Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Crimsondude on <03-01-13/2102:32>

Title: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Crimsondude on <03-01-13/2102:32>
Quote from: Jason Hardy
Okay, let me be clear on one thing right off the bat: This is going to take more than one post to cover everything going on with the Matrix.

Designing a new edition of Shadowrun would be a lot easier if there was nothing cool about the Matrix. If it didn’t play an integral part in runs, or if it didn’t present some great scenes with vivid cyberpunk atmosphere. Because if that were the case, we could just take the sometimes problematic (speaking charitably) Matrix rules and excise them, put them in an expansion, and call it a day.

But the Matrix is more than just cool and useful—it’s an integral part of the Shadowrun setting. So we knew that one if the primary tasks of Shadowrun, Fifth Edition was making a more fun, user-friendly Matrix.

As was the case throughout the development of Shadowrun, Fifth Edition, we set out goals that would help guide us. Here’s the first group, with commentary on what we did about those goals.

Click here to learn more. (http://www.shadowruntabletop.com/2013/03/the-matrix-clarifying-the-rules-amping-the-awesome/)
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-01-13/2112:32>
Been waiting on this.  Glad to see they're making sure hackers have a combat role that actually works in a reasonable time frame.  Rather curious as to the form that "noise" is going to take, though...  Still waiting to hear how they're changing technomancers to work with the skill+attribute Matrix, too, because that will need to be a big change.

And as if there was ever any question about wireless staying - it would be ridiculous for it to disappear and very bad for the game in terms of bringing in new players.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-01-13/2135:14>
And as if there was ever any question about wireless staying - it would be ridiculous for it to disappear and very bad for the game in terms of bringing in new players.

I wouldn't mind wireless staying for convenience issues. Bring your car to you, start up the oven, check your bank account, etc.

When they were pushing wireless for the sake of pushing wireless, that's when I had an issue with it. "All security cameras, clearance gateways and gun turrets are operated through a completely insecure method now, because... uh... Well because."  I realize that varies from table to table, but it's always boggled my mind when printed scenarios had key components of their operation on open wireless.

I had really hoped that the inclusion of decks would see a return to the awesome, but it looks like 5th is taking the easy route by copying as much as 4th as possible.

I'm probably sounding more butthurt about their decision then I actually am, but I am a bit depressed that they took the easy way out here.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-01-13/2153:32>
Wireless security cameras and such are already pretty common.  The spread of wireless isn't "just because", it's a case of verisimilitude.  And at the end of the day, with wireless in play, in practical terms wired cameras wouldn't be all that much more secure anyways, because you'd get in the system from somewhere else and then go to the camera from there.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Redwulfe on <03-01-13/2205:39>
Keeping wireless in shadowrun 5th was IMO a necessity. Going backwards would be somewhat of a continuity issue. Though I'm sure they could write it in in one fashion or another. I like that the iconic terminology of decker is comming back but still wonder at the emergence of decks, even though they are not the decks we remember. I guess it could be a storyline of corporations intentionally making th hardware in comlinks less able to suport the programs that would be needed to power through the matrix and havkers in respond create more powerful machines that they termed in retro fashion decks. I true my can hardly wait for the next edition of the game.

Red
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Starglyte on <03-01-13/2242:12>
I rather keep Cyberdecks looking like keyboards, but that is just a personal preference. 
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-01-13/2312:28>
I'd prefer AR/Holographic keyboards, myself.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: VajraSupremus on <03-01-13/2317:02>
I always did liken my custom 'link to a pseudo-deck, so this just turns out very well.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: PeterSmith on <03-01-13/2327:48>
And at the end of the day, with wireless in play, in practical terms wired cameras wouldn't be all that much more secure anyways, because you'd get in the system from somewhere else and then go to the camera from there.

Assuming you had access to another aspect of the system. With wireless you didn't need to worry about that as much. Just had to get within range.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-01-13/2335:54>
And at the end of the day, with wireless in play, in practical terms wired cameras wouldn't be all that much more secure anyways, because you'd get in the system from somewhere else and then go to the camera from there.

Assuming you had access to another aspect of the system. With wireless you didn't need to worry about that as much. Just had to get within range.

Hence the emphasis on practical terms.  Having a completely isolated security system has issues - for example, no scrambling a spider; in fact, your security gets no off-site Matrix support at all.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: AJCarrington on <03-02-13/0721:07>
Initials thoughts are pretty good on this.  I like that wireless is staying...given current real world tech, would be very odd if it hadn't.  I also like the idea of decks...brings back some nostalgia ;D In particular, I read it that decks will be something beyond a PAN...I like the fact that the primary tool of the decker is more that a basic, ubiquitous tool used by everyone.  Looking forward to future installments on this (and would also like to see something similar for magic).
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-02-13/0736:49>
I'd expect that decks, much like everything else, will be part of the PAN still...  However, it's pretty clearly a tool for high-powered operation.

And if the hardware for deckers is more powerful, does that mean that the bio-node somehow becomes more powerful as well, suggesting some sort of global technomantic progression?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: AJCarrington on <03-02-13/0739:59>
Maybe...

I'm seeing it more as "custom hardware" for deckers...much like one can customize weapons...something that makes them a little more "special".  Not sure...guess we'll just have to wait and see ;)
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-02-13/0742:50>
Well, technomancers already break the rules as hackers know them on several fronts. Whether it is not being bound by the limitations of Response and System, or being able to thread new programs on the fly, they don't suffer from the same limitations as hackers. (OK, they suffer from different ones, but that's besides the point.) All it would take a technomancer to adjust to the new protocols is to refigure their complex forms to match.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-02-13/0745:09>
I'm just saying, the hardware being used for the new Matrix is substantially more powerful.  Given the general parity, rating-to-rating, of technomancers and hackers, I'd expect maintaining the same would imply that technomancers have also become more powerful.  I posit that this suggests a change in the nature of their abilities.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shadowjack on <03-02-13/0757:55>
I missed cyberdecks so this change is awesome for me :)
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: AJCarrington on <03-02-13/1126:38>
I'm just saying, the hardware being used for the new Matrix is substantially more powerful.  Given the general parity, rating-to-rating, of technomancers and hackers, I'd expect maintaining the same would imply that technomancers have also become more powerful.  I posit that this suggests a change in the nature of their abilities.

Ahhh...understand now...good points.  I'm more hoping that we see something for deckers and technomancers along similar lines to what we do for street sams and adepts...both have very similar capabilities, but take quite different paths to get there that offer pros and cons.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <03-02-13/1229:42>
Personally I never saw much of a parity between technomancers and deckers.  In 4e technomancers seem to curb stomp deckers on the hacking side of things and hackers usually have reosurces left to be a bit more competent out of the matrix.  I don't know about you but threading things like stealth way past a hackers 6 limit seems to make hacking much easier for the technomancer.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-02-13/1507:19>
Technomancers are better at avoiding combat, yes. But when things hit the fan, a hacker is hardier, just by nature of their persona not being linked directly to their brain. Black IC is one thing, but for a TM even a normal Attack program affects their meat.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <03-02-13/1524:10>
Technomancers are better at avoiding combat, yes. But when things hit the fan, a hacker is hardier, just by nature of their persona not being linked directly to their brain. Black IC is one thing, but for a TM even a normal Attack program affects their meat.

Meh a bit more risk but ridiclous more rewards.  Threading + sprites are a lot more of a benefit than the risk is a negative. And hell with deep resonance they get a bag of tricks a decker could never dream of.   
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-02-13/1529:00>
Not good to rely too much on threading. Remember, thread things over your Resonance rating, and you can start bleeding out your eyes and ears pretty quick.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-02-13/1613:12>
Personally I never saw much of a parity between technomancers and deckers.  In 4e technomancers seem to curb stomp deckers on the hacking side of things and hackers usually have reosurces left to be a bit more competent out of the matrix.  I don't know about you but threading things like stealth way past a hackers 6 limit seems to make hacking much easier for the technomancer.

Note I specified rating for rating.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <03-03-13/0159:49>
Personally I never saw much of a parity between technomancers and deckers.  In 4e technomancers seem to curb stomp deckers on the hacking side of things and hackers usually have reosurces left to be a bit more competent out of the matrix.  I don't know about you but threading things like stealth way past a hackers 6 limit seems to make hacking much easier for the technomancer.

Note I specified rating for rating.

I guess, but it is kind of a false equivelence in my mind.  A deckers rating is his max rating.  A technomancers rating is his rating when not really trying. 

Still the overall point people were making is sound, what is the backgorund fluff reason for why technomancers are still able to hang when things got 5 times more difficult?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-03-13/0413:07>
I am liking this return. I really, really hope that they keep commlinks around for everyone, as the things where people's SIN's, licenses,
bank accounts, etc are located, and that Decks are a hackers tool, like a VCR is a Rigger's tool.

I am really liking the ideas espoused by CGL. I hope they can live up to the coolness of those ideas.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Black on <03-03-13/0600:49>
I am liking this return. I really, really hope that they keep commlinks around for everyone, as the things where people's SIN's, licenses,
bank accounts, etc are located, and that Decks are a hackers tool, like a VCR is a Rigger's tool.

I am really liking the ideas espoused by CGL. I hope they can live up to the coolness of those ideas.

Concur Mara with all above.  Also, the rules look like Hacking, at least Combat Hacking, will get easier.  Maybe just one dice roll to take control of simple items.  And Noise sounds interesting.  Makes sense actually, the chaotic world of everything sending fricken signals all the time, meaning you got have the tools (decks) or get in close, or both.  Looks like a massive step in the right direction.  Very exciting.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-03-13/0925:03>
As I posted over on Dumpshock, I would like Hackers to be able to do combat attacks like temporarily blinding opponents by quick-hacking their cybereyes or goggles, forcing their firearms to eject clips, creating an electrical strike by hacking a nearby light pole, and the like.

These would all be immediate/short duration effects and ideally be achieved with just one or two dice rolls like firearm or spell combat.

More substantial effects would require traditional network infiltration, but it would give hackers an active combat role beyond "I take a gun out and shoot."


-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-03-13/1050:16>
As I posted over on Dumpshock, I would like Hackers to be able to do combat attacks like temporarily blinding opponents by quick-hacking their cybereyes or goggles, forcing their firearms to eject clips, creating an electrical strike by hacking a nearby light pole, and the like.
The two former "attacks" are already possible, unless that gear is skinlinked, and creating an electrical strike by hacking a light pole I don't think is within the realm of physical reality.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: UmaroVI on <03-03-13/1053:52>
Well, first, not skinlinking that gear is generally a bad idea for exactly that reason, so in practice hacking people during combat is something that only happens to people who are being dumb. Even if it didn't, SR4 combat is too fast-paced for it to be a good idea - "debuff" effects like blinding people simply aren't very helpful in a system where people go from fine to dead/unconscious in 1 pass.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-03-13/1121:31>
Personally I never saw much of a parity between technomancers and deckers.  In 4e technomancers seem to curb stomp deckers on the hacking side of things and hackers usually have reosurces left to be a bit more competent out of the matrix.  I don't know about you but threading things like stealth way past a hackers 6 limit seems to make hacking much easier for the technomancer.

Note I specified rating for rating.

I guess, but it is kind of a false equivelence in my mind.  A deckers rating is his max rating.  A technomancers rating is his rating when not really trying. 

Still the overall point people were making is sound, what is the backgorund fluff reason for why technomancers are still able to hang when things got 5 times more difficult?

The point was that they're on the same numerical scale with the question being what does it mean if that remains the case, but it looks like you get that.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: CanRay on <03-03-13/1425:47>
...and creating an electrical strike by hacking a light pole I don't think is within the realm of physical reality.
Unless you've ported in Highlander, in which case the decapitated guy is something you have to worry more about for electrical damage.

Not to mention the unkillable fellow with the big ass sword.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-03-13/1434:55>
As I posted over on Dumpshock, I would like Hackers to be able to do combat attacks like temporarily blinding opponents by quick-hacking their cybereyes or goggles, forcing their firearms to eject clips, creating an electrical strike by hacking a nearby light pole, and the like.
The two former "attacks" are already possible, unless that gear is skinlinked, and creating an electrical strike by hacking a light pole I don't think is within the realm of physical reality.

Yea, you can do the first two currently. By rolling a test to find the opposing node, more tests to hack your way in and create an admin account, then commanding the device to do the action.

I was thinking of more like a single roll to use Blindfold v2.3 or GunHack Pro vs the target, much like a firearm attack is a single roll. Target would resist with some combo of gear rating.

As for the electrical strike, perhaps less realistic, but you see similar in fiction on occasion. Perhaps the hack messed with the control software and caused a transformer to blow. I dunno. Commanding tech in the nearby environment as a hostile impromptu attack is the general idea.

Stuff that can be used in the spur of the moment, as opposed to having to run the whole network infiltration sub-game.



-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <03-03-13/1445:20>
Unless you can do it to groups it is still kind of lame to hack their eyes or whatever.  So mages, sams etc kill people every pass and the decker temporarily inconveniences them?

If you can totally freeze thier weapons/eyes to the point where they can't fix them in the context of the fight that is kind of cool.  You could shut down a lot of guards to the point they surrender. 
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1457:56>
Unless you can do it to groups it is still kind of lame to hack their eyes or whatever.  So mages, sams etc kill people every pass and the decker temporarily inconveniences them?

If you can totally freeze thier weapons/eyes to the point where they can't fix them in the context of the fight that is kind of cool.  You could shut down a lot of guards to the point they surrender.

Hopefully all this 'hacking cyber-ware' crap gets made--and explicitly stated--to be completely impossible to do. It is merely a can of worms best left unopened and something else can be incorporate that "lets hackers use their main skills in combat". (Though not all skill-sets are suitable for combat, and going that way lies the path of D&D 4e)
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-03-13/1505:39>
Unless you can do it to groups it is still kind of lame to hack their eyes or whatever.  So mages, sams etc kill people every pass and the decker temporarily inconveniences them?

If you can totally freeze thier weapons/eyes to the point where they can't fix them in the context of the fight that is kind of cool.  You could shut down a lot of guards to the point they surrender.

Hopefully all this 'hacking cyber-ware' crap gets made--and explicitly stated--to be completely impossible to do. It is merely a can of worms best left unopened and something else can be incorporate that "lets hackers use their main skills in combat". (Though not all skill-sets are suitable for combat, and going that way lies the path of D&D 4e)

Strenuously disagree.

1: Everything needs a counter.  Cyberware's is Matrix related interference.

2: Every archetype needs at least one of its skillsets to be comabt applicable.  An InfilFace has that, but a Hacker Face doesn't without serious effort.  And with a technomancer?  Unless you're using Drones and Machine Sprites, good luck.

