Interrupt

Funky, but these guys have been watching too much GITS:SAC.

Aren't there some directional EMP weapons?

Supposing these make a tight beam effect, and supposing they can supersede shielding, that might work.

Edit:

Also, they may accept some amount of data transfer wirelessly from trusted comm channels - it would be exceedingly difficult to spoof a transmission, but it may be possible to take advantage of a system exploit if the target willingly accepts a file.

!

Happy Belated.

I have read about "Earthships" which in spite of the hippie granola ideals are actually an ingenious way to make buildings.

One of the interesting aspects is the use of old tires to construct walls. They stack them using rebar and then pack them with dirt. This creates an incredibly strong and durable structure which are resistant to burning or collapsing.

Probably bullet-proof too.

Happy birthday you old bastard.

Now don't do it again.

Congratulations!

Feeling a lot better today. An app we have calculates that we must have burnt 3000+ calories yesterday.

I have no idea how people manage to do black belt testing.

Just took my level 1 test today and can honestly say it was one of the hardest things I've ever done and certainly the hardest 5 hours physically.

We had two breaks, the longest being 7 minutes.

The people who also took the level 2 test were there for another three or four hours after level 1 was finished.

I survived, but was on the brink of throwing up and had spots in my vision throughout.

This certainly lowers my expectations for level 2 testing any time soon, since we're already hitting 3-4 classes per week and I'm in better shape than I've ever been. (That doesn't mean a whole lot given being an indoor kid and a computer-bound adult, but still…)

Krav is serious business. Glad today is over.

I use "view new posts" almost exclusively and it is great.

It can have bugs on occasion, but for the most part its solid and efficient.

Of all the forums I have seen, I actually really like the way this one looks - considering I do design professionally that means something (we hate everything )

In terms of organization and cleaning, yeah the old stuff could be tidied up a bit.

Just … wow.

How come we didn't end up this cool?

Glad you're (still) alive

Well, I'm just back from 2 classes earlier tonight. We have ramped up to about 3-4 per week and still loving it.

The mileage is getting a bit rough though – we never heal completely. My knuckles on both hands are all messed up right now, my arms are bruised, I caught a punch to the nose and an elbow to the jaw tonight (not the worst I've had, but still…) and on top of all of it is just good old fashioned muscle soreness.

@Stray: I haven't heard anything yet about taking undefended direct hits prior to testing, but I am still new. I have, however, had several classes where one or more people are assigned to punch or kick me in the stomach with no defense for periods of time during training. They will also have us execute defenses under the assumption that one arm has been incapacitated and we aren't allowed to use it.

Krav students were well prepared against brawlers and/or armed thugs, but didn't seem able to cope with basic martial arts maneuvers, though again this may have simply been the students from this school - high kicks, simultaneous block/strike, chin na, etc confused them and threw them off guard. On the other hand, Krav wasn't made as an answer to other martial arts, but rather against thugs, brawlers, and mob violence.

• All of the instructors hold high-ranks or black belts in more than one other style (Aikido, Karate, Muay Thai, US MMA, Western Kickboxing, US Boxing, and Kali to name a few from my school alone) - If it didn't work, why would these people waste their time? They certainly know the difference between a brawler and a trained fighter.
• It's origin of development in fighting Nazi violence against citizens and it's subsequent adoption by a highly active and effective military - If it wasn't effective, why wouldn't they simply adopt a better style? It is after all a life or death situation for those folks.
• It's increasing use and adoption by our own military and law-enforcement - With access to any method of fighting in the world and no incentive to follow any given fad, why would the best funded military choose something that could be circumvented by another system?
• The fact that it is a system which has been culled from other martial arts and refined to work as a cohesive whole - If the system is constantly evolving to incorporate what is effective from other great styles, how could it not be improved and adapt?

Ultimately I believe that this criticism is probably a result of witnessing low-level students and making a comparison against a higher-level practitioner from another style. The same could be said for any system. I don't believe that it stands up to rational consideration.

Tonight I had the pleasure / misfortune of pairing up with an older Japanese gentleman who, even though he was new to Krav, had studied Karate for many years and had been a police officer for many years as well. His punches certainly felt like it. When I asked him how he felt about Krav vs Karate, he said that he deeply valued the tradition of Karate but at this point was interested in the pragmatic aspects of Krav Maga.

----------------------------

In any case, just to reiterate, there are a countless number of great techniques and styles out there and people should learn as much as they can. Survival comes down to the fighter… and if we are honest; luck. For my part, I am digging the hell out of Krav Maga right now and I feel fortunate to have found a school that works for my circumstances.

