[All4BigGuns]

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.

[RHat]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[RHat]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[RHat]

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.

[Mirikon]

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?

[Falconer]

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!

[Mara]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[Novocrane]

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.

[All4BigGuns]

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.

[RHat]

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?

[All4BigGuns]

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>"

[Falconer]

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.