3: Just because 4e did something doesn't mean it was one of the mistakes of 4e.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1511:19>
Unless you can do it to groups it is still kind of lame to hack their eyes or whatever.  So mages, sams etc kill people every pass and the decker temporarily inconveniences them?

If you can totally freeze thier weapons/eyes to the point where they can't fix them in the context of the fight that is kind of cool.  You could shut down a lot of guards to the point they surrender.

Hopefully all this 'hacking cyber-ware' crap gets made--and explicitly stated--to be completely impossible to do. It is merely a can of worms best left unopened and something else can be incorporate that "lets hackers use their main skills in combat". (Though not all skill-sets are suitable for combat, and going that way lies the path of D&D 4e)

Strenuously disagree.

1: everything needs

A hacker can contribute to combat by hacking the opposition's comm-units and scrambling their communications, preventing calls for backup and such like that, and a non-Technomancer hacker--assuming characters early on in the game--can have additional skills that give them some combat ability (not as good as the combat focused team members, but they shouldn't be). Hacking and gaining control over implants simply isn't a necessary thing for them to contribute.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-03-13/1516:00>
How's a Hacker Face make a substantive contribution to combat?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1523:39>
How's a Hacker Face make a substantive contribution to combat?

He can do that same 'scrambling of communications' and things of that ilk, but really, not all characters are going to be able to 'contribute' in all situations. It just happens, and it is neither a good nor a bad thing.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-03-13/1537:11>
That's not suubstantive, and you're forgetting that combat is a special case.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Bull on <03-03-13/1603:45>
...and creating an electrical strike by hacking a light pole I don't think is within the realm of physical reality.
Unless you've ported in Highlander, in which case the decapitated guy is something you have to worry more about for electrical damage.

Not to mention the unkillable fellow with the big ass sword.

Been there, done that :)

http://chaosrpg.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/tss-13.pdf
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sichr on <03-03-13/1614:16>
Hacking cyberware is nasty but is part of the setting and IMO at least ever since GITS firm part of the cyberpunk trope. I have no objection to that, and the more would this be "doable" in direct interaction, the better.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1616:48>
Hacking cyberware is nasty but is part of the setting and IMO at least ever since GITS firm part of the cyberpunk trope. I have no objection to that, and the more would this be "doable" in direct interaction, the better.

Like I said, I think it's an unnecessary 'can of worms' when there are other things that can be done, whether it be taking a couple ranks in a weapon skill to do some suppression fire or scrambling opposing communications (or anything else that someone may think of).
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Basic on <03-03-13/1627:24>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1639:30>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Ghoulfodder on <03-03-13/1652:52>
Unless you can do it to groups it is still kind of lame to hack their eyes or whatever.  So mages, sams etc kill people every pass and the decker temporarily inconveniences them?

If you can totally freeze thier weapons/eyes to the point where they can't fix them in the context of the fight that is kind of cool.  You could shut down a lot of guards to the point they surrender.
hack something to the point in overloads and explodes or lets off an electrical surge causing damage... like a commlink or a cybereyes etc.... maybe ?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: raggedhalo on <03-03-13/1832:16>
How's a Hacker Face make a substantive contribution to combat?

The expanded Leadership rules from War! (I know, I know) give the Face plenty of cool stuff to do, while the hacker side gets to play with their TacNet.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <03-03-13/1836:46>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: CanRay on <03-03-13/1842:51>
...and creating an electrical strike by hacking a light pole I don't think is within the realm of physical reality.
Unless you've ported in Highlander, in which case the decapitated guy is something you have to worry more about for electrical damage.

Not to mention the unkillable fellow with the big ass sword.
Been there, done that :)

http://chaosrpg.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/tss-13.pdf
Why am I not surprised.

...

Why the hell did any of you let me into the club, anyhow?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-03-13/1924:17>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.
Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.

If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-03-13/1931:05>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.
Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.

If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).

Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.

Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sipowitz on <03-03-13/1931:59>
If you don't want the Decker to hack your cyberware, then you first target should be the deck itself.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-03-13/1949:23>
If you don't want the Decker to hack your cyberware, then you first target should be the deck itself.
Truth.

Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.

Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.
What is nebulous about it? You take control of the cyberarm, you can turn it off, punch the wearer in the face (or the junk, if you like), fire cyberweapons randomly, screw with diagnostics, inverse the x-y controls so that the person trying to make the arm goes up makes it go down, and so on. For the record, all those options I just listed can be easily done with the Command or Edit programs.

And yes, not every character should be optimal in every situation. But "Ooh look, there's a guy with computers in half his body" IS the situation for the hacker, just like "Ooh look, a pissed off spirit just showed up" is the situation for the mage, and "Ooh, anyone want to try talking our way through this gang roadblock" is the situation for the Face.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-03-13/2043:17>
There's no reason it has to be nebulous. It can be very specific.

Like, you have a utility that lets you hijack a cyberarm long enough to have it fire the pistol it's holding at another target. That's all the utility does. Presumably the cyberarm's internal cyberdefenses recover enough to fight off the hijack immediately after the attack.

 In game terms it's a momentary 'mind control' attack that forces an enemy to make a single attack against one of their allies. The target must possess cyberlimbs and have a attack of some sort available.

Similarly other hacker attack utilities would be very specific on what they can do. 'Electrocute' might cause a set amount of electrical damage to a small radius, but require a object target that is connected to a significant power source. Fluffwise the hacker is briefly overriding control system or the like to explode a transformer or generate a power surge, but mechanically it'd be like a mage tossing a lightning ball.


-k

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: UmaroVI on <03-03-13/2207:47>
Yeah, in 4e, it's a mess because it only works on people who are very dumb and it's also very nebulous. Having clear and balanced rules in 5e would be good.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-03-13/2254:01>
I wonder if the writers are reading these threads, and taking notes on what people are saying were issues with the
things being commented on in the current edition?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-03-13/2257:16>
Hacking cyberware is nasty but is part of the setting and IMO at least ever since GITS firm part of the cyberpunk trope. I have no objection to that, and the more would this be "doable" in direct interaction, the better.

Very strongly disagree.

Ghost in the Shell is not shadowrun.  It similarly lacks any element of magic.  It's entire central tenet is combat drones (not cybernetic sams), AI's, and hacking.

GitS has full body replacements.. complete and utter robot drones.   Even the brains are no longer meat but some kind of computer core.   That is one of the major themes of GitS, their meat consciousness has been ported into an AI and are they still 'human" and have a ghost.   So they aren't even 'jarheads' in the shadowrun sense.   Though jarheads come closest to describing how they 'rig' their robotic full body drone bodies.

Shadowrun has no equivalent to the GitS 'autistic' mode.   Not with the everything and anything is wireless mess, even if there's no good reason for it.


I'm all for hacking drones, I'm all for hacking doors, I'm all for hacking smartguns, I'm all for hacking sensor feeds,  I'm all for hacking the data going into people's imagelinks... and even the external imagelink accessories... most likely by getting into their commlinks and altering the data going to the PANs.  Hacking building environment controls... controlling lights, fire sprinklers, security camera feeds....  not to mention all the legwork type stuff that they do in ways no one else can.


But not cyberware... cybernetics is man/machine hybrid and it should be enforced that the meat and metal are both parts of the functioning whole.  The wireless should be driven out of them as well as the ability to directly hack them.   Street sams don't need even more problems compared to adepts.  People 'hijacking' an arm and then somehow precision aiming and shooting others with it even though the arm itself has no visual sensors or ways to aim.

It was made 'wireless' as part of the everything is wireless drive... and it should be cast back out just as quickly.   Every item which was made wireless should be subjected to the 'should this really be wireless' test.

The only other items I can think of as problematic in SR4.
Unlimited memory in pretty much everything.   There should be limits to the 'record everything and anything bits'.
Unlimited power in pretty much everything.   In civilized areas this makes sense... okay you steal power off gridguide or the like... but in the wilderness.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-03-13/2311:50>
GITS is also more technologically advanced than Shadowrun, Falconer. The tech is headed that way. Everything is heading towards getting more interconnected, which means hackers are more of a threat. You can put your head in the sand, you can go neo-luddite, or you can be paranoid and rip wireless out of things, but as it stands, wireless connectivitity is where its at, and where its going to remain.

There is an 'autistic' mode, Falconer. Its called "Turning the wireless off".

As for cybernetics, it is not a man/machine hybrid, but a man/machine interface. The machine doesn't suddenly become a part of the man or a man a part of the machine. It is a machine stuck on where man ought to be, which the man can control via various means. If they were both parts of a functioning whole, then ware wouldn't bite so deep into your Essence, and it wouldn't be left behind when someone hit you with Turn to Goo.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-03-13/2324:43>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.
Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.

If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).

Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.

Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.

You get access, you make a Command vs Command check to make it do something within the range of what it can do.  Unless something else (like Mind Over Machine) specifically expands the range of what something can do, it's not all that nebulous or vague - just a cross reference.  The hacking rules are highly inheritance based.

In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.

Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.

Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.

4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.

4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy.  This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else.  The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.

Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.

Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-03-13/2339:34>
I strongly disagree with this.. because all it takes is a few nanites which turn on all the wireless and you're back to square one.   There are ways to force people to turn on wireless whether they want it or not.

It is that trope which needs to go.   Not everything is wireless.   For many things it makes great sense, but not for everything.

In prior editions if i was in autistic mode I never once had a GM try to bust in... or just pull out handwavium oh your system is compromised simply because I think it's cool.  In SR4, though, with some people it's an obsession.  Normally when it happens, it just happens as well... it doesn't matter how much or how secure you make it.   It's wireless suddenly and then it's all compromised.   It makes it almost impossible to even attempt to play a street sam anymore, or if so.. to ignore cyber in favor of bioware.

I'll repeat that once more as it's own sentence paragraph... the way to make deckers better and more relevant is NOT to render every street sam obsolete and their puppet.


And I disagree as well about the nature of cybernetics.  The systems are designed to be controlled by the mind as natural extensions of the body.   They are pointedly not rigged, nor remote controlled (you couldn't move more than a single arm or leg at a time then).   A cyberarm may have wireless diagnostics as it's rationale... but this should not allow it to be moved wireless as if it were a drone.   There should be a clear difference between a drone/robot and cyberware.


Rhat:
And after rereading through all that for the 3rd time... disagree strongly.

While we're at it... we should put in a social combat system. 
So then the face can screw the street sam over too.  Or the face can better yet force the hacker to do things using social combat.

All I get out of your entire post is a combat focused character like a sam has no role and should be vulnerable to everyone else.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0031:18>
You get access, you make a Command vs Command check to make it do something within the range of what it can do.  Unless something else (like Mind Over Machine) specifically expands the range of what something can do, it's not all that nebulous or vague - just a cross reference.  The hacking rules are highly inheritance based.

In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.

Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.

Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.

4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.

4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy.  This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else.  The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.

Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.

Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.

1: This is the sort of thinking that led to the way skills work in D&D 4th where everything is based around "combat utility" and any skill they couldn't figure out a way to work that was completely excised from the ruleset under the guise of "streamlining".

2: See the first point, as this point made was merely an extension of it.

3: If the character is not a combatant as either primary, secondary or at the very least tertiary, then combat is not a situation where they should really contribute much. It's just the nature of the beast. That's like saying that Little Timmy up the street should be able to compete against that UCAS Army Infantryman.

4: You're falling into the "everything must absolutely, unequivocably be totally equal in all ways" trap here. All things are not equal, they never have been and they never will be (at least as long as the game is made right). Not everything should have something that completely makes it worthless. Not to mention that, as people have stated, it just forces a move toward a preference of bio-ware over cyber-ware because with cyber-hacking being present, having cyber-ware becomes entirely a liability.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/0033:13>
Falconer, I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. I'll talk about intruder nanites a bit later, but as for the rest, a hacker usually won't be going in through the individual implants, and you damn well know it. They'll hack the PAN, because they don't have to stand within 3m of an angry sammy to get in there. From the PAN, they can get into anything connected to the PAN, including cyberware. The dangers of plentiful cyberware getting hacked is one of the limitations of cyberware (and one of the reasons why those who can afford it get bioware instead). Again, that's like saying you like mages, but think Drain and Background Counts are tropes that need to go.

If you want to talk about how to keep people from hacking your cyberware, the first thing you do is practice basic Matrix security. That means paying for a decent firewall, an Analyze program, and some IC if you can afford it. Go in Hidden mode while on a run, so they have to spend time looking for you. Encrypt your node so they have to spend time decrypting. It is the same idea as home security. There is no way that you will ever make your home completely secure from thieves. What you can do is make it so that it is easier to hit the guy over there, or that anyone hitting your system should be bogged down by the different layers and types of security long enough that they'll get caught. This is even more imperative for a sammy who is getting hacked. An alert goes off? Reboot your commlink. Congrats, they got to start hacking all over again.

You're not penalizing all street samurais. You're penalizing the ones who aren't smart enough to secure their system. And cyberpunk in general (and Shadowrun in particular) has always taken a Darwinist approach to stupidity.

Now, regarding intruder nanites. IIRC, you have to be pretty close to get those things on you. That means either someone is in your face, you stepped in the nanite jar, or someone decided a spray mixing security RFIDs and intruder nanites would make a great way for corpsec to tell when someone entered a room without the proper codes. And if you get hit by a trap like that, then you probably should have done some better research, yeah?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0041:24>
Dude, cyber-hacking wasn't even on the radar until the current edition when everything started being wireless. It's not like it would be removing something that's been around since 1st edition.

On your 'background count' comment, it definitely does NOT need to go away, but it does need to be re-thought and tweaked as to effect with how they "fluff" things out as to what background ratings are where (pretty much everywhere being at least 1 BGC--which would mean that no magician ever is at full strength, anywhere), though removing its affect on Adepts wouldn't be a bad idea, as that could help with some of this "sub-optimal" stuff floating around with them.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0053:42>
1: This is the sort of thinking that led to the way skills work in D&D 4th where everything is based around "combat utility" and any skill they couldn't figure out a way to work that was completely excised from the ruleset under the guise of "streamlining".

2: See the first point, as this point made was merely an extension of it.

3: If the character is not a combatant as either primary, secondary or at the very least tertiary, then combat is not a situation where they should really contribute much. It's just the nature of the beast. That's like saying that Little Timmy up the street should be able to compete against that UCAS Army Infantryman.

4: You're falling into the "everything must absolutely, unequivocably be totally equal in all ways" trap here. All things are not equal, they never have been and they never will be (at least as long as the game is made right). Not everything should have something that completely makes it worthless. Not to mention that, as people have stated, it just forces a move toward a preference of bio-ware over cyber-ware because with cyber-hacking being present, having cyber-ware becomes entirely a liability.

