Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Decking with Multiple Deckers
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Kagetenshi
It's come up before a few times, but I've yet to find a satisfactory explanation for what happens when you have multiple illegitimate deckers in a system. I've got two things I want to address today:

1) Canon. Strict canon, nothing but. What happens?

In SR3, it says that a single decker's security tally follows him or her across hosts and grids unless one hops RTGs. This suggests that security tally is inherent not to the host but to the decker, which would mean that each decker would have their own tally. On the other hand, it states elsewhere that if a decker logs off and another logs on, that second decker inherits all remaining security tally, suggesting that the host itself has the tally that all deckers share. There are two ways I could see this panning out:

A) The decker has the tally, but gives the tally to the host when logging off. The host hands the tally to anyone who logs on illegitimately thereafter until cleared.

B) The decker has a tally, which is then given to each and every host he or she passes through, leaving large numbers of elevated systems in his or her wake.

Two further questions are raised: first, what happens in the following scenario:

Big Jim the master decker gets into a system, but the host gets lucky. His tally is raised to 12. At Step 4, Step 8, and Step 11 IC programs are triggered; Big Jim crashes and suppresses the IC at Step 4 and 8, but decides after the third piece shows up that things are getting too hot and he'd better come back later. He logs off with a piece of IC still roving the system.

Dipswitch the newb jacks on before the tally reduces.


Does Dipswitch face:
  • The Step 11 IC
  • The Steps 4, 8, and 11 IC all at once
  • Something else?
Question 2:

Big Jim the master decker is at it again. He's in a system with a Tally of 12. IC at Steps 4, 8, and 11. He's crashed and suppressed the IC at Step 4, crashed but not suppressed the IC at Step 8, and is still duking it out with the IC at Step 11.

Dipswitch the newb jacks on at this point.


Does Dipswitch face:
  • Nothing
  • The same copy of the Step 11 IC that Big Jim is facing
  • A new copy of the Step 11 IC
  • The Step 8 IC as well as the Step 12 IC
  • All the IC at once
  • Something else?


The second issue has to do with balanced houserules for this, if needed, and a check on whether they might indeed not be houserules but valid interpretations of canon. I'll type those up and stick them in a reply shortly.

~J
Kagetenshi
Part two, balanced houserule (if we can find a proper answer for part one, this part may not be necessary. However, I hold little hope for that to be the case)

I was talking with CirclMastr about this issue, and he suggested giving each decker a separate tally, but upon an increase in Alert Status all decker tallies would immediately jump to the value for the Alert Status, and all further deckers would start there. For instance:

Big Jim, master decker is in yet another system that looks eerily similar to the others. He's doing much better now, and has a Security Tally of only 2. Meanwhile, Dipswitch the newb has been struggling. He's triggered a lot of IC, and at Tally 10 he triggers a Passive Alert, rocketing Big Jim's tally to 10, minimum for the Passive Alert. Thermopylae the passably skilled decker logs on, and her tally starts at the same minimum of 10. They do a few more things and then leave. The security tally drops to 9, and Atticus, Decker Bystander, logs on. As the system is no longer at passive alert, his tally starts out at the floor for no alert, or 0.

This raises some questions like
  • When does the IC reset?
  • What does one of the original deckers have to do to start off at the minimum? Just jack back in? Change jackpoints? Change decks? Something else?
If the IC resets after the system tally drops below the level, wouldn't it make sense to skyrocket the tally, kill all the IC, wait for it to reset a bit but not fully and then go in to do stuff free of IC worry?

~J
mfb
IC resets, i'm 99% sure, when the sec tally drops below the level that triggered the IC. by strict canon, every decker has their own security tally that follows them around on an LTG. magically, it hangs with them even if they logoff and then log back on. it cannot be passed off to anyone else, ever. the only things that apply to multiple deckers are Passive and Active Alerts, and of course System Shutdown. the only way to get your security tally reset is to logoff of the LTG for a while.

in your examples, Dipswitch would face no sec tally and no IC. i suppose you might have the IC do Locate Decker ops, and stumble across Dipswitch by accident.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (SR3 Page 212)
If any decker logs on to the host/grid illegally before it finishes its reset, his security tally begins at the level the security tally had dropped to when the intrusion occurred.