Wow, nobody posted in this thread for a while. Anyway, new member long time lurker and all that good stuff. I just fired up a Cybepunk game powered by Interlock and this seemed like a good place to jump in.

Make yourself at home. Plenty to see… whether any of it is worthwhile is up to you.

Don't mind the locals.

Master_Drow -

Thanks for taking the time to outline those points.

I had written and re-written one of my unnecessarily long posts, but ultimately it comes down to this:

Yes. I do need to write a clear and concise version of the rules that addresses all of these issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a priority and likely won't become one soon. I enjoy this as a hobby, but it falls below everything else on my list including other forms of recreation.

It's awesome that some people have read it and like it so far and I am genuinely grateful for that. Even more-so to all the people who have taken the time to help out. Eventually I hope I can put together something that will be cool and functional and I hope people like it.

Until then I know that there is plenty to work with here and I also know from practice that it is enough to take care of some great gaming.

(p.s. Run.Net is not a "world", it's just a mechanical method for improving one aspect of a game I really enjoy. )

I know that one goal of Run.Net is to be very free form. But I am of the opinion that the number of actions needed to do something should be better defined, or at least more concrete suggestions should be given. Simply so the game is played more uniformly from table to table. This would make it much easier to design certain parts of Run.Net that depend on such things, instead of the multiple vastly different interpretations that we are getting now.

• Run.Net is Run.Net - that doesn't mean it is the only way to do things or that it is even the best way to do things. I strongly encourage people to come up with their own methods and solutions. If someone uses Run.Net as part of their solution then they should do so in the same spirit that it was made; specifically, mentioning that fact, and not making it a commercial venture. Interlock, and Interlock Unlimited are both systems that Run.Net has been created to work with, and even though I believe it could potentially work for other systems, I am not familiar with them enough to know.

• I have in mind a section clarifying my method for determining how systems work, but I disagree that it should be very strictly defined. Here's why:

• Flexibility in system creation is a major tool for GMs to finely control difficulty from moment to moment.
• Allowing such flexbility provides some level of 'future-proofing' the system since I am too lazy to re-write it every 18 months when entirely new revolutions in computing inevitably arise.
• The core, essential, base-line, original, seminal concept of Run.Net is to create a semantic system to allow for netrunning to occur fluidly with the game in the support of
  storytelling
  and fun.

My personal preference in gaming, after having done this for 22 years, is that their should only be as many rules as necessary to support the game, but no more. I completely understand that this limit varies for everyone. I also believe that if people give the basic idea behind this system an honest try, some of them will find it fun and feel that it answers a problem they have had with the previous systems.

For some folks on the forum, these rules probably seem byzantine, bizarre, and unwieldy - I'm completely cool with that. Others might think that these rules are wishy-washy hippy bullshit - I'm completely cool with that too.

So if you feel a desire to implement proxy-chains or a more strictly defined order of operations, by all means please do! That's is what flexibility is all about.

Over the course of reading the feedback to Run.Net I have noticed one pattern coming up frequently. People seem to apply a different standard to their concepts of hacking than they do to rules governing other aspects of the game. For instance, combat. There is no pre-set number of steps to get from intention to outcome in combat, and depending on the GM you have, there will be a massive variation in how a combat sequence might feel. Some are gritty and realistic and lethally fast and brutal, others are cinematic and outlandish, and yet others might be in-between. I believe everyone benefits from that flexibility.

If someone doesn't know how computers work, they should still feel basically comfortable working with the terms in Run.Net to at least provide a computery feel. They can't do worse than most movies in how badly they represent realism.

maybe this is realistic, but it poses operational problems for gaming.

I happen to agree. It feels more realistic, but it comes at the cost of making the game more complicated. And since a player will almost always use some form of proxy it means that it will be a common occurrence in game. I did think of a few things that can help remove the this complication.

I was actually referring to the problem of being able to get at a target shielded by such a low-cost and easy source of armor. It's likely that an attacking player would have to wade through a minimum of 10 successful steps before they ever even saw their opponent, this may work for some game and not others. I also have an issue with the idea of a payment system to bypass what would otherwise take time and skill - cyberpunk is already a very purchase-happy game and it takes away from the style and skill of a netrunner. Also, who do you know that is worth their hacking skills who would have to pay for software or access?

This conjures up scenarios of nearly invincible weefle hackers who hide behind a pre-paid get-out-of-combat card.

---------------------------------------------------

It's important to note that I do not spend much time on this project and therefore a lot of what I say on it is liable to be riddled with contradictions, straw-men, and loopholes. This system is certainly "use at your own risk" and "your mileage may vary". I think it is fun and useful, but I'm sure it has plenty of flaws in it.