1/2: I'll direct you to point 3 on this, specifically premises 3a and 3b.  This isn't at the level of skillsets, but rather of character types.  Can you find for me a probable character that doesn't have at least a second or third degree combat utility (IE, for a Face/Hacker, the combat utility of the hacker would be third degree)?  Point one is specifically an argument as to why combat is a special circumstance.

3: I'm sorry, but to make that argument you must take exception to one of the premises outlined in point 1 or the logic itself.  Can you demonstrate which of those two is the reason you do not accept the conclusion of point 1?

4: I am not.  In point of fact, a counter "web" (rather then circle) is one of the main ways to avoid that issue.  I was, however, simplifying dramatically.  I can provide a more thorough and complex description of the concept if you need me to.  And you've pointed out the obvious design issue RE: Bioware - however, Bioware is also overall less powerful in combat terms (note for example that the most effective IP aug is the Move-By-Wire); it's an issue but not as serious of one.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0057:46>
You are also forgetting (as have others) that cyber-hacking never really was an option before the current edition. How is it "removing a trope" when only one edition has had any capability for it at all, with the capability being provided by an aspect CONSTANTLY complained about by many people (absolutely everything being wireless pretty much)? Keep in mind that this is NOT Ghost in the Shell, which while a good anime to watch to get somewhat in the right mood and mindset is a COMPLETELY different setting.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0100:20>
You are also forgetting (as have others) that cyber-hacking never really was an option before the current edition. How is it "removing a trope" when only one edition has had any capability for it at all, with the capability being provided by an aspect CONSTANTLY complained about by many people (absolutely everything being wireless pretty much)?

I don't really care about whether it was in previous editions when making a design point - its strictly not relevant unless you assume the design of previous editions was perfect.

Also, I didn't refer to tropes at all, though those who do seem to be referencing it as a cyberpunk trope at large, rather than specifically a Shadowrun trope.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0105:20>
You are also forgetting (as have others) that cyber-hacking never really was an option before the current edition. How is it "removing a trope" when only one edition has had any capability for it at all, with the capability being provided by an aspect CONSTANTLY complained about by many people (absolutely everything being wireless pretty much)?

I don't really care about whether it was in previous editions when making a design point - its strictly not relevant unless you assume the design of previous editions was perfect.

Also, I didn't refer to tropes at all, though those who do seem to be referencing it as a cyberpunk trope at large, rather than specifically a Shadowrun trope.

Most cyberpunk doesn't incorporate all that much wireless--which is kind of necessary for cyber-hacking. Ghost in the Shell does, but being an entirely different setting is enough of a reason to leave that out. As to design, there is still absolutely no reason for cyber-hacking to be present, as all it does is push people into playing things where they don't need to micromanage network security and all that crap to avoid getting hacked.

With your idea of "combat is unique because of death being possible", well, if one doesn't buy a skill to be able to shoot back, then that's their own damn fault if they 'can't contribute' and end up dead.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0106:41>
You are also forgetting (as have others) that cyber-hacking never really was an option before the current edition. How is it "removing a trope" when only one edition has had any capability for it at all, with the capability being provided by an aspect CONSTANTLY complained about by many people (absolutely everything being wireless pretty much)?

I don't really care about whether it was in previous editions when making a design point - its strictly not relevant unless you assume the design of previous editions was perfect.

Also, I didn't refer to tropes at all, though those who do seem to be referencing it as a cyberpunk trope at large, rather than specifically a Shadowrun trope.

Most cyberpunk doesn't incorporate all that much wireless--which is kind of necessary for cyber-hacking. Ghost in the Shell does, but being an entirely different setting is enough of a reason to leave that out. As to design, there is still absolutely no reason for cyber-hacking to be present, as all it does is push people into playing things where they don't need to micromanage network security and all that crap to avoid getting hacked.

With your idea of "combat is unique because of death being possible", well, if one doesn't buy a skill to be able to shoot back, then that's their own damn fault if they 'can't contribute' and end up dead.

Simply buying the skill doesn't meet the requirements of the substantiveness test.

Please just take a minute and reread that argument - it's all very much interconnected.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/0115:23>
Dude, cyber-hacking wasn't even on the radar until the current edition when everything started being wireless. It's not like it would be removing something that's been around since 1st edition.
And Shadowrun tech is only now starting to get to the levels as seen in other cyberpunk settings, where it is possible to hack cyberware. Also, hacking cyberware could be done in older editions, however, it was far more complicated, and required (amongst other things) the victim to have an internal commlink and them failing to notice a trojan or other way of jamming open the connection. It could be done, however, if it was set up correctly.

But hacking cyberware is a trope of cyberpunk, and always has been. It just so happens that Shadowrun is starting to catch up to other cyberpunk settings in the way ubiquitous interconnectivity is being introduced. And you don't even need to micromanage connections. Just don't be stupid. Or is there any other word for someone who replaces half their body with computers and doesn't invest in a good firewall and antivirus, and possibly some IC?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/0118:45>
The intruder nanites are easier to run across than you make out.

All it takes is for the hacker to throw a grenade loaded with the things.  Or some kind of paintball round with them.  And you may not realize when you've been subjected to them because they aren't necessarily going to stand out.

Some GM's I know have made heavy use of the things... even one of the recent adventure arcs related to Horizon was making use of them IIRC.  (or the GM was making stuff up for some side stuff while running it during his LA based game.  I don't read modules unless I'm the one running them).


And I strenuously disagree the assertion that cyber is part of the PAN.  The PAN is one of the most abused concepts in the game.  Just because it's on the PAN doesn't make it some homogoneous 'whole' and a singular node.  Cyber especially should not be part of the PAN with all the hacking nonsenses.  Most people don't have enough subscriptions to operate their PANs at that.

Cyber is part of the person it's installed to... paid for with the coin of essence and becomes part of them.  It is not controlled through the PAN.   It is controlled through direct mental control from the mind.  This is precisely what I mean... making it wireless purely for the sake of making it part of the PAN is a mistake.  Because now suddenly you're adding methods of control that it was never designed to fall under such as rigging or remote control.  And suddenly it incorporates things like 'nodes' and device ratings it was never designed to contend with and never had to contend with in prior editions. 

Even sillier is this notion, that the cyber should ever have an equal levels of access and control from wireless as from the blood, bones, muscles, and nerves directly attached to it.


And I'll repeat my assertion... at this point if hackers must be able to take over the street sam archetype at will.
Why not the face?   Social combat as well since they as non-prime combatants must be at least equally able to influence direct combat as the hacker at least!

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-04-13/0124:01>
And I'll repeat my assertion... at this point if hackers must be able to take over the street sam archetype at will.
Why not the face?   Social combat as well since they as non-prime combatants must be at least equally able to influence direct combat as the hacker at least!

It is called "Commanding Voice." Yes, you have to tell them something that is not directly going to hurt them, and it has to be a one
word command that they can hear and understand.  Drop that on them, and tell them to "Retreat" or "Drop" (especially when there
is suppressive fire going on), and your Social Adept can dramatically impact a fight.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0129:31>
And again, it's still not well defined in the rules. All we have is a bunch of assumptions that Hacker players have thought up by basically saying "Ooh! Let's try this!", and overly permissive GMs have let them get away with it due to the lack of definition.

If it remains, then it needs to be WELL defined. Something like, perhaps, a -1 penalty to <blah> actions for every three cyber implants, or something like that. Basically something that has an effect, but doesn't give complete unfettered control over the cybered individual like some people seem to think is possible (as evidenced by the thread discussing Technomancers puppeteering people with MbW).

Similarly, Background Count becoming a dice pool penalty equal to the background rating to Spellcasting Tests would be a much cleaner way of handling it than a straight Magic/Force reduction, and Adepts not being affected by Background (explainable by the fact that all their 'magic' is internalized to their bodies) could help out with some of the issues people have with them.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Novocrane on <03-04-13/0139:40>
Quote
Why not the face?
It starts sounding Legends of the Wulin-esque, what with everyone being able to impact on most situations.

That isn't a bad thing.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0142:15>
The bad thing is that people seem to be wanting to take away what makes Street Samurai and other combat-oriented characters special. If someone tried suggesting making it so that the Street Sam could contribute equally to the Hacker's area, they'd probably cry foul.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0144:41>
If it remains, then it needs to be WELL defined. Something like, perhaps, a -1 penalty to <blah> actions for every three cyber implants, or something like that. Basically something that has an effect, but doesn't give complete unfettered control over the cybered individual like some people seem to think is possible (as evidenced by the thread discussing Technomancers puppeteering people with MbW).

That is truly exceptional case, let's not forget - and an advanced echo should be powerful (look at its competition for a second, some of those are terrifying), and that's a very specific circumstance.

But yes, it should be well defined.  But nowhere near as limited as you suggest.

And for fuck's sake, not everything that exists in 4e is the problem with 4e.  Do you actually disagree with this notion?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0146:15>
Limited? That's a lot more than I allow to happen. Like I've said, all I'll allow is "Do you wish to engage passive diagnostic? <Y/N>"
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/0154:46>
All4Big:
This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with magic and BGC.   Look at the title and topic.

Though I agree wholeheartedly... if people talked about making the street sam steal the deckers thunder in the matrix people would cry havoc.  But the other way is just peachy.


Mara:
Who said we were dealing with an adept?   Now really...  It's bad enough one poster going on about unrelated magic.

Social combat as it's well known in other systems like Exalted and others is the only way to give a mundane face a true field of battle.   Since you're so intent on ripping a glaring vulnerability so large into street sams they'll be at the mercy of any hacker in their vicinity.   Why not put them at the mercy of non-combat faces as well?


That's the disconnect I'm stating.   Hackers have plenty to make them unique and functional.   This doesn't give them unique stuff, it merely serves to cripple another long-held stalwart of the setting for reasons that don't make sense once you start thinking about them in the larger context.

Half the cases of cyberhacking I've seen have been completely BS as well.   A hacker who's not in line of sight attacking someone using the sam's arm...   How?  The arm is *NOT* a drone... it doesn't have sensors of it's own...  it doesn't know where to point let alone swing the katana.   Even more to the point... the 'body' is a balanced whole...  one arm by itself does not make for a strong attack.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0156:17>
Yeah, I know it doesn't, I only mentioned it because someone else brought it up, and I wanted to get that thought out before I forgot.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0217:36>
Limited? That's a lot more than I allow to happen. Like I've said, all I'll allow is "Do you wish to engage passive diagnostic? <Y/N>"

I'm aware of that.

As for you, Falconer:  Noone's talking about making combat-primary characters anything less than the straight up best combat characters by a wide margin which we'll call "combat dominant".  But there's a very large gap between "combat dominant" and "not combat effective".  A very large gap.  And somewhere in that gap is a range of "combat effective, but not combat dominant". 
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0233:46>
And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0239:36>
And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.

Nope.  Characters who are not secondary combat characters still need to be combat effective.  Characters who, due to investing in combat skills, are secondary combat characters should probably be between the combat effective and combat dominant points.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0245:14>
And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.

Nope.  Characters who are not secondary combat characters still need to be combat effective.  Characters who, due to investing in combat skills, are secondary combat characters should probably be between the combat effective and combat dominant points.

No. If a character hasn't invested in the skills for combat, then they should not be able to be effective in combat. Period. If the player doesn't want to buy those skills, then they'll just have to deal with the fact that they're not going to be good when a fight rolls around. If someone suggested that the Street Sam should be just as effective in the Matrix without buying into the hacking skills, I seriously doubt that you'd agree with that. It is no different at all.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0253:33>
And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.

Nope.  Characters who are not secondary combat characters still need to be combat effective.  Characters who, due to investing in combat skills, are secondary combat characters should probably be between the combat effective and combat dominant points.

No. If a character hasn't invested in the skills for combat, then they should not be able to be effective in combat. Period. If the player doesn't want to buy those skills, then they'll just have to deal with the fact that they're not going to be good when a fight rolls around. If someone suggested that the Street Sam should be just as effective in the Matrix without buying into the hacking skills, I seriously doubt that you'd agree with that. It is no different at all.

...  And now I point you to the previous argument regarding why all characters should be able to contribute to combat.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-04-13/0255:09>
Half the cases of cyberhacking I've seen have been completely BS as well.   A hacker who's not in line of sight attacking someone using the sam's arm...   How?  The arm is *NOT* a drone... it doesn't have sensors of it's own...  it doesn't know where to point let alone swing the katana.   Even more to the point... the 'body' is a balanced whole...  one arm by itself does not make for a strong attack.

And, frankly, I would never expect a hacker to do that. I would expect Hackers to be able to do things like AR Spam someone, or
hack their PAN and make a smartgun eject the clip through spoofing a command to it through the PAN. Remember that we no longer
have Smartlinks requiring a partial sim-rig and induction pads in the hand. Instead, they send their info to the PAN, which sends it to the
Smartlink glasses or implant. If I were to hack a cyberarm, it would be to put it into diagnostic mode, not to do some sort of fancy thing
with it like shoot someone else.

That said, my Street Sams always have Black IC on their commlink that their combat stuff goes through, and have that in wireless mode, skinlinked, with the wireless transmitter removed(not just disabled..but physically removed). Their second and third commlinks
are for the identity broadcasting, bank account using, etc. Heck, sometimes, I still have a Datajack and a fiber optic cable to my guns on a street sam. It might be retro, but...try and hack it...
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0259:08>
Half the cases of cyberhacking I've seen have been completely BS as well.   A hacker who's not in line of sight attacking someone using the sam's arm...   How?  The arm is *NOT* a drone... it doesn't have sensors of it's own...  it doesn't know where to point let alone swing the katana.   Even more to the point... the 'body' is a balanced whole...  one arm by itself does not make for a strong attack.

And, frankly, I would never expect a hacker to do that. I would expect Hackers to be able to do things like AR Spam someone, or
hack their PAN and make a smartgun eject the clip through spoofing a command to it through the PAN. Remember that we no longer
have Smartlinks requiring a partial sim-rig and induction pads in the hand. Instead, they send their info to the PAN, which sends it to the
Smartlink glasses or implant. If I were to hack a cyberarm, it would be to put it into diagnostic mode, not to do some sort of fancy thing
with it like shoot someone else.

That said, my Street Sams always have Black IC on their commlink that their combat stuff goes through, and have that in wireless mode, skinlinked, with the wireless transmitter removed(not just disabled..but physically removed). Their second and third commlinks
are for the identity broadcasting, bank account using, etc. Heck, sometimes, I still have a Datajack and a fiber optic cable to my guns on a street sam. It might be retro, but...try and hack it...

