NEWS

[House rules] RCC

  • 2 Replies
  • 2033 Views

Tinkerbell

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
« on: <01-02-16/1142:39> »
Affter reading Rigger 5.0 I was a little bit disappointed, because nearly none of the questions I had while creating my rigger with the CRB was solved. Most of the additional restrictions don't feel right to me. So I decided trying to create my own house rules for some of the rigger issues.
I would appreciate to hear your opinion about the following rules for RCCs. What do you think of it? Would they make RCCs to strong? Do you have any ideas to improve them?

Intention
1) The RCC should feel like the most usefull tool of a drone rigger.
The RCC has the size of a briefcase while a deck is much smaller. So the RCC should feel like something you want to use, because it's usefull instead of being something only reducing your ressources at character creation. It should be the enableing technology to a drone rigger. When I created my rigger I just took it, because I am used to riggers having an RCC from former Shadowrun versions - it felt wrong not to choose it - but it doesnt felt like it was worth the money. When you build a street sam it feels great to choose a reflex booster - I missed that feeling with the RCC.

2) The RCC sould feel more consistent to how things work in real world
The rules concering sharing, swarm and autosofts seems not very close to reallity - they rather seem to be some kind of artificial limitation without beeing thought to the end.
For example I dont like the way swarm replaces the pilot with the DR of the RCC. I like the idea swarm brings into the game. But I think it is not very well elaborated. It creates a lot of new open questions.
The way it just increases the Pilot of the swarm to the DR of the RCC feels way to strong to me. Iit doesn't seem to be possible when pilot is described as a special software fitted to each single drone (takes even a long time to adept after installing). While RCCs are restricted  only to run a handfull of autosofts there is no restriction on the number of swarm pilots it can compute.

3) Rigger should be able to use serveral different drones
Rigger s described in the story parts are using different drones at the same time. With the original rules this would not feel very good, because you can't have them all supported with autosoft from your RCC.
What i dont like about the original rules: It's possible to share 5 autosofts to 15 drones of the same model, but you are not able to share 2 autosofts to 3 drones of different models.


So here is my first try on house rules:

RCC

RCCs program slots
The RCC has [DR] shared program slots which can run programs and autosoft. Additionally it has 5 autosoft program slots which only can run autosofts.
Examples: On DR5 you can run (4 Programms and 6 autosofts) or (10 autosofts) or (5 programs and 5 autosofts)

Sharing and noise reduction
The RCC contains special processors and subroutines for filtering noise. They are applied to any outgoing and incoming data flow. The more data is transmitted the less noise can be filtered out, because the amount of noisy data gets bigger.
The rigger can choose if he wants to transmit lots of data or to have less but cleaner transmissions. The rigger can split the DR rating between Sharing and Noise reduction.
Sharing does not restrict the number of running programs on the RCC. Sharing now equals the number of drones/swarms (=number of different pilots) which can be supportet with autosofts at the same time. All other drones connected to the RCC are using their own autosofts.

Example:
RCC DR 5 => Noisereduction 3 + Sharing 2 => The rigger can share the autosofts from the RCC to 2 drones.

Run silent module (RCC-Mod)
This Hardwaremodule can build into the RCC. It contains special processors and programs for running silent.
Effect: +2 to run silent tests against detection.
Cost: 10000 Nuyen
Availability: 16F

Software

Cloud computing (Drone model)
This RCC-only-autosoft enables drones to extend their pilot by additional computing power from the RCC. First the drones pilot has to be upgraded. After that the pilot software is able to outsource some calculations to the RCC, which is running a matching cloud computing autosoft.
Due to this the pilot of the drone is capable of more complex calculations, when it is connected to the RCC.

Cloud computing 1
Effect: Adds 1 to the pilot of the drone while cloud computing is active.
Cost:: 4000 Nuyen

Cloud computing 2
Effect: Adds 2 to the pilot of the drone while cloud computing is active.
Cost:: 16000 Nuyen

Swarm intelligence
Drones in a swarm are sharing the computing between each other. This enables the swarm to do more complex calculations. This swarm intelligence improves the pilot of a swarm  of 3 or more drones by 1. (Instead of using the  RCCs DR as pilot)

Clearsight (Autosoft)
Clearsight not depends on the drone model.

Targetting (Weapon) (Autosoft)
Smartsoft for drones is not an own software but an upgrade to targetting software.
Normal version - as described in CRB.
Smartlink option: Cost = +200 per level.
Edit: Drones only get +1 for smartlink, because their targetting already works like a smartlink. They still get a small bonus because there are some additional sensors in the smartgun system.
Laser pointers are useless for drones.