As you can see the Gm and player only need to know two things about the proxies. 1) how many proxies the player has. 2) the total negative that the proxies are giving.

Knowing which proxy is what is not needed. In fact I made up the part about the public car rental service, and phone company as Bob got to them. Joe does not care, and actually Bob did not either, all Bob wanted to know was whether or not he had found Joe, I just made the information more interesting.

It sounds pretty good to me. It keeps with the core ideas of Run.Net and is essentially a version of what was already the baked in method for this sort of thing (you did an excellent job illustrating it).

What I meant before about keeping track of those servers is that each one supposedly has a difficulty to beat and at least a potential for latency. Even though this doesn't seem like much, my example above about a small group of netrunners quickly racking up a big number of them still stands - even great color elements like what you described can come to have game effects and can potentially bog down.

More to the point, however, is that with only a chance for cumulative latency there is little downside to lugging around a massive chain of proxies - maybe this is realistic, but it poses operational problems for gaming.

All in all I like what you have here. I think people can use something like this with positive results. Everyone will end up with a slightly different build of Run.Net based on their own needs.

edited for spelling.

This is a tough issue and always has been.

The biggest defining quality of netrunning is its supposed speed over the meat-world (not to mention its reach).

Initially my goal was to set Run.Net up stack a large number of actions for smart, skilled, well-equipped runners and fewer for lesser runners. There were 2 ideas used to account for this:

As for how it ports with IU specifically, Run.Net is not balanced with that system. I'm sure it's possible, but might take a little tweaking.

It's been a while since I have reviewed this information and in all likelihood it will be a while still before I get back to it. Fortunately I know first-hand that the rules play quite well even in an unfinished state and at the very least will continue to help some people with this part of the game.

I still appreciate all of the help and contributions from everyone. I hope the system has been useful so far.

I really dont like it when one arts students look down on another art and talk bad about it or its practioners.

 

I wish all martial artists could get along and appriceate eachothers unique styles.

Techniques and styles are simply techniques and styles. They are tools.

Great training is up to the individual training and what they commit themselves to. Teachers are individuals too. Certain combinations of students and teachers may be more or less effective for either or both of them, but that reflects only on them.

My MA training has been rather eclectic. I hold a 4th degree BB in TKD. However the Koreans who own the school(s) I train at are an interesting bunch and regularly bring in people from other styles to cross train. For two years I trained Muay Thai with a fighter named Wu Pan Lee IIRC, never was sure how he spelled his name. For a couple of years we had Krav Maga cross training. Currently we have Gracie Jujitsu cross training and MMA.

I would really like to learn Muay Thai - being tall and having a long reach, Muay Thai seems like a style that would capitalize on that.

We have been doing more floor work lately in Krav. It is not a primary focus (their philosophy is to avoid getting on the ground and to get off the ground ASAP) but they teach it because it is an essential element.

your teacher needs to explain why the moves are done not just the movement as many non basic moves are based on defeating some other styles move. Otherwise it just healthy exersize.

Something that is done very well at this school is breaking down in minute detail what the rationale for each maneuver is. They go through what is the key threat from a given attack and how to use your basic human reactions as a foundation for countering or avoiding it. They do not discuss countering styles but approach it more from a physics standpoint of angle-of-approach, distance, timing, and leverage.

It invites improvisation when real life inevitably varies from examples.

there's nothing wrong with Martial Arts as healthy exercise. If it's practical as well that's really nice too. Something I've not seen of Krav Maga practitioners that has always annoyed me is the tubby, chain smoking expert who knows scores of nasty moves that are totally illegal and nearly untrainable who looks like a heart attack about to happen.

 

Have fun, but remember you have to get up and go out tomorrow so too many broken noses is gonna get old!

The exercise part has been great - best workout of my life hands-down. Tubby armchair experts bug me too, fortunately it's not a factor.

Based on your past posts, don't you train in a variety of different disciplines Dog Soldier? You must have some experiences to contribute on the topic of training.

I have been training in Krav Maga for several months now and I LOVE IT!

In the past I've done some martial arts here and there (mostly Kenpo and Shotokan Karate and a bit of Aikido), but nothing very serious. So last year my wife and I signed up for Krav and it has been incredible.

Now, I appreciate many styles of hand-to-hand combat and I am in no way starting a "this style is better than that style" debate here. Any style has potential to be excellent; it all comes down to the quality of the training and the quality of the fighter - NOT the style used. I hope to train in other styles in the future, including Muay Thai, Kali, Brazilian Ju Jutsu, Aikido, and western boxing - but I have to admit that right now, Krav has really impressed me a great deal.