You're talking about hacking guns and other peripheral things like that. We're not saying to disallow those things. Get into the network and go into the gun, contacts, glasses, earbuds, etc. and fine do your thing, but to make cyber-ware (one of the key aspects of a Street Sam character) a massive, gaping vulnerability like that is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-04-13/0330:27>
However, I can see hacking a cyberarm left open and putting it into "System Diagnostic Mode", which would, effectively,
shut it off while it was running those diagnostics, as viable, as well. Or hacking the datafeed to someone's cyber-eyes.
AR Spamming someone with cyber-eyes is hacking their eyes. If they have their cyberware linked up to their PAN for
ease of diagnostics, updates, etc, that provides a backdoor into the cyberware. Move-by-wire, as it has a skillwire system,
means that I could upload a personality program into their commlink, and then tell the MBW to load it up. Since your cybereyes
have a Eye Recording unit, and, likely, are sending that data to your commlink, I can hack the commlink, and force it to replay the
last x number of seconds in a loop to your eyes. Frankly, there is so much you can do that is why a street sam NEEDS to protect
their commlink that their combat data goes through. Once someone gets into that, the street sam is just as vulnerable as if someone
shot him.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0333:25>
However, I can see hacking a cyberarm left open and putting it into "System Diagnostic Mode", which would, effectively,
shut it off while it was running those diagnostics, as viable, as well. Or hacking the datafeed to someone's cyber-eyes.
AR Spamming someone with cyber-eyes is hacking their eyes. If they have their cyberware linked up to their PAN for
ease of diagnostics, updates, etc, that provides a backdoor into the cyberware. Move-by-wire, as it has a skillwire system,
means that I could upload a personality program into their commlink, and then tell the MBW to load it up. Since your cybereyes
have a Eye Recording unit, and, likely, are sending that data to your commlink, I can hack the commlink, and force it to replay the
last x number of seconds in a loop to your eyes. Frankly, there is so much you can do that is why a street sam NEEDS to protect
their commlink that their combat data goes through. Once someone gets into that, the street sam is just as vulnerable as if someone
shot him.

That is completely ridiculous. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Falconer is right. In allowing that kind of crap, you might as well put every Street Sam at the full mercy of everything else too because if you don't those playing those other character types are going to be butt-hurt that they "can't be effective" in the same manner.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0335:17>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/0337:38>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/0346:02>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Declare everything slaved, get a decent commlink (implant it, even), make sure you have a strong firewall, get good Analyze, Command, and Purge, grab a couple extra skills, done.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-04-13/0348:21>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

How many commlinks do your characters carry, A4BG? 1, 2, or 3? It is not "tedious micromanagement" to do what I do: "This is my
combat link. All stuff from my ware goes here. It is skin-linked, and has its wireless removed." That is all a smart runner need to do.
Now, Shadowrun Darwin Award Winners? They can do with one commlink, with everything running through it...just like they can
make a whirlpool by sticking an outboard motor in an above ground swimming pool. Nothing is stopping them, and it has about
the same survivability.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Novocrane on <03-04-13/0417:56>
Half the cases of cyberhacking I've seen have been completely BS as well.   A hacker who's not in line of sight attacking someone using the sam's arm...   How?  The arm is *NOT* a drone... it doesn't have sensors of it's own...  it doesn't know where to point let alone swing the katana.   Even more to the point... the 'body' is a balanced whole...  one arm by itself does not make for a strong attack.
Even without sensors, there's a general physical shape that humans and metahumans conform to, which most cyberarms won't buck. Those assumptions help. I could see some interesting results from attempting to get raptor cyberlegs to move like normal legs, though.

Also, I find the hyperbole involved a bit much. "Massive, gaping vulnerability"? Take precautions, like you would for every other likely event that will kill or harm you.

It's already canon that security clearance personnel are likely to shut off their cyber's wireless capability / PAN connections when not in a corp-cleared clean wifi zone, while using a decent firewall on everything not slaved.
Title: Re: [Recruiting] TriSeq runners, Private Military Company Adventures[Full]
Post by: Sichr on <03-04-13/0533:08>
Ok. So lets remove the feature lots of us like and want to use because there are people who are not able to keep track of their augments and powers.srsly? Or let those people talk to their GM so it wont be used.
@mirikon: not so sure that hacking ghost is still impossible. Based on fictions, to me it seems someone is quite capable of pupetmastering technomancers in GeMiTo.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/0632:14>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.
Please cut the crap. Even without going to the extents Mara does, I've already shown how a Street Sam can, for no investment in skills and a small (compared to the cost of ware) investment in nuyen, protect themselves reasonably well from hackers taking over their ware during combat. If a hacker is in range of a street sam long enough to find the hidden node, hack in without triggering alerts, get through the encryption without triggering alerts, and get past the IC without triggering alerts, then wireless connections are not the sam's biggest problem.

Yes, the hacker has the chance to utterly bone sammies. Just like the sammy will utterly bone a mage in straight combat unless the mage gets the first shot, or the spirit will bone anyone who isn't awakened. And get a sammy within weapons range of the hacker, and the hacker's cooked as well. Every archetype has strengths and weaknesses. The Street Samurai's weakness is that ware can be hacked. Really, other than high force spirits and spells, that's the only thing sammies are weak to.

Ok. So lets remove the feature lots of us like and want to use because there are people who are not able to keep track of their augments and powers.srsly? Or let those people talk to their GM so it wont be used.
@mirikon: not so sure that hacking ghost is still impossible. Based on fictions, to me it seems someone is quite capable of pupetmastering technomancers in GeMiTo.
That will definitely be interesting to see if it is developed further.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Carmody on <03-04-13/0836:21>
Here is what I would like to see in SR5 regarding cyberware hacking, as well as some related thoughs in response to what have been said so far:

I like the idea of hacking cyberware, but it must be far simplier than it is in SR4 (it is too complex for me), for example 1 opposed roll.
Furthermore, hacking cyberware shall not allow to do everything with the cyberware, here are a few exemples for you to understand my point:
   - a cyberarm, as I see it, has 2 main interfaces
      - a DNI, which controls the arm and is physically plugged to the brain, the only way to hack it is to hack the brain (i.e. it is not possible)
      - a wireless interface, used to monitor status and allow maintenance. It is used to do everything that a "natural arm" cannot do (to be read with an open mind, for example cyber blades would be controlled by the DNI, as for cat claws, the same for other cyber weapons) for example maintenance, diagnosis, download firmware update. This interface is hackable. A hacker would then be able to shut down the arm, report false status, etc...
   - a cybereye has the same 2 interfaces, however the wireless interface is able to do far more because all overlays are using this interface (the DNI is only used to control where the eye is looking and send the images) so a hacker shall be able to change all overlays, which can blind the user or making him see things that do not exist)

I also like the idea of having short-lasting actions (as detailed by someone above), using the assumption that the HW will eventually recover in a few seconds.

And to be "combat effective", one should have to invest in *gasp* combat skills. If they don't want to do that, then tough cookies.
Last, I do not think that all characters shall be able to take part in combat, but I would like that it is possible for players to ensure their character can play a role if they wish (and invest a little). This means that in order to do cyberware hacking, the hacker must spend some ressources specifically for that, it shall not come for free in the hacker package. These resources (or skills) can be considered "combat skills".

This will allow a player to have a hacker that can play a role in combat in hacker style at the cost of a few skills/softs/whatever is not part of the regular hacker package. You can compare that to a magician that can be effective in combat in a magician style: with combat spells.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sipowitz on <03-04-13/0924:41>
I wonder if the writers are reading these threads, and taking notes on what people are saying were issues with the
things being commented on in the current edition?
I would hope the people playtesting are diverse enough that they are able to voice this.

It is called "Commanding Voice." Yes, you have to tell them something that is not directly going to hurt them, and it has to be a one
word command that they can hear and understand.  Drop that on them, and tell them to "Retreat" or "Drop" (especially when there
is suppressive fire going on), and your Social Adept can dramatically impact a fight.
idk, suppressive fire has never been very 'suppressive' in SR.  It works on maybe the first couple of security ratings after that it isn't scary.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-04-13/0940:08>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sipowitz on <03-04-13/0945:06>
Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k
Precisely.

Cyberware is not a requirement.  It is a choice. 
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/1049:00>
And it is a choice that should come with some corresponding dangers, just like how a hacker or mage can get brain fried in the course of doing their job. Doesn't even have to be damaging. Simple things, like editing the feed from cybereyes in real-time just as you would any camera, or commanding the cyberleg to go completely straight and rigid and stay that way, or cyberspurs to retract just before impact every time the sammy tries to use them. Things like that make the hacker a threat to the guy who can take an anti-tank round to the chest and keep going. How is that not a good thing?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1050:13>
The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.
-k

Combat monsters are usually useless during the rest of the game, for the most part. Seems a bit unfair to have hackers the only real 'class' able do be potent during every phase of the game without needing to broaden their skillsets much.

If it comes up that the hacker can do something useful during combat, awesome. Hack a passing car and ram it into the bad guys. I'm just not going to buy into a universe where the bad guys are leaps and bounds dumber then the party (Wireless cyber, gun turrets, personal vehicles, commlinks, etc.). It's not Shadowrun.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1216:18>
Combat monsters are usually useless during the rest of the game, for the most part. Seems a bit unfair to have hackers the only real 'class' able do be potent during every phase of the game without needing to broaden their skillsets much.
Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1221:03>
"At the mercy" implies there's nothing they can do to prevent it.  Wholly inaccurate.

With all sorts of tedious, micro-management crap that shouldn't be necessary in order to have fun playing one's character. Not to mention that if you fail to think of the tiniest thing (even if the character would think of it), you're right back at square one and screwed by every hacker you come across.

Why should it be tedious micro-management?

Hacker rolls attack, target resists, determine result. Since it was a combat hack and not a full bore network takeover, target's cyberdefenses recover immediately afterwards. If the hacker wants to do it again, he needs to make another attack roll.

Ideally, the hacker's attacks will NOT be simple damage or the like that the gunbunnies can do, but 'alternate' effects. Cause a cybered target to momentarily move out of cover, or be blinded briefly, or the like.

As for "everyone being useful in combat", this is NOT a setting consideration. This is a design consideration. When combat starts, you want the PLAYERS to all have something to do.

This is a maxim of game design. You do not create a system where a player might as well just leave the room and wait for the others to finish. You want everyone at the table participating.

The combat monsters should be best at combat, yes. But that does not mean the others should be completely USELESS. They need to have something they can contribute.


-k

The whole crux of their argument is that they want Hackers to be able to be just as good in the area of the Street Samurai's focus without investing the same amount of resources into the same skill set that the Street Sam did.

Instead of letting the Hacker use what skills they bought that let them rule pretty much every other situation in the game to take away what the Street Sam is good at, make the Hacker actually have to invest in combat skills--oh my God, what a horrid, horrid thought (apparently)--in order to contribute to combat. If the Hacker's player doesn't want to invest in those skills, well then he's chosen to make himself useless in combat.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1224:49>
Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.

Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.

I'll agree though that currently, a properly built mage can be effective in all aspects of the game. Obviously some will disagree with me, but I personally find that to be a problem. It's not that I mind a generalist, it's that I don't like a generalist that can also handle a third of the universe better then anyone else.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1250:18>
Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.
Right. I guess it depends on how you define combat monster. If you define it as someone who purposely doesn't do anything other than combat, you can't then bemoan that they can't do anything else. But if you're just defining it as someone who is first and foremost geared towards melee and ranged combat, then there is still easily room to slap on an additional skill or two or four (Intimidate, Infiltration, Shadowing, Hardware, heck, even the various Piloting, etc.) that gives them purpose in non-combat situations. A combat monster could already have a high LOG for First Aid and Demolitions, easy enough to tack on Data Search. Even just being a BA looking MF who does nothing but stands behind your Face while he does whatever he does is a non-combat role and doesn't require anything other than combat skills - may not be very active, but still plenty of opportunity for the to RP and for them to serve a purpose. Again, point is, no PC should be useless during any phase of the game and Hackers aren't going to be a disbalanced uber-class no matter what they do to them (within reason, of course).
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sipowitz on <03-04-13/1254:30>
Actually it's pretty easy to mix in a non-combat role into a combat monster; infiltration/B&E, facing (intimidation), leg-work roles like Data Search, etc. Also, Riggers, Faces and Magicians are usually potent during every phase of the game, no broadening needed at all, so it's not like it'd make Hackers some sort of uber-class.

Then they're no longer combat monsters. They're infiltrators, faces, etc. And with the new rules, Data search is going to be pretty difficult unless you bump your logic for *just* that.
I didn't realize that 'combat monster' forbade characters from having any other skills.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1259:47>
Right. I guess it depends on how you define combat monster. If you define it as someone who purposely doesn't do anything other than combat, you can't then bemoan that they can't do anything else.

This is exactly the problem. People want hackers to be able to do combat without spending points into other skills. The Street Sam and Face can't be effective in other areas without investing in those skills, so why should any other character type be able to?

...Hackers aren't going to be a disbalanced uber-class no matter what they do to them (within reason, of course).

By having cyber-ware being a liability like that, that is exactly what it makes the Hacker. He can already use his Matrix skills to get more information--and do it better--than the Face can with his contacts (unless you're talking the cheesy Pornomancer crap). He's already better at being undetected than the Infiltrator (not being on-site and not tripping alarms). The only thing the Hacker can't do already with his Matrix skills is deal with magical threats considering that he can already fight almost as good if not better than the Street Sam by using drones (while being in the safety of his comfy chair).

I didn't realize that 'combat monster' forbade characters from having any other skills.

"Combat Monster" is generally used to describe a combat-oriented character that can't do anything else.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Ghoulfodder on <03-04-13/1307:40>
I really hope they don't take out hacking cyberware. I mean it fun. I don't really see what you mean by can of worms. Some one can have a hacker on there team make sure there cyberware is not hacked. and Cyberware makes you more powerful but it leaves you open to be hacked and have things shutdown or a hacker making your arm jerk to shoot your team mates or hacking your eye's to make you think that you are seeing something your not. It just fun stuff to do. Please just leave it in the game. If you don't want to get your cyberware to hacked learn how to protect it get an agent in it make friends with a hacker so on.

At present, it's too nebulous as to just what can be done with such an action, and really, it would be better to just remove to option, as to give it the amount of definition it needs would just add too much complication to an already complex hacking system.

The more I think about it I kind of agree with All4bigguns on this.  Not every character type needs to be combat awesome and we don't need to cram every skill set into a combat role.  It kind of sucks to make a street sam if the hacker does as much in a fight but has a ton of other tricks.  And honestly I hate things like hacking cyber for the same reason I hate background count in 4e and adepts.  The less I have to fiddle with the better, rearranging what ware or powers are active is a pain.  They most likely have modifiers built into my character sheet and changing that up on the fly in the game just a pain in the ass.  Sure assign a penalty from background count or maybe some kind of electronic interference hack, but make it a consistent easy to track modifier and not something as tedious as figuring out what power no longer works etc.   