So tallies do get passed to other deckers in some circumstances. Do you have a quote suggesting that they have multiple tallies?

(Keep in mind that I'm going to attack pretty much everything said about #1 in this thread until something stands up to it. That doesn't mean that I don't like the ideas, but I'm looking for canon.)

~J
mfb
no, tally does not get passed on to other deckers. sec tally is not a function of the host--the host does not mark down anywhere that it is at security tally 8, or whatever. sec tally is a measure of how much the host has noticed a certain intruder; when that intruder logs on, the host says "that guy's got sec tally 8" and activates whatever IC is appropriate.

this makes no sense in real-world computer terms, i know. but that's how it works in SR.

edit: references. Matrix, page 110; Security Tally and Multiple Icons. SR3 page 212: Host/Grid Reset.
Kagetenshi
From Page 212 I just quoted a section where security tally explicitly does get passed.

Matrix Page 110 is enlightening, though, and a further contradiction. So tally doesn't get passed unless the originating decker logs out before the receiving decker logs in…

~J
Sabosect
I can't seem to find that on 110. I do, however, see plenty of info on fighting with guns. Perhaps you meant 210?

I'm thinking the tally is how "angered" the system is at the actions of a certain person. Thus, each person having a separate tally. But, being a machine, it doesn't differentiate between intruders when unleashing its replies. And when the decker logs off, the system begins to calm down a bit but will redirect its anger at the first person to log on it again.

That's my interp.
Kagetenshi
He's talking about Matrix Page 110, not SR3 (which is in the Combat section, as you noted).

There, it explicitly says that each icon has their own tally, and also answers the question as to what IC will be faced at given steps. It does not resolve the aforementioned contradiction, however.

~J
Sabosect
I know. I was just being, to use Shadowslang, a hoop.

It actually hints at that in the SR3 book. On page 211, it says:

QUOTE
As a decker's security tally reaches each trigger step, the system activates one or more IC programs.


Now, why would they specifically say "a decker's" and then turn around on the next page and make it seem that is really the tally of the system itself?
Kagetenshi
If the writers work anything like the way I do, my guess would be that halfway through they forgot which way they were going at it from and didn't even realize it.

~J
mfb
gah, you're right, SR3 does say sec tally gets passed. this damn rabbithole just gets crazier, the deeper you go. no wonder everybody else takes a pizza break when the decker's doing his thing.
Kagetenshi
When one decker's doing his thing, everything's just dandy. It's only when you start digging below the surface…

~J
Sabosect
http://forums-temp.dumpshock.com/index.php...opic=5709&st=53

That's how my group solved the problem.
Kagetenshi
Killing the Rigger's significant other is not a path to a long lifespan nyahnyah.gif

~J
Sabosect
Hey, as she said: "I swear, if we could package our incompetence and sell it, we'd drive Saeder-Krupp out of biz."

That aside, perhaps there is an easy way to deal with this whole mess of decking. Now, hold on while I force my brain to grow enough competence to come up with it.

Edit: Got it! Go back to my interpretation. That may work.
Kagetenshi
IC Constructs follow your guidelines, as do alerts, but IC explicitly does not.

By the time this is settled, I am going to be so sick of the word "explicit" it won't even be funny.

~J
Sabosect
Simple solution: IC is incredibly stupid and really doesn't give a damn.
Kagetenshi
I think we may be reaching something that makes sense, though (and by makes sense I mean follows all the given rules. When it comes right down to it, I suppose I don't mean it makes sense in the least). Deckers have separate security tally until one of them logs off, at which point every successive decker to log on gains the tally of the logged-off decker. Question is, if you have multiple deckers log off, whose tally do you receive? The highest?

~J
Sabosect
It would make sense. The system lost the target of the largest portion of its anger and will probably redirect it to whoever comes on next.
Kagetenshi
Angry systems rage.
Wise deckers seek protection.
Storm passes slowly.

~J
Sabosect
I am, of course, putting it in terms I can understand.
Kagetenshi
Some situations call for haiku. This was one of them.