What has impressed me so much about it, is the ruthless practicality. Despite having a deep respect and admiration for traditional martial arts, at this stage in my life I am not focused on the artistic, philosophical, or historical aspects but more in brass tacks effectiveness. And I have found that in abundance. Every movement is a study in economy of motion and dealing with the physical and mental realities of a combat situation.

We start each class with a good workout; I have seen people - including law enforcement officers - throw up more than once during this section. After everyone is tired and sweaty, that is when we start training. This often includes basic techniques done at full strength against a partner with pads. It builds from there with drills advancing in complexity throughout the class.

Something that has been novel (for me anyway) is just how soon they bring in somewhat advanced elements. I am still first level, but they regularly have us training against knives, guns, multiple attackers, training with lights off or eyes closed, training while dizzy (to simulate drunkenness or disorientation), playing loud music, and dealing with non-combatants within the combat zone.

I am regularly sporting some injury or another from class. I've seen blood and broken noses. Right now my wrists are all cut up because we trained in breaking out of zip-ties or duct tape (in front and in back) during the last class. My wife's knuckles never get a chance to heal, so she has constant cuts and abrasions (mine were already more callused beforehand).

The mental aspects are new to me. Trying to learn a technique is very different when exhausted, disoriented, and trying to deal with multiple attackers in a darkened room. They teach us that the opponent is always bigger, always armed, and always has friends. The man who brought Krav Maga to the US is a district attorney and brings that information and mindset to the training.

---------------------

I want to hear about some of the great training you have participated in, and how it changed your perspective. This doesn't have to be isolated to hand-to-hand, but can be any kind of training that has been exceptional in your mind.

**NOTE: This is not a pissing match about who's style is better, nor is it a political debate about Israel, nor is it a debate about guns. This is strictly about what each of us has learned and the different forms of training that taught us.

Without being able to provide a really detailed response to the idea, I have some initial reactions.

1. "Trace" does not appear in the Run.Net Command List. However, we already have "Locate" and "Detect" which would be the basis for the same function.

2. Adding an additional "Proxy" category is also redundant due to the fact that rules for daisy-chaining devices through networks are already in development and have been written about in several places in these threads.

I am with you in the sense that I have always pictured the use of proxy connections being a part of this system. What I want to avoid though is continuing to add on an ever-growing body of rules for things that can be dealt with under the initial 10 command functions. The number 10 was not accidental and though it presents certain challenges - either feeling constrictive or too expansive - it is a major part of what makes this system work with Interlock™ based rules.

------

My challenge functionally with using daisy-chained proxies for things rules-wise is that despite it's realism and practical usefulness, it quickly becomes a massive headache to keep track of for the player and the GM. Run.Net is designed first for the principle of not creating more time and hassle for playing Netrunners than any of the other character types.

If I am reading your rules correctly, then every single proxy in a chain would have to be tracked by both the player and a GM. Now imagine you are a GM with 3 Netrunners in a party and 5 opponent NPC hackers. ALL of them have a Proxy-Chain that is at least 5 deep; now you have to track discrete values for 40 different Proxies!

Further than that, it's ultimately not necessary because such functions can be handled by utilizing existing Commands and Targets and adjusting the difficulty levels or requiring additional Actions.

------

Don't misunderstand me; I like what you have written, but it seems to be a section that would fit better in its own rules-system rather than R.N. This system is not the only way things can or should be done, but it is the way we are developing to handle certain predetermined design criteria. That doesn't make it the best way to handle Netrunning, but it is the best approach so far to the specific goals it was created for.

I would like to see your ideas on making "Trace" and "Proxy" function under the existing Command-Target method.

I agree with Phipps. Training counts.

If you are having a problem with your players min-maxing, that is not a sign that the rules are broken.

I use max skill limits for character creation too, but the best tool I have used is simply requiring the player to make a rational argument for why their character has so many points in this or that realistically based on their background.

If they can justify it, they can have it. If not, they have to re-distribute.

There is a reason why they call it being the "Referee" when you GM this game - YOU have to arbitrate what is reasonable and what isn't.

You can re-write the rule if you want, but that won't stop munchkins from munchin'.

Compañero and Malek have been invaluable in testing and refining and developing this system over the past couple of years. They have proven the system's effectiveness under live-fire conditions and they have provided illuminating insights and new perspectives in broadening its scope.

Many people have participated in the project on this forum over time, and I am grateful for all of their support and enthusiasm.

I haven't put together a list of all contributors and/or commenters, but I also have not publicly published anything besides these workspace forum threads where participants are already shown.

In any case I want to thank everyone for the help and let it be known that the effort is appreciated.