I don't mind as much of external gear gets hacked though if a hacker wants to help in combat more directly outside things like hacking comms they have drones to fall back on.
Except that hackers attacking their ware is one of the major balancing aspects against Street Samurai and other ware-heavy characters. Plus, it is a quintessential part of the Cyberpunk genre. You go around lopping off perfectly good pieces of yourself and putting machines where flesh ought to be, that's all well and good, but there's a price to pay, and I don't just mean nuyen. That's like saying it sucks to play a mage, and then have to deal with drain or background counts because that is a pain. That's a part of what it means to be a mage, so suck it up or play something different.

If you have massive ware, and aren't taking steps to protect yourself, then don't blame me if I go Laughing Man (not the Shadowland poster) on you. You shouldn't have replaced perfectly good eyes with cameras. Just be glad there isn't such a thing as ghost hacking (yet).

Again, my whole point is that it's just not worth the hassle to leave it in. Like I said, it's far too nebulous as to what can be accomplished, and also like I said, it's better to remove the option than it is to complicate the already highly complex Matrix rules defining it.

Not to mention that people keep ignoring the simple fact that not every single character type should 'have something to do' in every single situation. Different character types contribute in different situations, and that is just fine.

It's currently nebulous, open to abuse and badly thought out. Clarifying it so you have clear limits on what can be done and how is not more hassle than it's worth, because it provides (in theory) good rules for an integral part of the setting.

Something that is part of the feel of the game not working is not reason to throw it away. It's reason to fix it.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1310:53>
It's currently nebulous, open to abuse and badly thought out. Clarifying it so you have clear limits on what can be done and how is not more hassle than it's worth, because it provides (in theory) good rules for an integral part of the setting.

Something that is part of the feel of the game not working is not reason to throw it away. It's reason to fix it.

I did, in another post offer a possible suggestion, but the proponents for doing the cyber-hacking thought it was "too limited" because it didn't let Hackers 'puppeteer' every Street Sam they met into attacking their own allies.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1315:09>
Right. I guess it depends on how you define combat monster. If you define it as someone who purposely doesn't do anything other than combat, you can't then bemoan that they can't do anything else. But if you're just defining it as someone who is first and foremost geared towards melee and ranged combat, then there is still easily room to slap on an additional skill or two or four (Intimidate, Infiltration, Shadowing, Hardware, heck, even the various Piloting, etc.) that gives them purpose in non-combat situations.

I agree. My current fighter guy is a troll with 6 edge, 9 reaction, can fix anything that's not a computer, and can survive in hostile environments.

It's just he doesn't do any of those things exceptionally well. He's kind of a generalist, except he'll never sling spells or go astral, nor can he hack anything. Meanwhile, since he's got some `ware, certain folk on here would say that he's going to have his body hacked from time to time.

Let's break down the elements of a run.

Meet
Recon
Legwork
Execution
Payment
Aftermath

For the purposes of this argument, we'll assume the close quaters specialist and the fire support specialist are condensed into the ubiquitous "Combat Monster".

As it stands, the CM can, depending on build, touch a few of those run elements. If he's got some good contacts, he can do a bit of legwork. If he's got some good infiltration and perception, he can touch some recon. If he's got some charisma, he can be of some use during the meet and payment portions beyond being a bulletcatcher. However, a combat monster *can't* do all of those things with a single build. He just doesn't have the BP.

Meanwhile, a hacker can cover all of those aspects. He can hack the Johnson's commlink during the meet. He can browse the matrix around the scene and find some interesting nodes, and open up cameras and mic feeds for recon. He can hit up shadowgroups and hacker databases for legwork.  He can at the very least, provide matrix defense during execution, and more then likely will be a key component in bypassing maglocks and building security. He can set up anonymous accounts and split up nuyen after verifying payment, and will likely be one of the few characters unaffected should the team have to lay low after the run.

So the hacker can cover every single aspect without having to spread his skills and BP thin, covers the Matrix better then any other archetype, and now, as a subset of execution, should combat break out, he should be on par with a combat monster?  Bullshit. Let every archetype have their own spotlight. If every 4 or 5 sessions a good combat breaks out, let the monster have his day.

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1317:33>
This is exactly the problem. People want hackers to be able to do combat without spending points into other skills. The Street Sam and Face can't be effective in other areas without investing in those skills, so why should any other character type be able to?
But they're not "doing combat", they're doing battlefield control, sure. Mages do that with one skill too, and are waaaaaayyyyy better at it. And with sammies and faces, it's very easy to be fantastic at their specialty and tack on these other roles. Possibly requires less investment than Hackers when you look at the systems and programs required to do their thing.
By having cyber-ware being a liability like that, that is exactly what it makes the Hacker.
You are freaking out about something that hasn't even been stated as a goal by the devs. Think about that.
He can already use his Matrix skills to get more information--and do it better--than the Face can with his contacts (unless you're talking the cheesy Pornomancer crap).
Depends on your Face (how ballsy and creative he is) and your GM (how much he nut-hugs the Matrix). I've found Faces to be better at getting information and infiltrating then Hackers and B&E.
He's already better at being undetected than the Infiltrator (not being on-site and not tripping alarms). The only thing the Hacker can't do already with his Matrix skills is deal with magical threats considering that he can already fight almost as good if not better than the Street Sam by using drones (while being in the safety of his comfy chair).
Did you not read about the concept of Noise? Your arm-chair Hacker/Rigger is probably not going to be the norm anymore - they're going to be assuming the same risk as anyone else.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/1322:06>
Mara;
I think you understand better what I mean by diagnostic interface and the like.

But a lot of your things like AR spam aren't directed directly at the eyes... they're directed at the commlink!   The imagelink is merely the monitor passing data from the commlink.  (nothing stops people with cybereyes from wearing imagelink glasses/goggles/helmets)

I just solidly disagree with this notion that SR should be GitS.   The premise are completely different... GitS is E-ghost AI's in fully robotic bodies.  Even the least of them Togusa had his brain replaced which means even he with his meat body is still an AI E-ghost in SR terms.   To me busting into their other systems in GitS is no different than busting into nexus/links and rigger's drones...

Meat/metal cyber should be different.   Not simply this is a drone or we're going to replace your brain with a computer... but we're going to call it a cyborg like GitS does.


Some others:
Yes I have put internal commlink to run purely internal software and black ICE completely seperate from my external wireless-on link & glasses.   GM's just ignore it!   Have the wireless ripped out of all your implants...   Once again the  miracle of nanites... not only do the suckers turn on all the wireless... if things don't have wireless they use the mites wireless and tap in anyhow.   This is just a small smattering of the BS I've seen in play.   Since the char is a face/sam... he doesn't have hacking skills of his own... he has a good hacker contact he relies on for setting up his security though.

You seem to think it's mere incompetence, unfamiliarity with the rules for getting this stuff hacked.   No it always ends up trivially easy... even when the only way in you setup is a datajack.


The problem isn't that cyber is a choice.   Cyber is  choice with very heavy costs to the user in terms of essence and $$$ already.     Really with all the silliness presented here... why should anyone ever get Wired Ref instead of Synaptic?    All this cyber-hacking stuff is provide one less reason to ever take it instead of just getting bioware right away!   Why should I rip off my arms for 'cool' replacement arms when I don't have to put up with all this BS if I just get muscle toner/augment 4 in my normal ones.  All this hate is essentially directed at a single archetype and one archetype only... the street sam who makes heavy use of this.



I'm all for getting into their guns.. getting into their links... spoofing commands to all manner of external devices and systems.  If not that, editing the data coming from those devices....  (really why not edit the smartgun guncam/aiming feed so the sight starts wandering around like a drunken sailor giving a penalty instead of a bonus).    I simply believe that cyber should be off-limits, it has too many drawbacks compared to other alternatives already.  It doesn't make sense that meat/machine hybrids should be subject to the same level of problems no-meat robotic drones have.

More importantly, it doesn't pass the "Why the hell is this wireless anyhow smell test?'

After 4ths abortive attempt at the everything is wireless... Everything needs to be resubjected to that "Why the hell is this wireless again?" question for 5th.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1328:01>
I think it still depends on how big of a Matrix nut-hugger your GM is.
Meet
Recon
Legwork
Execution
Payment
Aftermath
Magicians and Faces (especially Adepts) are capable of excelling at every single one of these stages too. Even a true combat monster (no skills but combat) should have something to do at each stage, and can easily excel at that whether as it's just as muscle or the driver, etc.

Each "class" having it's time to shine depends 100% on your GM presenting that opportunity (and taking away others), not on the rules.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1331:44>
Did you not read about the concept of Noise? Your arm-chair Hacker/Rigger is probably not going to be the norm anymore - they're going to be assuming the same risk as anyone else.

If Noise is as ill-frequently used and applied as background counts are for magic, I don't think It'll be an issue at all.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1332:58>
Each "class" having it's time to shine depends 100% on your GM presenting that opportunity (and taking away others), not on the rules.

It seems that people think that Hackers should be an exception to this and that the rules should make them the "super class" able to, by the rules, do everything (except Astral and magical stuff)) without investing in skills outside their specialty.


Oh, and by the way, if FALCONER and I are in agreement on something (an occurrence that never really happens), don't you think it's a pretty good idea to take note?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/1344:09>
Falconer, just as things should not be allowed/disallowed on a game-wide basis because bad players do stupid things, the same applies to when bad GMs do stupid things. The phone book is not just for problem players, but problem GMs as well.

Honestly, when I was in a game with a GM who tried to say that a Shark mage going into frenzy meant they no longer got to roll defense, I walked. No hard feelings on my part, but that wasn't a game I was going to be a part of, especially since such things weren't brought up when I was making my character. Your objections are less about why cyberware shouldn't be hacked, and more about why certain GMs should be beat with a Metro Atlanta phone book.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1352:47>
If Noise is as ill-frequently used and applied as background counts are for magic, I don't think It'll be an issue at all.
It will be interesting to see how it factors in, if it's like a background count for hacking (that is reduced by proximity) I think that would be fantastic, because it should be everywhere then. A GM not using BGs as appropriate is simply a poor GM, not bad rules or a bad goal.
Oh, and by the way, if FALCONER and I are in agreement on something (an occurrence that never really happens), don't you think it's a pretty good idea to take note?
Really, I am not in disagreement with either of you on the principle (that Hackers shouldn't be able to dominate combat), I just think you're blowing it out of proportion. If the simplification/stream-lining of the Matrix ends up having the effect of making Hackers more potent in combat, it's really pretty simple to nullify that I think is all.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1353:12>
Falconer, just as things should not be allowed/disallowed on a game-wide basis because bad players do stupid things, the same applies to when bad GMs do stupid things. The phone book is not just for problem players, but problem GMs as well.

Honestly, when I was in a game with a GM who tried to say that a Shark mage going into frenzy meant they no longer got to roll defense, I walked. No hard feelings on my part, but that wasn't a game I was going to be a part of, especially since such things weren't brought up when I was making my character. Your objections are less about why cyberware shouldn't be hacked, and more about why certain GMs should be beat with a Metro Atlanta phone book.

If the Hacker wants to be good in combat, he can take Gunnery and a drone or two. Giving him the ability to control any Street Sam he sees is just stupid overkill.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1355:51>
It will be interesting to see how it factors in, if it's like a background count for hacking (that is reduced by proximity) I think that would be fantastic, because it should be everywhere then. A GM not using BGs as appropriate is simply a poor GM, not bad rules or a bad goal.

Not using Background Count doesn't make one a poor GM. It just means that GM doesn't like how BGC functions with how it's written and with how common it is by the "fluffy" elements of it (I actually made a suggestion for improving it earlier in the thread just to get it out before it was forgotten).
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1357:47>
It will be interesting to see how it factors in, if it's like a background count for hacking (that is reduced by proximity) I think that would be fantastic, because it should be everywhere then. A GM not using BGs as appropriate is simply a poor GM, not bad rules or a bad goal.

I've been to around 10 agent run missions now, and I've yet to see background count applied once. If you're suggesting that 4 different GMs were poor GMs... Maybe? I think it's more a matter of being poorly written and oft ignored, as opposed to wards and other such magical phenomenon.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-04-13/1400:56>
The whole crux of their argument is that they want Hackers to be able to be just as good in the area of the Street Samurai's focus without investing the same amount of resources into the same skill set that the Street Sam did.

Instead of letting the Hacker use what skills they bought that let them rule pretty much every other situation in the game to take away what the Street Sam is good at, make the Hacker actually have to invest in combat skills--oh my God, what a horrid, horrid thought (apparently)--in order to contribute to combat. If the Hacker's player doesn't want to invest in those skills, well then he's chosen to make himself useless in combat.
Nobody said "just as good".

Seriously, go re-read the thread.

Peoples have said "effective" and "not useless". This in comparison to the street sam, who is and should remain the pinnacle of combat.

The idea is to have some way for hackers to contribute to a firefight that dosen't involve multiple rolls to take over a network. Or pulling a gun. Or just hiding until the fight is over.

Not to dominate combat. Just to be able to chip in, using their skill set.


-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1403:47>
Giving him the ability to control any Street Sam he sees is just stupid overkill.
See, where is this concern coming from?

I haven't GMed since 2nd Ed and have never played a Hacker, but can someone explain to me how something that doesn't have the hardware for wireless communication, nor a CPU, be hacked? The brain is the CPU for (most) 'ware, a hacker can't even interface with that, this is why I don't understand how people think they can build a 'ware drone-body or hack a sammy. There isn't rules for this stuff is there? This is just people saying "I want this!" Why get worked up over that?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1404:53>
Nobody said "just as good".

Seriously, go re-read the thread.

Peoples have said "effective" and "not useless". This in comparison to the street sam, who is and shpuld remain the pinnacle of combat.

The idea is to have some way for hackers to contribute to a firefight that dosen't involve multiple rolls to take over a network. Or pulling a gun. Or just hiding until the fight is over.

Not to dominate combat. Just to be able to chip in, using their skill set.


-k

And they've been told already how they can be "effective" and "not useless" in combat. They can either invest in combat skills, or buy Gunnery and a drone or two. It's available to them, and doesn't hose another character type.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1407:45>
And they've been told already how they can be "effective" and "not useless" in combat. They can either invest in combat skills, or buy Gunnery and a drone or two. It's available to them, and doesn't hose another character type.

Exactly. All you have to do is reverse the argument to see how foolish it is.