Pilot rating
Pilot can never exceed a rating of 6 (even with could computing and swarm intelligence).
« Last Edit: <01-14-16/1815:31> by Tinkerbell »

Marcus Gideon

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 701
  • Certainly not a Technomancer...
« Reply #1 on: <01-02-16/1353:40> »
Now, this is just my take on the issues...

RCCs are very necessary and practical for Riggers, even as they are.
It's a networking device which allows you to provide your drones with a better Firewall than they have on their own.
The networking also facilitates quick transitions between the drones you're *Jumped Into* since it only takes a single action to move between. If it weren't for the RCC, it would take 1 action to get out of one, and 1 action to get into the other.
And then there's the Noise reduction and Autosoft sharing.

I do agree that the Swarm program is rather wonky, since it doesn't require using the same type of drone. You could make a swarm of Fly Spies and Ares Ventures and they would all work together? Even though some are insects, and some are vehicles?

But at the same time, if you make everything compatible with everything else, then that's exactly what you'd get. Either a bunch of VTOL fighter jets trying to move like bees. Or a bunch of bees trying to move like fighter jets. I think it's better to leave some distinctions between them. A Rigger can own as many drones as they want, they don't necessarily need to deploy all of them at every opportunity.

1) Program Slots - This is kinda how most GMs I know handle it. Except they don't do shared slots. Especially since your count is way off. If you had 5x omni slots, and 5x more Auto only slots... but you can only share out 5x Autos at the most. You may have missed Core pg 223 (understandable since it's in the Matrix section).
Quote
So where do you store all of the things you want to keep? Pictures from your Aunt Edna’s wedding, credit information, your SIN, every book and movie you’ve bought, all the programs you might want to run—all of it fits on your commlink (or cyberdeck if you prefer). In fact, every device on the Matrix has a massive amount of storage space, unthinkable amounts by early 21st century standards. Your gamemaster might decide that a device is too small or low-grade or a file so massively large that a problem comes up, but such problems are extremely rare. Even if it does, the entire world is wireless, so you shouldn’t have trouble finding an alternate storage location.
You can store as much as you want. Meaning you could buy every Autosoft out there and keep them all saved to your RCC. The slot counts are just for how many can you have RUNNING at any given time. And since you can only have up to 5 shared out, then you can only have up to 5 running at a time. Which is why most GMs just say you have (DR) worth of Program slots, and you have (Sharing) worth of Autosoft slots, depending on how you have Noise / Sharing arranged at the time.

2) (Speaking of) Sharing and Noise - You already divvy out DR worth of points between the two, so that's no different. Although this new leaning towards swarms is going to force the battlefield more than adding swarms may be already. If you only need to share out 1 set of Autosofts to the leader of the swarm, and they will share it out further with the rest of your swarm, what you've done is create a subsection of your PAN. You're networked with that single drone, and it's networked with the rest of the swarm. Networks within networks, which most GMs frown upon. Same reason why you can't Slave all the team's Commlinks to the Decker's Cyberdeck... and then have each teammate Slave all their individual gear to their Commlinks. The Firewall and Sleaze protection doesn't cascade down like that, which would mean that all those guns and cyberlimbs are basically undefended. Or... you're totally circumventing the whole reason why the game says "only Device Rating x 3 devices can be Slaved". You can't branch 18 devices off of 18 more, and 18 more... So no, I don't think this swarm sharing thing should happen. It's just going to encourage Riggers to rely solely on swarms in combat. Instead of deploying a couple Roto-drones with good armament and good Autosofts being shared out... every Rigger is going to use a couple swarms of drones and overwhelm the battlefield. At which point the GM / Corps start using "escalation of force" and come in with their own swarms of swarms. And pretty soon the Face, Mage, and Street Sam are all dead b/c the only way to fight back against the Swarm Rigger was to nuke the city from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).

If you leave Sharing the way it is, it naturally imposes a limit to how many drones the Rigger can deploy at once. Which in the end, keeps the game balanced so it doesn't get out of hand.

3) Silent Running - As much as that sounds like a good idea, you're forgetting that Riggers aren't hackers. They don't need to worry as much about Icons and Marks, when they can just kill the guy doing it to them. If you double tap the grey matter, the hacking stops. And if you can't tell where it's coming from, ask your team Decker. All that hacking stuff is his job anyway.

