[Rainslicker]

Well, if you fail to see the concern, then you're right, the problem is non-existant for you. It's not traditional but you appear to realize that you're not exactly following tradition so no problem there, as long as you realize that.

(Of course it's silly to state "The GM can prevent it" since if you design the system to specifically be able to do exactly that, then it's wrong to punish the player for doing what you're deliberately allowing them to do.)

I might be spoiled since I do not play with munchkins so I dont have to worry about such things that might be why I fail to see the issue that you see. But I always go with that the GM have a say with what goes and what does not. And I am not designing a system to do that, I have made the option open for both ways, you can build a deck from scratch or you can just improve those that already exists, its up to you how you use it. I would not allow a 4/1/1/1 deck in my groups. But I am very sure that non of my deckers would ever build a deck like that.

And it would be easy to implement a rule that will stop it. The maximum difference between the previous number can be -1, if not the 2:nd and 3:rd number are equal then the 4:th number may be -2 lower then the 3:rd.
So 0/-1/-2/-3 or 0/-1/-1/-3
4/3/2/1 or 4/3/3/1 are the lowest decks that you can have.

[Michael Chandra]

But that rule isn't present in the system. As such I cannot judge it under that adjustment, which is why I've been talking about the system as you represent it and noted it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. And without that adjustment, the system gives munchkins plenty of space and you even said you'd allow it, but then you say you wouldn't allow it but it's not a problem because nobody at your table would do that. If it's only not a problem because nobody would abuse it, then it's still a problem because once someone wants to abuse what they can legally do, you're going to clash. It's better to design the system in such a way the situation cannot occur from the getgo.

The GM has a say, sure. But when the GM introduces a houserule that explicitly allows X, then when I want to do X he tells me it's not allowed, then the GM has made a mistake. We're not talking "I'm not letting you get X from the official books because I think it fits poorly with the campaign", we're talking "here, you can do X, no wait you can't bad player", and at that point the GM is an asshole and should have made the system in such a way that it wasn't possible to begin with. If you do not want 4/1/1/1 decks, you shouldn't give players a system that allows them to make it.

Anyway, your first post merely talks about completely custom decks. As such, I would not want to use your system since it leaves too much open. If you instead had an alternative system talking about customizing existing cyberdecks to increase them, then it'd be a system I'd like and it would be a system fitting with the tradition of upgrading your matrix gear within limits. Since this is a system about fully custom decks, I'm afraid I'm going to be skipping this houserule despite its interesting options and will just await Data Trails.

[spuwdsda]

I have one suggestion. Perhaps you could increase the base time of the test to 1 day and reduce the Threshold. I fear, at present, the number of dice throws will be a royal pain.

I imagine building and de-bugging a fair custom deck would be at least a man-week of work (5 tests).

[Rainslicker]

I have one suggestion. Perhaps you could increase the base time of the test to 1 day and reduce the Threshold. I fear, at present, the number of dice throws will be a royal pain.

I imagine building and de-bugging a fair custom deck would be at least a man-week of work (5 tests).

Sure thats not an issue at all, I can do that.

[Rainslicker]

Anyway, your first post merely talks about completely custom decks. As such, I would not want to use your system since it leaves too much open. If you instead had an alternative system talking about customizing existing cyberdecks to increase them, then it'd be a system I'd like and it would be a system fitting with the tradition of upgrading your matrix gear within limits. Since this is a system about fully custom decks, I'm afraid I'm going to be skipping this houserule despite its interesting options and will just await Data Trails.

Well as I said more then once.
This system is for both.
If you want to use it just to upgrade existing decks then do so. This is just a template of how I derived the numbers and costs and that you can use it to build from scratch decks. In my group right now we are using it for upgrading the existing deck of the decker rather then building a new one.

and I will be implementing the
"And it would be easy to implement a rule that will stop it. The maximum difference between the previous number can be -1, if not the 2:nd and 3:rd number are equal then the 4:th number may be -2 lower then the 3:rd.
So 0/-1/-2/-3 or 0/-1/-1/-3
4/3/2/1 or 4/3/3/1 are the lowest decks that you can have." rule since that will stop munchkins.

[spuwdsda]

Sure thats not an issue at all, I can do that.

Well, only if you agree! Basically, I think these rules are ready for a dry-playtest. Take a typical decker and run the rolls from procurement to commissioning. This should help you fine tune things.

[Rainslicker]

Sure thats not an issue at all, I can do that.

Well, only if you agree! Basically, I think these rules are ready for a dry-playtest. Take a typical decker and run the rolls from procurement to commissioning. This should help you fine tune things.

Well what I am trying to decide is if you can install more then one module at the time if thats the case then one per 1 day sounds better. If you are just installing one module to upgrade then 1 per hour is better I think.