Street Samurai should have the ability to hack using their swords, so they're not useless in matrix combat. They shouldn't be as good as hackers, but their swords should be able to surf the `trix and break into a few nodes.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1411:05>
Not using Background Count doesn't make one a poor GM.
I agree, that's why I qualified that with "as appropriate".
I've been to around 10 agent run missions now, and I've yet to see background count applied once. If you're suggesting that 4 different GMs were poor GMs... Maybe? I think it's more a matter of being poorly written and oft ignored, as opposed to wards and other such magical phenomenon.
If they're in their and the GM ignored them, could be poor GMing if the Mage over-powers things. But in general, Missions is another thing altogether, presumably they have their reasons for what they do when they design those. I don't play them, I don't care what they do with them. But that is the design, not the GM. However my GM, when he wants it to not be Magic-run - "Oh, btw, your target is in a high BG area, sorry". Noise can easily be the same way, "sorry this is an EM confluence area, gonna have to try something else."
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1417:14>
That seems more binary then I'd like.

The other problem is matrix access itself. If your node is the city away, but you're jacked in locally, there shouldn't be an issue. Seriously, the first coast-to-coast telegraph message in the united states only had a half second delay. A half second! With the advent of wireless and fiber optic communications, city-wide delays would be nill.

 So Noise is going to have to be a wireless only feature, for devices not also on the matrix. (Is that possible now?)

Ideally, I'd like to see something as simple as -1 modifier per [distance unit] between attacker and target. Since I'm in love with the idea of the hacker *being there*, and not in their impenetrable invisible vehicle located nearby, i'd have that unit be a meter.  I'm also an asshole, so take that suggestion with a grain of salt.

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: emsquared on <03-04-13/1429:23>
That seems more binary then I'd like.
...
Ideally, I'd like to see something as simple as -1 modifier per [distance unit] between attacker and target. Since I'm in love with the idea of the hacker *being there*, and not in their impenetrable invisible vehicle located nearby, i'd have that unit be a meter.  I'm also an asshole, so take that suggestion with a grain of salt.
Well, I probably made it sound more binary then I'd like as well.

Your latter bit there is more what I was envisioning for Noise in general, but if Hacking becomes a problem in combat, I'd have no problems saying, 'sorry, not here'.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mirikon on <03-04-13/1438:55>
A4BG, you and Falconer agreeing doesn't mean you're both right, merely that your biases coincide for once.

As for one character type being able to 'hose' another character type, that's already well entrenched in the system. Or maybe you haven't tried fighting a high Force spirit as a mundane before? And yes, getting some ranks in gunnery and picking up a combat drone is a good thing for a hacker to do, as branching out into rigging is the easiest secondary role for a hacker to pick up. But what does the hacker do when the drone isn't around? Lot of places you can't go with a combat drone sporting heavy weapons following you around, you know. What do they do then? Hide in the corner until everything is finished? Taking over a street samurai's eyes and making him see friends as foes and vice-versa is no different from a mage doing physical illusions, and it is easier to prevent and shake off than a mage's spells are.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/1441:57>
As for one character type being able to 'hose' another character type, that's already well entrenched in the system. Or maybe you haven't tried fighting a high Force spirit as a mundane before? And yes, getting some ranks in gunnery and picking up a combat drone is a good thing for a hacker to do, as branching out into rigging is the easiest secondary role for a hacker to pick up. But what does the hacker do when the drone isn't around? Lot of places you can't go with a combat drone sporting heavy weapons following you around, you know. What do they do then? Hide in the corner until everything is finished? Taking over a street samurai's eyes and making him see friends as foes and vice-versa is no different from a mage doing physical illusions, and it is easier to prevent and shake off than a mage's spells are.

Maintain any tactical network the team has. Scramble opposing comms. Shut down elevators to cut off enemy reinforcements. Take control of enemy security drones. Hack in and shut down any alarms.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1444:48>
What do they do then? Hide in the corner until everything is finished?

Again, that argument sucks. What does a street sam do while cybercombat is going on, Hide in the corner until everything is finished?

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-04-13/1446:29>
And they've been told already how they can be "effective" and "not useless" in combat. They can either invest in combat skills, or buy Gunnery and a drone or two. It's available to them, and doesn't hose another character type.

Exactly. All you have to do is reverse the argument to see how foolish it is.

Street Samurai should have the ability to hack using their swords, so they're not useless in matrix combat. They shouldn't be as good as hackers, but their swords should be able to surf the `trix and break into a few nodes.
Actually...

Why not? Seriously, hear me out.

Normally when the hacker goes to do his thing, everyone else just takes a break to get a drink or something.

What if the street sam could jack in and substitute his abilities to do basic stuff? His deck translating gun or sword attacks into combat utilities, and so forth. He'd not have anywhere near the flexibility and power a true hacker has, but he could certainly provide backup instead of sitting there watching the hacker's body.


-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1450:05>
If jacking in could provide a 1-to-1 translation? I'd be in love with the system.

I'm not sure what use the hacker would be then, however.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/1552:50>
Somehow I don't think the game gets better if it's merely turned into a gigantic game of "miracle shooter".


Similarly, I don't think the analogues to background count are called for at all.   if anything it strikes me as more of a distance thing...  almost as if signal degraded as range increased just like it does in real life.   Or taking a page out of the proxy rules for originating yourself from a remote node instead of your own... reduce the response accordingly.


And yes, rather than nasty stuff stuff like hacking cybereyes which have no good reason whatsoever to be directly hackable.   He should be exploring the buildings security system...   if he wants combat ability the best way is to turn the corps own security against itself.  By doing things like stealing drones if he can't bring his own.  Misdirecting security patrols away.   Information warfare.   Putting anyone with cyber at the hackers mercy is simply a poor and reckless idea.


Merging hackers and riggers was a good thing in the system.   The getaway driver schtick that true riggers had and remote decker never worked well from a game perspective.   Keeping hackers into secondary drone combatants is the best way to handle any kind of combat inability.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: cre100382 on <03-04-13/1602:12>
The "Noise" sounds (no pun intended) like a lag issue.  How many nodes do you have to travel through to get to your target, kind of thing.  If you are taking on a node three floors up in the same corp building there shouldn't be much, if any, but if you have to go through ten or 20 nodes to get to what you are taking a crack at, then there should be some kind of reaction time lag for the signal to go through all those points.  I don't think it is distance more of a translation and transfer of data back through those nodes.

This could also apply to the corp Matrix Security trying to track you.  They are on their home turf, but the closer you get to your home node, the farther they are from theirs.  I don't know, I only play a hacker in a couple of sessions, I couldn't get a feel for it in that limited time.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sichr on <03-04-13/1703:55>
To me the Noise sounds like something that limits wireless functionality and makes hacking in hi-noise areas difficult. And I can see the way to avoid it is...to use cyberdeck and look for wired systems that should be noise-free. That means you has to be on site with the rest of the team. And this makes you target so you have to be able to defend yourself. The idea of learning some cybercombat skills when you are heavy cybered samurai sounds to me like adept using astral perception: He decides if he uses combat skill or astral combat skill. If this is the way, Im happy that the longest love relationship in my life will continue  ;D

It will, anyway :D
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/1727:27>
Sichr:
Adepts using astral perception don't decide to use 'astral combat'.   Once you turn on astral perception, you're using trained only 'assensing' and 'astral combat' against any astral entities you chose to attack.. you can only use your physical ones to attack (at a -2 penalty) other physical forms.   Look at the astral combat table in the FAQ.

So the analogy is completely blown...


But yeah noise strikes me as a combination of 'static' zones.  Which to be honest I've never seen used yet in play.   And 'ping'  (the farther away you are, the slower you are).   We'll have to see if they work in something akin to the unwired proxy rules for originating all your traffic from a remote node from the get go.
Title: Re: [Recruiting] TriSeq runners, Private Military Company Adventures[Full]
Post by: Sichr on <03-04-13/1755:53>
Adept with Killing hands = dual with natural weapon
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/1809:26>
*sigh*...
That specifically only goes for things with both the named *critter* powers.

An adept does not qualify as a critter with the CRITTER POWERS of 'dual-natured' (he's not stuck dual natured  at all times now is he!), and he does not have the 'natural weapons' critter power.

He has the 'astral perception' adept power, and the 'killing hands' adept power.

So two strikes... try again.  You're using house rules and ignoring the rulebook.


Contrary to most... I don't think adepts are gimped in the least and find them some of the most potent charcters in game since investment into magical skills such as assensing/astral combat is completely optional for them.  They simply build the character almost as if mundane, then sprinkle magic to make it even better.

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-04-13/1814:51>
Sichr:
Adepts using astral perception don't decide to use 'astral combat'.   Once you turn on astral perception, you're using trained only 'assensing' and 'astral combat' against any astral entities you chose to attack.. you can only use your physical ones to attack (at a -2 penalty) other physical forms.   Look at the astral combat table in the FAQ.


As far as the FAQ goes... the author of the FAQ himself (Ancient History was his board handle for those who care to know) stated it was not errata and should not function as errata contradicting the published rules.  The goal at the time of publication was to fix a complete and utter abortion of a FAQ which contradicted the rules more often than it clarified them

You make me laugh.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/1850:15>
Your point being Wildcard... the FAQ in this case does not contradict any of the rules.  It serves it's explicit purpose... to clarify the rules when people ask questions about what exactly to roll given the wording of the rules.  It does not go into... 'The GM may allow this if he feels like it" invoking rule 0.  It simply explains the astral combat rules using clearer wording and easy lookup tables rather than needing to read 3 different sections of the rulebook and fill in all the blanks.

Look at the rules on page 193.
"Astrally perceiving and dual-natured characters use their Physical attributes and skills to fight opponents with a physical body,"
*drumroll please*
"and their Astral Combat + willpower to fight wholly astral entities." 

It even goes out of it's way to call out astrally percieving and dual-natured as separate items not as the same thing.

But in any case, no choice is given.   If it's physical or dual-natured use your normal physical skills (with a -2 for non-magical attacks such as involving a mundane sword for astrally perceiving).   And to use the mental + astral combat if the target is astral-only.

Natural weapon power is a mundane power as per Running Wild... if the critter loses all magic it retains it's natural claws/teeth capable of doing physical damage.   It further goes on to define them as 'natural' which do 'physical' damage.   An adept has 'magical' weapons which do physical damage not magical... his fists only do stun in the absence of magic.

That's the last I'll post on this topic... so feel free to snipe me again if you so desire... I'm not going to derail this thread any more.   I merely was pointing out that Sichr's example... of an adept choosing to attack physically or astrally at his option was directly contradicted by the rules.


So it doesn't serve as any basis for comparison to a street sam using his 'pistols' skill to attack in the meat or matrix at his option.  The entire concept strikes me as a bit nonsensical.   Why bother with a cybercombat skill (or astral combat) skill at all in that case.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/1943:36>
I'm just gonna quote myself here, for a second, because I feel like this has been forgotten.

In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.

Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.

Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.

4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.

4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy.  This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else.  The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.

Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.

Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.

This is an argument which aims to prove that these things are objectively true.  You are free to think that I have not proven my case here, but to argue contrary to these points and have a leg to stand on while doing so, you must attempt to demonstrate a flaw in either the logic or the premises.  If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, these things are true and there's no longer any argument to be had on these specific points - and thus you cannot, for example, equate giving hacking combat options with giving fighting hacking options; that is demonstrated to be a false equivalence under point 1.

Similarly, it is incorrect to think that this is saying hackers should be just as good in combat as sams - see Premise 2a-I.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-04-13/2015:44>
Strongly disagree Rhat... it is not objective.

Not in the least.

Collecting a ton of subjective opinions together does not make it objective.   Not in the least.   Many of your statements are not things which people agree with.   Even more to the point... half your conclusions are complete non sequitors to your so called 'objective' premises.

Example: 1c.   if you have done something (or utterly failed to do something)... then it is your fault that you got into a fight you should not have.   Some classes are 'pre-emptive' others are 'reactive'.   Street sams tend to be reactive.. if the bullets are flying it is normally because something has gone wrong or because it's a necessary part of the plan which is generally minimized as much as possible by the actions of the rest of the team.

So for 1c... if the fight is avoidable by the actions of the hacker, that is the time for him to act.   Not bitch and moan because it's utterly stupid that people would leave cyberware in any state where it should be compromisable in mere seconds by any hacker around who was too lazy to do his groundwork.


I can come up with all kinds of ways to point out that even your section 2 is not objective.   For example... you're in a fight... if the hacker delays reinforcements by any number of methods(sending them elsewhere, locking a door in their face, attacking them with the buildings own security systems such as a gun turret!!...  .. he makes a substantial contribution to the difficulty of a fight.      Many people have very little idea how much raw numbers contributes to many fights... if you can keep the fight a 5 on 5... as opposed to 15 on 5...it's quite substantial as 3 5 on 5 fights is a lot easier than one 15 on you gangbang.


A hackers role in combat should be largely pre-emptive and pro-active.   He should have compromised some elements of the system before the fight even begins.   If he hasn't, I would go so far as to say he's larely incompetent.

All you're doing is forcing all street sams to be 'Bull' clones... half sammy, half decker.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2020:32>
First, it's a premise, not an example.  Two very different things.

So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you agree that a player has to right to contribute to preventing the loss of their character, but think that hackers do so preemptively?  That assumes that any fight a hacker gets into is due to the hacker, and not a different team member, screwing up.  Not a valid assumption.

And I said it attempts to prove - I'm not asserting my opinion as objective fact, I'm attempting to prove an objective fact through rational argumentation.  And you seem to misunderstand the meaning of objective versus subjective rather drastically.  And for purposes of this discussion, let's not assume they're in a corp facility where the things you mention become options; that's an additional element rather than a default.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2025:41>
I'm just gonna quote myself here, for a second, because I feel like this has been forgotten.

In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.

Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.

Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.

4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.

4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy.  This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else.  The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.

Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.

Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.

This is an argument which aims to prove that these things are objectively true.  You are free to think that I have not proven my case here, but to argue contrary to these points and have a leg to stand on while doing so, you must attempt to demonstrate a flaw in either the logic or the premises.  If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, these things are true and there's no longer any argument to be had on these specific points - and thus you cannot, for example, equate giving hacking combat options with giving fighting hacking options; that is demonstrated to be a false equivalence under point 1.

Similarly, it is incorrect to think that this is saying hackers should be just as good in combat as sams - see Premise 2a-I.

Not forgotten, but just because you organized your opinions together does not change that they're opinions.

People have already pointed out multiple ways that a Hacker can contribute to combat that does not involve turning cyber implants into a massive liability.

To reiterate them:

Scramble opposing force's communications.
Hack into and take control of enemy drones.
Cut off access to the field of engagement from the enemy's reinforcements.
Invest in the Gunnery skill and get a drone or two.
Maintain the team's tactical network and keep it secure.
Hack in to shut down alarms that have been activated.
Invest in Combat Skills.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2037:07>
I'm just gonna quote myself here, for a second, because I feel like this has been forgotten.

In any case, let me frame this a little - note that for these purposes, hackers and riggers are being considered to be two separate skillsets.