~J
Kanada Ten
I deal with it by having the IC floating still around and the security alert level persistent, but give each decker a unique tally regardless of log on sequence.
hobgoblin
matrix overrides sr3 at some points from what i understand. sr3 talkes about a one decker world except for that one section on page 212. and that is most likely done for simplisity reasons. matrix overrides this with its multiple icons, multiple tallys system. if you have matrix go with matrix.

as for the passing on of security tallys. a RTG and its LTGs share a tally, but the "phone" company is reluctant to fire of ice at people as they seldom have anything off importance on these systems (want the phone bills, try their PLTG. and trust me, it will not be funny). RTGs are most often a contry wide system and what you do in one contry dont affect a diffrent contry (most of the time).

standalone hosts or groups of hosts dont share tallys. you can rise nine kinds of hell in the chokepoint or public host and the background hosts will not blink.

PLTGs however are electronic versions of corp extraterritoriality mixed with a LTG server. basicly if you come onto this one with a tally from a RTG or LTG they will raise hell. how this affect the hosts in said PLTG however im not sure about (dont recall reading anything about it).

as for IC being stupid? they mirror the avarage rent-a-cop or school bully. they go after thier mark unless someone else pisses them of as then both are valid targets.

constructs are less so. but not by mutch...

SKs and thier big bro the AI? run, just run. or in the case of the AI, just give up and face your master...

oh and a gracefull logoff will 99% of the time clean you of any tally as you just go bye bye. pulling the plug less so as your icon have to time out first. but when it goes poof then your in the clear...
Necro Tech
I try to combine both paragraphs to avoid contradiction. A security tally is only passed on when someone logs onto an angry host after someone else has already left. This seems to avoid the contradictions best.

Example:

The Necro Tech logs on to Ares Bellvue to do a little shopping from the weapons catalog. After filling his shopping cart, he is in the middle of checkout when N00BIUS MAXIMUS logs on with Daddy's terminal. NT currently has a tally of 4 and already crushed and supressed the initial probe IC. N00B jacks up his Tally to 22 in just two combat turns. Like the inevitable tide, the glacier that is Ares matrix security sweeps the bumbling idiot aside. Since the system went on active alert and is orange, NT decides to browse the catalog some until the alerts are cancelled and the systems ratings drop back to normal. Just as the passive alert is cancelled, Neo13566789 logs on and is suprised to find a tally of 10 and probe, trace and masking crippler waiting for him. As Neo's ever present shades and trenchcoat are stripped away to reveal the pathetic poser inside, the passive alert is triggered and the killer IC blows him off the grid. Once again NT waits for the alert to cancel, completes his "purchase" and logs off.

From reading the rules, this avoids all the contradictions I can find. What do you guys think?

Kagetenshi
Assuming that the Necro Tech is a legitimate user, they probably wouldn't even notice a passive alert in most systems. In some, the system looks fine to normal users right up until shutdown.

~J
Necro Tech
Strange assumption, but yes, had I performed Monitor Operation sometime in the past and logged on with stolen codes as a legit user I probably wouldn't notice anything wrong unless my bandwidth suddenly lagged.
mfb
i would make the IC perform Locate Decker operations to find any decker that hadn't done something to attract their attention. it doesn't make sense, otherwise; what if GG Beat, in full masking mode with 14 DF, logs on right after Neo gets dumped? why should the IC be allowed to automatically detect him?
Necro Tech
Just the rules. If someone pisses of a system and leaves, anyone who tries to break into the system before reset is an auto target. Primarily for game balance I'm sure. Prevents two lowgrade deckers from tag teaming a high level system. Or one deckers with two decks.
Fortune
One possibly fairer solution is to only include Tally that was actually accumulated on that PLTG after the offending decker logs off.

Dead Eye Dave is decking Ares. He has accumulated a current Tally of 15, of which 6 was acquired even before he successfully logged on to the host. When Dave logs off and Bumbling Bob sleazes his way in, Bob is hit with an increase of 9 to his security Tally, as that is the actual level of alert on the host system itself.
Eyeless Blond
I like the Locate Decker idea, myself. In fact, I think that IC should *always* have to do a Locate Decker operation before attacking. The system is pissed off, sure, but it shouldn't necessarily know *why*, or rather who set it off. In fact, I'd say this is one of the ways Camo helps you evade IC, by changing your username/Matrix address so the IC doesn't know who to go after.
mfb
the light has dawned. i just realized why the Matrix rules are always so problematic: they are the worst rules that anyone could possibly have come up with. the basic concept is really cool, but the execution just plain sucks. the Matrix rules are a) complex, and b) unrealistic. any other combination would be palatable--you could have simple rules that are unrealistic, and it'd be fine. computer guys would bitch some, but at least it'd be easy to integrate them into the main game. on the other hand, you could have complex, realistic rules. in that case, the computer guys would be happy--they rules would be tough to integrate into the game, but the guys that would be interested in playing with them (the computer guys) would be happy.

