[RHat]

If you go with an NPC hacker you could make it an NPC AI that has taken up residence in one of the teams comlinks. With it being an AI it leaves your options open as to what it would want for compensation for individual runs. Maybe the AI just likes a certain player or the group as a whole and just tries to help them (group edge bought with karma?).

They could free the AI from whatever corp and it might be paying them back for its freedom at first, only starrting to ask favours of them later...

[Mithlas]

Is it not possible to give them a rough estimate from the NPC on how long a given activity will take, then to throw complications and delays and requests for other team members to do things to help the hacker?

This is what I like doing. Takes less time than trying to look up and run the Matrix while the rest of the team is waiting for the hacker to open the door.

I mean I want to keep the game fun and flowing for everyone. If no one wants to play a hacker I'll just have to accept that. Forcing someone into the role is not the right way. I mean I want the group to have fun and be able to take on all the missions I throw at hem, but I dont want to slow things down further for everyone by adding another character to the 6 men group, even if it is an npc.

I think it can be done with some preparation and practice winging it - by the sound of it, you've already got a good grasp of what makes a fun time for your table anyway, so it's doubtful that either option will be disastrous.

The key - and everybody in the thread already seems to see this - is that you don't want to punish the players for liking the play style they've set up. It's after they start making stupid decisions (in character) that you punish them - if they're trying to play a different game than you want to GM, then it's time for a sit-down out-of-character.

Otherwise, I think that the NPC hacker as a plot device is a great way to handle it - you don't have to make it too easy or hard, and you can have plenty of surprises come up at your whim without necessarily slamming the team.

[Aryeonos]

AIs need a lifestyle cost, which is equivalent to the device rating of their home node. IE keeping that commlink still functioning with that AI inside is going to cost ALLOT more than hiring that NPC hacker, I'd go the NPC hacker route and say that depending on the difficulty of the hack it'd take 15-300 seconds to hack something. Easily allowing you to regulate engagement times if the group starts getting shooty.

[RHat]

AIs need a lifestyle cost, which is equivalent to the device rating of their home node. IE keeping that commlink still functioning with that AI inside is going to cost ALLOT more than hiring that NPC hacker, I'd go the NPC hacker route and say that depending on the difficulty of the hack it'd take 15-300 seconds to hack something. Easily allowing you to regulate engagement times if the group starts getting shooty.

Except at that point, they'd be treating the AI more or less as part of the team.  So, instead of costing them money, it's costing the Johnson money.

In other words, if going the AI route have it get a cut of the profits, but have the team be paid more because they're in essence one member larger.

[Aryeonos]

If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.

[RHat]

If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.

You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules.  They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them.  And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.

[Mirikon]

If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.

You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules.  They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them.  And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.

They only get a number of inherent programs equal to their rating. And that rating is an average of their mental attributes. Now tell me how many hackers only have 4-6 programs on their commlink.

[RHat]

If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.

You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules.  They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them.  And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.

They only get a number of inherent programs equal to their rating. And that rating is an average of their mental attributes. Now tell me how many hackers only have 4-6 programs on their commlink.

Which you use for the most expensive programs, saving serious money.  He's radically overestimating the cost, is my point.

[Novocrane]

Your average PC-level AI is usually quite suited to finding open source or pirated software in a matter of days (for the pirate network) and seconds. (for the programs)

That's a complete non-issue, as far as I see it, while lifestyle costs can be spoofed. Again, though, wishing difficulties away shouldn't be the aim, so much as shifting their location. (possibly putting them on a backburner)

[RHat]

I'll admit that the nain reasons that I like the AI angle are that it actually adds to the group (as opposed to hiring a minion), and gives the GM great new levers to pull.  Plus, since the idea is for it to be one they've freed, it let's them feel like they've earned it, fueling a sense of achievement and agency that boosts player satisfaction/fun.

[Aryeonos]

You say that like quirky hackers aren't people too... *Sniff....

[JoeNapalm]

Having an NPC in the party to fill a role the players don't want to handle is a time-honored tradition at many tables.

I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party. You can work it out ahead of time or...*GASP!*...fudge it as necessary to progress the story.

In a cyberpunk setting, having an NPC firmly imbedded in a critical role within the party for a future betrayal? Priceless.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[RHat]

I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.

If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".

[JoeNapalm]

I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.

If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".

No, you don't HAVE to - but if no one is interested in that aspect of the game, then you're not dedicating cycles to resolving Matrix-related activity in realtime with the rest of the group.

It can be very bare bones, because no player is involved directly in those actions.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[RHat]

I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.

If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".

No, you don't HAVE to - but if no one is interested in that aspect of the game, then you're not dedicating cycles to resolving Matrix-related activity in realtime with the rest of the group.

It can be very bare bones, because no player is involved directly in those actions.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

I was merely objecting to the implication that doing things that way was required to avoid splitting things off.