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.
Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.
Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.
Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience
Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)
Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.
Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

3: It is probable for a playable character to exist that uses hacking as its primary role and does not have a combat-based secondary role.

Premise 3a: A character that is not combat primary or secondary is highly unlikely to be able to make a meaningful contribution, as defined above, through their combat skills.
Premise 3b: A secondary role is one that is either an element of a character's primary type but not its core (a mage not specifically structured for combat but having a workable combat spell and/or a decent combat spirit to fall back on), or the secondary skillset they are built for (IE, a social adept with some unarmed ranks and powers).
Premise 3c: A character that is able to make its primary and secondary skillsets work together will probably see a fair bit of play.
Premise 3d: The social engineering hacker (Hacker primary, Face secondary) has two skillsets that directly complement each other, creating a very effective character that could very easily fit with the concept a player wants.
Premise 3d-I: Face supplements Hacker due to the ability to grift your way into getting the physical access you need and the information you need to make your Hacker activities much easier, especially if the information isn't on the Matrix.
Premise 3d-II: Hacker supplements Face by making it far easier to sell a con, as well as providing the information to make it easier to manipulate people.

Conclusion: Hacking needs to be directly relevant to combat in a way that passes the substantiveness test.

4: Hacking is, or at least should be, the counter to cyberware.

4a: A counter is defined as something that is especially effective at specifically combating the subject, usually through taking advantage of weaknesses and limitations or decreasing efficacy.  This means that it is (a) generally the most effective means of taking on the subject, and (b) more effective at that than at other tasks in the web.
4b: In any multi-element game, maintaining both balance and distinctiveness simultaneously requires the notion of counters.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the classic example, albeit an overly simplistic one.
4c: Heavily cybered characters lack any true counters - everything that's effective against them is effective in the same way as against anything else.  The sole exception is cyber-hacking, which is a means by which hackers can diminish their effectiveness, perhaps to the point of eliminating or even reversing their impact on the fight.
4d: Hacking isn't a true counter to anything else - the only runner-up is riggers, who are actually (due to their likelihood of having better ECM and ECCM capabilities, along with a few other things) the direct counter to hackers.

Conclusion: Cyber-hacking cannot be removed should various forms of balance be preserved.

Feel like I'm forgetting a couple of points I wanted to cover (stopped in the middle of typing this to grab dinner), but I can't seem to cease forgetting them.

This is an argument which aims to prove that these things are objectively true.  You are free to think that I have not proven my case here, but to argue contrary to these points and have a leg to stand on while doing so, you must attempt to demonstrate a flaw in either the logic or the premises.  If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, these things are true and there's no longer any argument to be had on these specific points - and thus you cannot, for example, equate giving hacking combat options with giving fighting hacking options; that is demonstrated to be a false equivalence under point 1.

Similarly, it is incorrect to think that this is saying hackers should be just as good in combat as sams - see Premise 2a-I.

Not forgotten, but just because you organized your opinions together does not change that they're opinions.

People have already pointed out multiple ways that a Hacker can contribute to combat that does not involve turning cyber implants into a massive liability.

To reiterate them:

Scramble opposing force's communications.
Hack into and take control of enemy drones.
Cut off access to the field of engagement from the enemy's reinforcements.
Invest in the Gunnery skill and get a drone or two.
Maintain the team's tactical network and keep it secure.
Hack in to shut down alarms that have been activated.
Invest in Combat Skills.

It is an argument.  This is a very different thing from an opinion - it may be the case that some of the premises lack the factual support they need, and if you see such a case I urge you to point it out.  To address your list:

- Fails the substantiveness test.  If you want to keep forwarding this idea, you'll need to challenge the test itself.
- Only counts if the enemy has a rigger, and the control side is rigging rather than hacking.  This is a way for a rigger to contribute, not a hacker, and riggers aren't short of those.
- Not possible in anything approaching all fields of engagement, and thus doesn't apply to the more general design level.
- That's for the Rigger, not the Hacker.
- Fails the substantiveness test.
- Not nearly a common enough thing.
- Doesn't apply to already complete characters (See: Hacker/Face).  Further, as a purely mental-stat skillset, hacking doesn't lend itself to that kind of crossover like it does for the Infil-specialist who probably already has good Agility.  A Hacker/Face character, for example, won't be able to get enough dice for that to pass the substantiveness test.

And thus your list doesn't work.

And further, having a weakness does not make cyberlimbs a massive liability.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2045:56>
And if the things that don't always apply happen not to in a situation, and the Hacker hasn't invested in combat-oriented skills (including Gunnery as an option), then guess what, they have chosen to be useless in combat. There shouldn't be something like cyber-hacking there just so that some special-snowflake-hacker player can refuse combat-oriented skills and still be good in a combat situation.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2049:49>
Why not?  Why does the player of the Hacker/Face (which is a probable character, not a special snowflake) not have the right to contribute meaningfully to the avoidance of the loss of his character?  You're disagreeing with the conclusion of the first stage of the argument while refusing to address either the logic or the premises.  If the logic is sound and the premises are valid, the conclusion is true.  That's just how it works.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2056:00>
If you don't take drones and Gunnery or combat skills and combat breaks out, then it's your own fault if you can't contribute to the fight in situations where the other stuff I listed don't apply.

Heck, the Hacker/Face could try to keep it from escalating to combat using his social skills in the case of that 'example'.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2101:46>
There are combats that the Hacker/Face doesn't have the relevant skills to prevent.

So you disagree with the idea that every player has a right to contribute meaningfully to preventing the loss of their character?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2106:21>
There are combats that the Hacker/Face doesn't have the relevant skills to prevent.

So you disagree with the idea that every player has a right to contribute meaningfully to preventing the loss of their character?

If they didn't bother buying the skills and/or gear for combat, then that's their own fault, like I said.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2110:52>
There are combats that the Hacker/Face doesn't have the relevant skills to prevent.

So you disagree with the idea that every player has a right to contribute meaningfully to preventing the loss of their character?

If they didn't bother buying the skills and/or gear for combat, then that's their own fault, like I said.

Which is a pretty weak argument because, you know, mages.  They only need the skills they already inevitably have.  Even without combat spells, they have spirits.  It also runs headlong into the fact that they have to do more than just get the skills and gear for it, because their attribute layout will be wrong for combat as well.

And if you want it to take an extra skill, the Cybercombat skill could do with some serious expansion as it is anyways, or a new skillgroup could be added altogether that's still linked to Logic so that Hackers actually have the attribute for what their trying to do.  Fully mental stat characters cannot contribute meaningfully without a mental stat method - Agility 1 or 2 plus Pistols 2 is just not gonna do it.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2113:36>
Then maybe they shouldn't have done the whole "dump stat" thing with their physical attributes (again their own fault). You dump Agility and don't take combat skills, well dying in a firefight is a natural consequence of that.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2116:05>
A Hacker/Face with low physical attributes isn't doing a dumpstat thing, it's a natural consequence.  You try building a character who needs all four mental attributes to be high and still get decent physical stats.  So that's not a valid argument that you're making.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2142:48>
Just follow this rule of thumb when making a character: Make sure you're at least in average human being in all your attributes before raising any above average.

After that, as long as you're not a Technomancer (if you are, it's not a big surprise you're gonna suck at combat with how point heavy they are), a rating 2 Muscle Toner puts you almost to Olympic gymnast level Agility. At that point, 3 ranks in any firearm skill (or for going cheap in cost, 1 rank and a specialty) and a smartlink gives you a decent ability to defend yourself.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2145:44>
So, playing a techomancer means that you don't get to contribute to keeping yourself alive, then?

And you've failed to acknowledge whether or not calling for a new skill (or skill group) would be enough for you - if not, then clearly your issue isn't whether or not their investing skills to do it.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-04-13/2147:04>
Well, if they're not investing in combat skills, then they have no right to complain when they can't do anything in combat. Again, it's their own fault.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-04-13/2151:16>
Except when it isn't, and you've already acknowledged one such case.

But, looking at it another way: if this worked as an attack using skills from a cybercombat skill group to attack, but using things that are easy for a sam to get or that they already have in order to defend (IE, make Intuition the attribute, which they already want for initiative), with the possible effects being specifically defined via the programs used, what would your specific issue with this be?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Shadowjack on <03-04-13/2207:22>
What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.
Title: Re:
Post by: Sichr on <03-05-13/0055:48>
Okay. Well even better, since if you read my previous posts, I said chromed guys should learn some cybercombat. They should be considered "dual" for matrix atack purposes, if they are wireless active. There should be some kind of oposition which would demand such combination. Such as "materialized sprites" etc. Different approach, but same rules mechanisms as magic. Also possibility for me
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sipowitz on <03-05-13/1036:01>
What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.
How to you balance the huge costs of decks and programs with a Technomancer?
If a Decker and Technomancer need the same skills and stats to do the job, but a Decker also needs a huge amount of money that the Technomancer doesn't...how does that change the game?
Why would a player ever want to play as a Decker if they have to sink tens or hundreds of thousands of nuyen into something that can be stolen, broken, hacked, etc.?
I can see it now;
<Sometime in October>
Random Poster:  Man this deck thing sucks.  We were in a corp facility in a major firefight with the guards and I was using my deck to get the paydata from the node, when the Gm has one of them shoot my deck...dice rolled and I got one slagged deck and no paydata.  Man playing as a Decker sucks compared to playing as a Technomancer.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sichr on <03-05-13/1102:06>
Yes. Ahd also developing further as Technomancer is pretty cheap on karma. And Noise(whatever it is). And some of threats that endanger specialy technomancers. LOL.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-05-13/1153:09>
Yes. Ahd also developing further as Technomancer is pretty cheap on karma. And Noise(whatever it is). And some of threats that endanger specialy technomancers. LOL.

Why? What threat specifically endangers mages?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-05-13/1252:51>
I half agree... on the TM bits.

The problem is SR4 got rid of certain old concepts for the sake of simplicity.

Bandwidth - (just how long does it take to transfer a large amount of data?! -  the farther away... the more noise could interfere)
Memory limits  - (yes TM lack storage... but when you can put infinite storage in a fake fingernail for no essence... you got a problem).


I don't see how TM's manage to function without a deck to start out with either...  maybe morph them more into old school otaku instead.   Able to do things with decks that others couldn't.    Or another take on the old 'hacking adept' type and treat them more like adepts than magicians.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: KarmaInferno on <03-05-13/1309:10>
Honestly, I am just trying to suggest ways everyone can can contribute, in combat or the Matrix or whatever, doing what they are built to do.

I'm not specifically hung up on hacking cyberware, it was just an example of a possible quick battlefield hack.

My concern is that currently, anything a hacker does in a firefight related to his specialty takes multiple rolls and GM attention, and if successful sometimes gives the hacker TOO much control. You spend potentially multiple rounds rolling dice and afterwards you completely own the system.

There's no provision for quick single roll hacks that create a temporary effect. Even the closest equivalent in 4e, spoofing, requires multiple rolls as the hacker needs to locate the node, figure out the access ID, and then spoof commands.

The idea is to create more immediacy to the hacking process by providing a way to toss off a quick temporary hack that can be executed with a single roll, is resisted like a gunshot or spell, and fades soon afterwards. It doesn't have to be a cyberware hack, it can be something like activating a road pop-up barrier during a vehicle chase, or shorting out the lights to provide concealment, and the like.

Similarly, we shouldn't have folks going to get drinks when it's time to hack a mainframe. The sammy should be able to at least assist, perhaps in a similar way he would if he was pulled into the astral. He'd be nowhere near as good as the actual hacker, but he could help, as opposed to sitting there watching the hacker's comatose body and twiddling his thumbs.


-k
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Falconer on <03-05-13/1341:14>
KarmaInferno:
Then wouldn't a better method be to speed up spoofing to be more usable on the fly?

That strikes me as the better idea by far.


Just thinking through the steps...
Find node,
monitor traffic to get AID of authorized user
Decrypt traffic to get key if encrypted.
spoof commands

The decrypt step is the longest and hardest... however... each and every periphal requires an encrypt program written specifically for it's peripheral node.  So it's unlikely that peripheral devices are encrypted.   Speeding that step up immensely.

Maybe encryption should be stremlined a bit, by simply stating all nodes use lightweight encryption based on their 'system' rating or something similar.    Then work in getting the encryption right as part of the spoof test instead of a separate test.


Really... if spoof command got a bit more streamlined... it would make for a cleaner deal.  (though it would have to lose a lot of it's far more broken aspects such as spoofing a command to create an admin account).



Also... a sammy pulled into the astral is completely and utterly useless.   All the skills related to astral are trained only use.   If and only if the sammy had the 'dodge' skill (not gymnastics)... he could attempt to doge astral attackers (provided he even knew what they were... remember assensing is trained only).  The sammy can't engage in offensive astral combat as that's yet another trained only skill.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: DaveDaveDaave on <03-05-13/1349:20>
What exactly is the issue here? Deckers won't be able to contribute to combat in 5th because they need to allocate so many CC resources to mental attributes? Personally, I liked the way Deckers were in previous editions. You had to allocate a ton of resources to be effective in the matrix. Programs and Cyberdecks were expensive as hell. In 4th you can get the best Commlink and Programs for practically nothing. I feel that it's far too easy to make a strong combat oriented Hacker. Hackers in 4th Edition feel much less like the cool Deckers of previous editions. I enjoyed playing Deckers more in the past because I had to find ways to contribute in combat because it consumed massive resources to be an elite Decker. For me, that was fun. I like the idea of playing the underdog in combat and finding ways to be resourceful. In 4th Edition you can almost be as strong as in combat as any other character. The only exception to this is if you want to get the really good ware that actually does eat up substantial essence. But in my experience, that ware is not mandatory to be a very successful Hacker. I really look forward to returning to the roots of Deckers in 5th.

One thing I do find more fun in 4th Edition is that Hacker's typically come with the team instead of sitting on the sidelines in a van. With the addition of Noise in 5th Edition, it seems like I'll be getting everything I like for Deckers. That includes being weaker in combat, coming with the team deep into dangerous areas, going back to Cyberdecks and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.
How to you balance the huge costs of decks and programs with a Technomancer?
If a Decker and Technomancer need the same skills and stats to do the job, but a Decker also needs a huge amount of money that the Technomancer doesn't...how does that change the game?
Why would a player ever want to play as a Decker if they have to sink tens or hundreds of thousands of nuyen into something that can be stolen, broken, hacked, etc.?
I can see it now;
<Sometime in October>
Random Poster:  Man this deck thing sucks.  We were in a corp facility in a major firefight with the guards and I was using my deck to get the paydata from the node, when the Gm has one of them shoot my deck...dice rolled and I got one slagged deck and no paydata.  Man playing as a Decker sucks compared to playing as a Technomancer.