i realize this doesn't really solve anything, but the thought hit me, and i thought it might be worth sharing.
Kagetenshi
Bah. It'd be better if they were realistic, but I like the complexity. Keeps the barrier for entry high.

'Sides, the basic stuff really is quite simple.

~J
Crimsondude 2.0
Indeed. For all the years I've played, I've never wanted to play a decker.

Good thing for irrational, artificial barriers.
Kagetenshi
The former part was mostly facetious. Again, I'm looking at a particularly complex issue here, one that has really not been rationally addressed, but ranged combat has more quirks than standard Matrix work does. Skill test against a fixed number minus another fixed number, followed by a fixed number of dice against a mostly-fixed number. Add in the occasional combat here and there.

~J
mfb
eh. building a gun from scratch is easier; the guys you're shooting at can't send Lone Star to your house; you've only got 4-5 types of ammo; there's no confusion about what happens when two runners shoot one guy; you don't need to worry about not having enough room to carry two clips...
Kagetenshi
You do need to worry about only having enough carrying capacity for x clips, though. You've got three different types of vision, two of which have two subtypes, each with different modifiers for different situations, you've got a fourth semitype (ultrasound) which affects modifiers in a completely different way from the others and a fifth (blindfighting) which acts in yet another completely different way, you've got guns each with their different ranges, you've got weapons with burst-fire and silencers when only sound suppression should work, you've got guns with special fire modes, you've got modifiers for movement dependent on a decision that may have been made fifteen minutes ago in real-time, if you introduce a shotgun with shot shells you need to figure out who all is in the cone and if anyone is in front of anyone else, smartlinks make it easier to hit people you can't see…

We can come up with a lot of irrational things on both sides of the argument, but somehow people manage to deal with ranged combat.

~J
mfb
but not with Matrix, most of the time.
Ouchies
the way this is played in the games i used to Deck in was that the GM had house rules for all Matrix aspects. If you dont like the rules, don't use them. Rules in games are guidelines, use them, or don't .

but you guys have interesting points on all accounts, has anyone written Matrix/Decking for Dummies yet?
Kagetenshi
Exactly. I'm contending that that's not because of the inherent complexity of the Matrix rules over those for ranged combat.

~J
mfb
eh... i've really got to disagree. look at the huge list of possible operations a decker has to choose from, the long lists of programs--how about the fact that you have to do all kinds of multiplication and whatnot, just to figure out the price of a single program? consider that the entire combat section of SR3--of which ranged combat is but one part--takes up 30 pages, whereas the Matrix section takes up 32. the Matrix book, also, is quite a bit thicker than the Cannon Companion. and, just like the combat section of SR3, only a part of CC is dedicated to ranged combat.
Eyeless Blond
Personally out of the three sets of oddball rule sets in SR--vehicles, magic, and the Matrix--I find Matrix the easiest to understand by far (followed by magic, with vehicular combat a distant third). The ranged and melee combat sections have their own quirks as well, but that's entirely beyond the scope of this thread.

The main issue people seem to have with the Matrix is relates to how fluid everything is, so completely unrealistic because it's not the hard set interfacing that is inherent in today's computers. Hosts and IC seem to be making desicions; constructs seem to act entirely independent of the machine they're running under, etc. None of this makes the least amount of sense if you assume that SR's computers use the modern methods of logic and computer science.

The answer, I think, is quantom computing. The thing is, in the 2060s computers have moved beyond the limitations of transistors. Think about it: power is still transmitted using electricity, but all of the computing is being done with optical circuits. There must be a reason the designers have chosen to waste the energy to make all the processing circuitry optical rather than electronic.

