security areas, or have run into serious security professionals or similar.

The problem is as a decker, I don't want to branch out. I want to hack. Its like having your mage need to do something other than cast spells, or your adept need to do something that doesn't use their adept powers. If I need to train in 6 skills and spend a ton of nuyen on a commlink/programs or a deck, then you better believe I'm going to want to use it and make the best use of it in every situation. Not to mention, this is cyberpunk. People are suppose to fear hackers turning their electronics against them.

I don't want to be a part time Street Sam, shooting everyone up. I don't want to be an awaken despite how brokenly good at being hackers they can be. I want to be some wageslave who turned away from this corporate overlords to join the shadows, or some punk kid that made his own deck to get revenge on some bully by hacking his car, or ideological terrorist that uses that Matrix to spread my word by sowing chaos. I want to use my deck, my skills, and my brainmeats. But I definitely want something to do.

So I do think combat hacking is absolutely necessary.

I also think cybercombat is really cool, despite mechanically, it not being very rewarding. But thematically its really cool. In SR5, cybercombat is the quickest and most efficient way to deal with enemy deckers. Who'll need to worry about and deal with if you want your team to be running at full efficiency.

Well, it's less a problem with pool size, and more of a system issue: most rolls in 4.5 are opposed tests. Since the difference between a mid-career wageslave and a world class expert is 2 dice, on average they'll come out about the same most of the time. In SR1-3, it was harder to justify the wage slave having the same programs and gear as the decker; but with 4.5, since gear and programs were so cheap, it was hard *not* giving every Tom Dick and Harry that level of gear.

The net result was that, unless you hyperspecialized, you weren't any better off than a wageslave.


While I'm very much against generalist characters, every shadowrunner needs at least one backup skill, and has to be self-sufficient in several other areas. Every character needs enough social ability to not embarrass themselves in front of a Johnson, and negotiate a reasonable deal. They need to be able to use stealth, and be observant enough to spot others using stealth. And they all need to be capable in a fight-- not a main shooter, but at least good enough to be a match for a guard, and back up the main shooters in a fight.

Right now, I have three characters: a gunslinger adept, a mystic adept, and a face. The gunslinger is uncannily deadly, but he's got a few strong social skills as well. He's no Face, but he can fast talk the team out of a tight corner when needed. The mystic adept is actually mostly a face, with magic and adept abilities backing that up. The face is also an adept, with a strong shooting secondary pool. He's nowhere near the gunslinger, but he is good enough to hold his own. They're all top of the line at what they do (two of them have over 20 dice in their specialties), have strong secondary skills, and are "well rounded" enough that they can handle other things, at least until the specialist arrives.

As for your last problem: no, people are not supposed to fear deckers for attacking their equipment. That's a new addition, and one that I don't think works just yet. In 4.5, it took a minimum of three complex actions to hack a piece of gear. In that same time, the sammie could walk up and shoot them six times. SR5 seems to be slightly faster, but I still don't think you can reasonably expect to do much in a fight, certainly not enough to be better than just shooting.

I do agree that deckers should have more options than just shooting, but that doesn't necessarily mean making everything hackable is the answer. Back in Sr3, my favorite character was the decker/rigger: an information specialist. He collected info from drones and the team, fed them tactical data, and helped keep them out of trouble. He could do that up front, so he could fight if need be, but his biggest job was running the tacnet and giving everyone huge bonuses. You could do something like that in SR5-- deckers could contribute to the technological/information side of the battle.

I'd be interested to know where you get this from. Is it an assumption that archived data is offline or is this explicitly stated in the rules somewhere?

It is stated in the matrix rules of fifth edition, there is a box about archives somewhere.
If you play BBB only, Archives are untouchable.

It is not a definite decision though.
As Nath pointed out, the BBB points to a future Matrix rulebook for rules about archives.

Untouchable through hacking, anyways... But it has always been that way.

Which is what I said in the post that I was asked about, Mr.Fancypants!

You said you need someone else - which is not always the case...
There is something to be said for going in and getting the archive hardware yourself and then taking time to crack it at your leisure.