Could still happen these days, granted it would have to be a seriously dick move for the Gm to shoot the Technomancer in his Package Storage tm underpants or where ever he stores his paydata as his bionode has no storage capacity?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-05-13/1352:33>
...and hopefully paying MUCH more for Cyberdecks and programs.

There were two things that kept me from playing a Decker in SR3:

1: Having to micro-manage Storage, Memory and other such things.
2: The ABSOLUTELY INSANE prices on Decks.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mithlas on <03-05-13/1529:01>
There's no reason it has to be nebulous. It can be very specific.

Like, you have a utility that lets you hijack a cyberarm long enough to have it fire the pistol it's holding at another target. That's all the utility does. Presumably the cyberarm's internal cyberdefenses recover enough to fight off the hijack immediately after the attack.
Something like an instant-duration spell. I see no problem with this (actually, it seems like a decent way for a very dedicated hacker to help the team against a dedicated cybersam, particularly if the sam didn't come with sufficient protection, which many won't). I would think of the hacker’s actions being more along the lines of “eject smartgun clip” or “reboot device, necessitating that the cyberlimb be effectively shut off until its boot-up completes next combat round”...and of course these actions wouldn’t be without allowing a defensive roll.

Quote
Why not the face?
It starts sounding Legends of the Wulin-esque, what with everyone being able to impact on most situations. That isn't a bad thing.
Will have to check that out.

I said chromed guys should learn some cybercombat. They should be considered "dual" for matrix atack purposes, if they are wireless active.
As long as they're paying for those skills (and likely serving more as "additional target of opportunity" for IC that would otherwise be focusing on the hacker), I don't necessarily see a problem with this.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: All4BigGuns on <03-05-13/1531:48>
Mithlas, that's the whole point of the matter. A lot of them are wanting Hackers to drastically affect combat without paying for Combat Skills.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Wildcard on <03-05-13/1606:18>
So, I read the post, and rather then bust balls for literally attention whoring, I'll attempt to be respectful and retort as best I can. Here goes!



1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

You make assumptions here that you don't back elsewhere. Not all characters who aren't optimal will have multiple skill sets. Nor does your definition fit in line with past accepted definitions as outlined in Runners Companion. You don't spell out why characters should be meaningful in combat. I understand you touch on it later, but as it stands, it's an incomplete thought.

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.

Agreed, though I feel that some character types can contribute in every situation, namely mages.

Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.


Untrue, and possibly deceptive. More or less unique? What does that even mean? Your language here is vague and makes broad strokes, so that any argument against it can't nail your statement down to an actual finite point.

Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.

You're confusing social contract and game mechanics here. Given that other roleplaying games exist where your character can die during character creation, I'm going to say it's an unfounded and untrue statement on the mechanics side, and that a social contract's validity isn't what anyone is talking about here.

Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.


As your conclusion is based upon faulty premises, I don't feel the need to debate it individually, however I feel that your main concern is with your characters participating in the most flashy aspect of the game which might contribute to their characters death, as opposed to other, more valid aspects. After all, you're not suggesting that every character take etiquette, yet accidentally insulting a Mitsuhama Boss can be more deadly then the most lethal weapon.

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.


Given how crazy players can go over eking out every single die for perception rolls, I'm going to disagree here. Furthermore, blinding a character is incapacitating that character for the most part, which can be more valuable then killing them outright.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience

Your definition again doesn't jive with accepted thoughts on the subject. A contribution is a factor towards a goal, not this savior that you're making it out to be. The fact that once again use language like "be noticed to do so" makes it evident that you're more interested that your characters be active during flashy portions of the game as opposed to otherwise important yet not as flashy and story-worthy activities.


Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)


So a combat oriented character should be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in combat situations, but so should everyone else?  No thanks. I get that you're saying here that CMs can do so when the jaws are bigger and more menacing then another character type, but no. Further, why do you need to make up words for the purpose of your created test? Substantial works just fine.

Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.

Tac nets confer bonuses to hit rolls. They could mean the difference between life and death.

Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Spells exist that reduce visibility for targets. The designers of the game felt it was viable enough to include in the game, and that's good enough for me.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

Another faulty conclusion based on faulty premise.

As I've now made evident the faulty logic employed for over half the argument and contributing premises, (and exhausted the entirety of my lunch break arguing meaningless bullshit like an asshole) I'll call the job done.

Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: RHat on <03-05-13/2018:25>
So, I read the post, and rather then bust balls for literally attention whoring, I'll attempt to be respectful and retort as best I can. Here goes!

I'm sorry, do you have a problem with me trying to get a better level of argumentation on this issue?

1: Each and every character type (defined as a complete character, who may not be optimal, and thus a character with multiple skillsets) should have a way to make a meaningful contribution to combat.

You make assumptions here that you don't back elsewhere. Not all characters who aren't optimal will have multiple skill sets. Nor does your definition fit in line with past accepted definitions as outlined in Runners Companion. You don't spell out why characters should be meaningful in combat. I understand you touch on it later, but as it stands, it's an incomplete thought.

Literally all characters will have multiple skillsets - even the improbable absolutely pure combat character has multiple combat skillsets (though, even the typical combat monster is liable to have Athletics ranks and such that can be useful in other ways).

Premise 1a: It is true that not every character type should contribute to every situation.

Agreed, though I feel that some character types can contribute in every situation, namely mages.

And the ease of that may well be a design issue in its own right - would need to take a more extensive look at it to be able to say.

Premise 1b: It is also true that combat is more or less unique in that a very possible result on almost every occasion is the loss of a character.


Untrue, and possibly deceptive. More or less unique? What does that even mean? Your language here is vague and makes broad strokes, so that any argument against it can't nail your statement down to an actual finite point.

Allow me to rephrase:  Combat is the only situation I can think of that can easily result in the death of any given character.  Even other things that would wind up doing so do so by triggering combat.

Premise 1c: A player has, without reservation, the right to contribute in meaningful ways to the avoidance of the loss of their character.

You're confusing social contract and game mechanics here. Given that other roleplaying games exist where your character can die during character creation, I'm going to say it's an unfounded and untrue statement on the mechanics side, and that a social contract's validity isn't what anyone is talking about here.

It's a point about game design, and thus higher order than game mechanics.  Mechanics derive from design, which may be either bad or good.  The idea here is that players have that right, and that therefore the mechanics should reflect that.

Conclusion: All players at the table, and by extension all characters that might be played, must be able to meaningfully contribute to combat.  This is more or less a unique aspect of combat.


As your conclusion is based upon faulty premises, I don't feel the need to debate it individually, however I feel that your main concern is with your characters participating in the most flashy aspect of the game which might contribute to their characters death, as opposed to other, more valid aspects. After all, you're not suggesting that every character take etiquette, yet accidentally insulting a Mitsuhama Boss can be more deadly then the most lethal weapon.

I don't agree that you've proven the fault of these premises.  And while most characters should at least take Etiquette, the risk of failing that roll and, say, pissing off the Mitsuhama boss is that it will cause combat (short of a Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies scenario, but that's more poor GMing).

The concern isn't one of flash.  The concern, as highlighted above, is the right to contribute to preventing the death of your character - a right current mechanics fail to properly .

2: Things like interfering with enemy communications or blinding a single target under the current rules is not a meaningful contribution.


Given how crazy players can go over eking out every single die for perception rolls, I'm going to disagree here. Furthermore, blinding a character is incapacitating that character for the most part, which can be more valuable then killing them outright.

"More valuable than killing them outright"?  Not bloody likely.  First, the way players go after perception dice isn't even relevant here - purely a distraction.  Second, given the blind-fire and indirect fire rules, blinding one person momentarily isn't actually going to have all that much impact.  And "area" style effect that hit multiple enemies?  That could work, if it could be accomplished quickly enough.

Premise 2a: A meaningful contribution is one that can turn the course of an appropriately difficult fight from defeat to victory due to its presence and be noticed to do so - otherwise, it is more or less bereft of positive relevance to people's table experience

Your definition again doesn't jive with accepted thoughts on the subject. A contribution is a factor towards a goal, not this savior that you're making it out to be. The fact that once again use language like "be noticed to do so" makes it evident that you're more interested that your characters be active during flashy portions of the game as opposed to otherwise important yet not as flashy and story-worthy activities.

So, the concept of a fight where the loss of any one contribution would mean losing escapes you?  There's a reason there's a qualifier for the difficulty of the fight there.  The idea here is that other members of the team are helping the combat character to win a fight that would otherwise be beyond them.

And again, this is about a design point, not my personal desires.  Things like notability and forseeability are extremely important from a game design perspective.

Premise 2a-I: A combat character makes a more meaningful contribution than others as the fight is their spotlight moment, but they also set the terms of what meaningful means.
Premise 2a-II: Meaningful, therefore, can be defined as the combination of being able to turn defeat to victory in an appropriately difficult fight and doing so in the time scale established by the amount of time it takes for combat to have ended.  (Let's call this the substantiveness test)


So a combat oriented character should be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in combat situations, but so should everyone else?  No thanks. I get that you're saying here that CMs can do so when the jaws are bigger and more menacing then another character type, but no. Further, why do you need to make up words for the purpose of your created test? Substantial works just fine.

Do you have a word to describe the quality of being substantive?  "Substantial test" doesn't grammatically work to convey the meaning.

The combat character needs to be able to do the most to swing a fight, but at the same time everyone needs to be able to have an impact due to the specific nature of combat.  If the hacker can set the sam up to land some easy kills (force multipliers) or notably diminish the ability of the other side to do the runners harm (defense multipliers, in effect), that can be enough depending on the strength of the effect.

Premise 2b: While communication can be useful, on the tactical scale of Shadowrun combat messing with it will not be a determining element of the fight in an noticeable way in enough cases to pass the substantiveness test.

Tac nets confer bonuses to hit rolls. They could mean the difference between life and death.

If and only if the enemy is using a high rating rating tacnet and making full use of it.  Not common enough - and if they are, they'll have strong enough security that you're not gonna be able to hack or decrypt it in a combat time frame, thus failing the test.

Premise 2c: Blinding a single target does not take away their damage overall - they may still attack using the blind-fire rules.  Again, this fails the substantiveness test.

Spells exist that reduce visibility for targets. The designers of the game felt it was viable enough to include in the game, and that's good enough for me.

There's a big difference between including it and making it the sole or primary method of influencing combat.  A very big difference.  Once there's a viable primary method (plenty of combat spells for that), then all the more seldomly used tactical options are plugged into a very different analysis of viability.

Conclusion: Hacker characters need to be able to do more than that, and they need to be able to do it in a small enough time scale that it matters that they can do it.

Another faulty conclusion based on faulty premise.

As I've now made evident the faulty logic employed for over half the argument and contributing premises, (and exhausted the entirety of my lunch break arguing meaningless bullshit like an asshole) I'll call the job done.

Except that you've failed to truly prove any of these premises to be faulty.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Bull on <03-05-13/2305:14>
OK kids.  When you're having a discussion with someone, and you've each gone a bunch of reiterating the same thing, and things are getting a litrtle hot under the collar?  That's an argument, and it's pointless. It also derails threads and irritates everyone who's not in on the argument.

So, from now on, if you go three posts, maybe four, stating your dissenting point of view, and the other party just doesn't agree and you can't get him to agree after three or four attempts?  Walk away.  They're wrong.  Maybe you're wrong.  Or maybe it's simply an opinion based on play style or world vision or whatever.  In any event, restating your point of view repeatedly isn't going to let you magically "win" the argument.  So walk away.

As for this particular argument, everyone drop it and move on.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: CanRay on <03-05-13/2332:20>
*Sits beside Bull on the porch, rocking back and forth in the rocking chair*  Yup.  ;D
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mara on <03-06-13/0059:59>
Thank you, Bull. It was getting a bit frustrating to read.

Now..who else got the impression from the design goals from the Matrix Blog that they are going to try and speed
up Matrix actions to combat speed?
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Automaton on <03-06-13/0308:49>
I'm gonna post this here, it's got to do with the whole new matrix rules en decker stuff but not sure idiot belongs in this topic so if it doesn't sorry :)

I read decks are coming back and I read that in the new matrix in bogota everything keeps getting tagged.
I'd say that to avoid this you make a deck consisting out of a whole bunch of com links working in parallel that continually switch connections and ID's at high speed, thereby making it impossible to track a tag because the thing keeps dissapearing. It would create a need for very powerful decks custom build by former hackers now deckers. It could even be a reason for noise as the decks method of avoiding being tagged and traced creates its own noise, making it easier to deck at close range because it would take less passes and there for less logging in and out (what the deck is continually doing) and so less noise.
Title: Re:
Post by: Sichr on <03-06-13/0406:27>
Thank you.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Xzylvador on <03-06-13/0847:17>
Hah. I can totally picture an old Ork sitting in front of his cabin with a shotgun on his lap shouting that.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Mithlas on <03-06-13/1149:55>
I'd say that to avoid this you make a deck consisting out of a whole bunch of com links working in parallel that continually switch connections and ID's at high speed, thereby making it impossible to track a tag because the thing keeps dissapearing
Well, we don't know how Technomancers will work in 5E, but in 4E they wake up with one subscription ID and keep it until either they sleep or go through an unpleasant process of "rebooting" themselves to get a new one. Still, your idea is close to frequency-hopping and would be a possible security measure except that shutting off one connection would mean that you would have to terminate your old connection and rebuild it when your deck booted into its next link connection. At least, that's how I understand Shadowrun's matrix to work, we still don't have the rules for 5E, so there might be more ability to jam open connections or do something along those lines.

It would be easier to have a fuzzy ID that you could completely change but would be stable enough to let you hack in and get your work done, rather than getting partway, breaking to a new ID, and having to do some of that work (even if it's partly automated) again.

Either way, the big part I'm looking forward to is seeing the rules to know how in-practice Matrix rolls would be as fast as meatspace actions. The rules in 4E do make a good bit of logical sense (even if I'm not offhand very familiar with them), but there's a lot that needs to be done - a lot of rolls that are currently called for.
Title: Re:
Post by: Wildcard on <03-06-13/1300:30>
Thank you.

[spoiler](http://imgur.com/WdRim.gif)[/spoiler]

Anyway...

Checking out the wallpaper, noticed something cool. Datajack.

Here's to hoping that the only way to completely cancel noise is to jack in.
Title: Re: [SR5] The Matrix: Clarifying the Rules, Amping the Awesome
Post by: Sichr on <03-06-13/1324:11>
[spoiler](http://24.media.tumblr.com/fb6d22d39937ec3937881220390844bc/tumblr_mia98yB6V31rjcfxro1_500.gif)[/spoiler]

I hope more to this would be revealed in hidden fictions. Datajacks never actualy left the game, since they are the only meaning IE to stay jumped in when jamming is in effect.