The nature of quantom computing allows operations to be conducted that simply aren't possible in a normal amount of time today. With a decent-sized Q-computer at your fingertips, you can crack any RSA encryption in linear instead of exponential time, for instance. It really would be an entirely new world out there. More impotantly, though, by its very nature quantom computing is uncertain; it relies on the uncertainty principle to work, in fact. The result, I'd think, would be a more fluid and complex kind of environment, where individual programs really *can*, and indeed *must* act with the independence that IC shows, and hosts really *do* act differently depending on the situation.

I guess what I'm saying is, given that we know nothing about how computers from the future would act, it's unreasonable to assume that they won't act a certain way.
Raskolnikov
You are incorrect. We do not "know nothing" about how computers would work. Regardless of the technology behind them, there are certain desirable standards in information flow and process.
mfb
my problem with quantum computing is that SR computers simply aren't powerful enough. with quantum computing and (say) 30 years of development, UV-level hosts should be commonplace. it should be child's play to create a user environment that is impossible to tell from the real thing. instead, the SR Matrix seems to be stuck at about a Final Fantasy / Last Flight of the Osiris level of graphics. not to mention encryption.
Sabosect
Is it possible they did it that way on purpose? If you can't tell fantasy from reality, who is to say which is which? In any case, the result would be a case where a person could think they decked out and still be decked in. Plus, there is the danger of the brain believing what it is seeing (Matrix-effect).
Raskolnikov
Quantum computers are only insanely good at certain things. Ironically, enough for your comment, graphics would be one of them given cheap and light quantum cores. I won't go into details, but you'd be able to produce some very impressive graphics in real time, but there are limitations. Real-time rendered graphics that are almost life-like are within a reasonable capability for 60 years-on. I'm not certain you'd be able to produce such detail to mimic physical input though.
mfb
yes, it's possible that Matrix protocols limit 'realism'. however, plenty of people would still be experimenting with the limits of ASIST technology--enough people that no one would be shocked and surprised by UV-level realism.
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (mfb)
eh... i've really got to disagree. look at the huge list of possible operations a decker has to choose from, the long lists of programs--how about the fact that you have to do all kinds of multiplication and whatnot, just to figure out the price of a single program?

Well, yeah, I guess I gotta concede that there are more programs in a decker's typical library than there are guns in a sam's coat (well, one would *hope* nyahnyah.gif).

But math? Rating^2 times multiplier is difficult math? Ha! Pricing magical items in D&D is more difficult than that. nyahnyah.gif

QUOTE
consider that the entire combat section of SR3--of which ranged combat is but one part--takes up 30 pages, whereas the Matrix section takes up 32. the Matrix book, also, is quite a bit thicker than the Cannon Companion. and, just like the combat section of SR3, only a part of CC is dedicated to ranged combat.

Again, you're not really being fair here. Notice, though, that the ranged combat section is entirely composed of crunchy bits, rules and mechanics, while the Matrix section is largely made up of fluff text and descriptions of IC programs. The fluff text is included so people can understand what the Matrix is and its basic concepts; noone needs walking or seeing to be described. If you want to include the deckers programs, you also need to include armor, its rules and the various weapon catalogues for ranged combat as well. If you want to include IC in with your Matrix rules, then you must include the Critter books and most of the melee rules, since you will
Raskolnikov
UV realism? Optically perhaps. Are you going to have a process spawned to mimic the dispersal of the scent particles created by the program designed to determining your stress levels, body oil composition (dependent upon diet, heath, etc) so that people can smell your sweat if you sprint in a UV system? It would take massive (even on the quantum level) computational power to mimic the real world to such a degree that it is indistinguishable.

I've always had a problem with UV systems that you stop actually decking. Sure, it's really nice looking and it seems a lot like the real world, but it's still a computer system. You might have interface programs written so the users can act like they're in the real world, but you wouldn't use those same interfaces to hack the machine, you'd do it with your computer skill, just like normal.
mfb
well, rating^2*multiplier is more difficult than "Savalette Guardian, 900Y".

the fact the the Matrix requires so much fluff is part of the complexity. everybody already knows how gunfights work; there's much less of a cultural knowledgebase on virtual-reality hacking. not only are you having to absorb and integrate an entire new genre into your understanding of the game, you've got all these complex rules.

and, 'sides, i'm pretty sure there's more Matrix crunch in SR3 and Matrix than there is gunfight crunch in SR3 and CC.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012