4) Cloud computing and Swarm Intelligence - I like both of these. As you said, simply giving them Pilot (DR) seems lame. Suddenly, the RCC is doing all the work, and the drones are completely reliant on it. With your programs, they're still doing most of the work, and maybe relying on each other, or outsourcing a little bit of the work back to the RCC. But it's mostly the dog-brains doing the work.

5) Clearsight - I suppose you could make it a universal Autosoft. But then you've got combat drones wandering the battlefield going "I've got him in my sights! You're mine now sucker! Oh look, a butterfly!" =)

6) Smartlinks and Pilot Program limits - Now here you're limiting how awesome the Pilot rating can get (up to 6 even with help), but you're also trying to make them better fighters by giving them Smartlinks. The way I've always seen it... the Smartlink HUD and the Targeting Autosoft are basically doing the same thing. Using a computer to take environmental data and calculate the best trajectory for shots. So you'd be giving them twice the computing on every shot. I think Smartguns should only be accessible to the Rigger if they *Jump In* to that particular drone (and obviously the Rigger needs a Smartlink implant). It gives them a little more motivation to do so, instead of sitting back with a beer and a slice of pizza, watching the drones run around the battlefield all willy-nilly.
The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work…when you go to church…when you pay your taxes.

Tinkerbell

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
« Reply #2 on: <01-02-16/1605:38> »
Thank you for your answer. I think to limit a swarm to drones of the same model is the best way to avoid many open questions regarding swarm mechanics.

1 and 2)
I think there was a little misunderstanding regadring the RCC program slots and sharing: My idea was to change sharing so the sharing value doesn't restrict the autosoft limit but the limit of pilots getting autosoft data from the  RCC. (So you could share up to 10 autosofts but only to up to 5 drones.). I wanted to have sharing and noise reduction to be more an transmission issue than an computing power issue.
In my imagination this autosoft on the RCC could work something like this: Step1: The drones pilot sends data to the rcc. Step 2: The RCC uses this data and the autosoft to compute something. Step 3: The RCC sends back the result data. Step 4: The pilot uses the result data to make a decission and moves the drone.
In my mind it seems to be more realistic that this transfer of data is the bottleneck regarding filtering noise. So the number of this kind of connections should be related to the noise reduction.

I was only talking about active programs, storing the programs should not be a problem. I know that there are some GMs allowing 5 programs + 5 autosofts, but then there are GMs stating the CRB "Autosofts are specialized programs" (or something like that) - which would restrict the RCC to 5 omni slots. (on my research during character reation this seemed to be the more comon interpretation).
Together with the change for sharing I wanted to make the rigger more versatile. The RCC should rather be able to handle 5 different drones than 15 drones of the same type. With original rules the opposite is the case. And in my mind this wouldn't make sense - because even if you have 2 drones of the same type using the same autosoft - it would have to use twice as much computing power and data transfer to manage this. Because every drone will send another input to the RCC.
Every drone of a swarm will still count against the limit of DRx3 but for sharing purposes it counts as 1 drone (like it's described in swarm description in Rigger 5). In my imagination there will be some kind of leader drone piloting the swarm, while the other ones are only calculating how to do the same. (They are calcualtion some kind of differences to the behavior of the leader drone based on their own position).

3) This was just an idea to make the drones a little bit more sneaky in matrix. I don't want to make riggers to hackers, I just wanted to add the possibility of adding something against hackers. A rigger can't do anything against a hacker, because he can't even locate the hacker. So it would be nice if it would take a little longer for the hacker to spot the drones. But I am no expert in matrix stuff - so maybe this is to strong.

5) Clearsight is defined as an universal Autosoft in CRB. In Rigger 5 in an example it's described as an specialized software. Electronic warfare can be used when you use sensors for spotting - there are interpretations that EW can totally replace clearsight for drones. Realistic there should be a clear sight for every sensor type. :-) But I want a versatile rigger. When you bound Clearsight to and Vehicle model, suddenly you have much less autosoft slots when running different drones.

6) I chose to write down the pilot rating limit to prevent Pilots of 8 or 9, combinig cloud computing and swarm intelligence. I think the machines shouldn be too smart :-) And I didnt want to change the balancing to much at this point.
I like the view of your smartlink interpretation. This makes more sense. My house rule was trying to get things right with the Smartlink autosoft introduced in Rigger 5 - which again takes an autosoft slot at the RCC.
But maybe it is more fun have drone pilots without special smartlink bonuses or reducing the bonus to +1 (because there might be some special commands in the smartsoft for this special gun). For me the additional motivation to acutally jump into the drones sounds like a very good idea.
« Last Edit: <01-02-16/1609:08> by Tinkerbell »