Interrupt

The first part will obviously take the most time, even more so because I seem to be the only one working on this project anymore...

 

This project continues where it began… in a variety of sketch pads in my home.

 

As far as participation online goes, there are waves of activity as Real Life™ permits.

 

Patience is a virtue.

 

Agreed on all that.

 

Having domestic drones to help would be icing.

 

However this thread is not specifically about the conflation of religion and politics.

Okay seriously, drones in and of themselves are not a problem for me. I will tell you what bothers me one hell of a lot and makes me seriously contemplate moving to Costa Rica or Germany.

 

 

Here we have 6 Republican Candidates for President trying to outdo each other in being "holier than thou"

The Drones in and of themselves aren't the problem… it's the fact that the people you are so suspicious of will be controlling them.

 

When does your definition of Now enter in to our history? None of the negative aspects you list are occurring for the first time in our history. On the other hand, I'd like to hear the tale of the government that hasn't committed most of the crimes on your list.

But there is a crucial difference; previously we denied them now we are embracing them and attempting to codify them into law.

 

Our country convicted men and put them to death for waterboarding. Now we 'make up' terms like "enhanced interrogation"

 

Our country had laws against spying on its citizens, now we have laws to defend it.

 

We mocked authoritarian regimes which imprisoned excessively, now no country imprisons more than us.

 

We held the rule of Habeus Corpus as a defining part of what made our system of laws better than the ones we fought against, now we work to do away with it completely.

 

Of course these things are done by governments all over the world. Previously they were done in secret and when found out it could mean serious consequences for those involved.

 

Now we have all these faux-patriots attempting to enshrine the Constitution while at the same time shitting on what it says.

 

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”

- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands."

- George Washington

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

And while we wring our hands over our massive military budget, we simultaneously demand that our military respond to countless natural disasters across the globe and act as policeman to the world in order to combat nouns like famine, disaster, and epidemic. Foreign policy has little effect without a successful military - just ask the UN.

I don't really agree that we should be handling everything around the world and specifically not with our Military, but I absolutely can't understand why the people in our country who are so eager to have such massive spending on military (which btw, isn't the same thing as an effective military) also seem to ignore the fact that the money has to come from somewhere and that means TAXES.

 

The cognitive dissonance of simultaneously throwing fits about economic crisis and taxes while spending absurdly more and more on war makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

 

it's so sad to see how quickly people who at all other times exercise a healthy distrust of governments suddenly jump into lock step when somebody mentions the "boogie man" of the age, in this case terrorists. you're a fool if you trust the government to do this "just this once."

Agreed.

 

The rule of law is the only thing that makes America exceptional or virtuous, if we abandon it then we sacrifice the very thing we claim to defend.

 

Now we are a country that:

 

Spies on its own citizens

Searches and Confiscates property without warrant or cause

Employs military equipment & forces domestically

Imprisons more people than any where else in the world

Detains without trial

Extradites detainees to undisclosed locations

Tortures

and

Assassinates

 

 

We cripple ourselves financially in order to spend massively more on our military than the rest of the world combined in order to perpetuate a constant state of warfare against nouns.

 

These actions are what America once defined itself as being against. If we are for them now, that is tantamount to conceding defeat of the ideals used to justify the actions in the first place.

 

The fact that a thread about the proliferation of drones immediately turned into a defense of a silly ass made up word is pretty sad.

 

1. The topic of the thread hasn't changed.

 

2. The first person to make a post entirely off-topic about a single word can be found in post #6.

 

3. All words are made up.

 

resorting to accusations of the non-existent condition of "Islamophobia" is bordering on becoming the newest iteration of Godwin's Law.

FBI: Anti-Muslim ‘hate crimes’ up 50 percent in U.S.

 

In US, anti-Islam hate crimes on rise

 

TIME Magazine cover: Is America Islamophobic?

 

Islamophobic Bullying in Our Schools

 

…etc

 

 

It's definitely a valid concern.

the president has been issued a license to kill. you seem to think this is a great thing considering the target, but ask yourself this: what's to stop OTHER people or groups from being labeled a threat and receiving similar lethal findings? conservatives, libertarians, survivalists, gun owners, etc?

Agreed.

 

If we're going to pretend to have any moral high ground at all (and not simply embrace Isslamophobia) then we need to follow the due process of our own laws - which, amongst other things, forbid using our military to assassinate U.S. citizens, even if they happen to be murderous criminals. If he had had his citizenship revoked, it would have removed that problem - hell, tell him to show up and defend himself in an AMERICAN court if he objects to having his citizenship revoked, then he could also fry in an American electric chair - still perfectly legal and legit.

My objection to this is that we're gutting our laws for pragmatic reasons, to give more power and authority to a government that hasn't done a sterling job of handling the power it already has. If the Air Force can use a drone to target a "threat to the public" then they can use it to target ANY "threat to the public"

Well said!!!

 

What is the point of killing a bad guy if you have to become the bad guy to do it?

 

We said "they hate us for our freedoms" and it seems we chose to solve that problem by attacking our own freedoms.

 

I prefer the rule of law and not relying on a government dictating (key word) what is right or wrong.

 

Now in LINK FORMAT!!!

I sometimes like to do long posts as it allows me to summarize exactly what I am thinking and how I got that idea. The idea is that if I post my reasons and ideas then maybe we can all understand each others reasons and come up with a great idea that everyone likes/can tolerate.

Hence why my posts tend to be so long-winded.

 

 

I also agree with the basic tenants outlined in Comp's post. It should be harder to attack a user than it is to just boot them from the net. A deck will have extra security when it comes to the user. Can't sell many units if the users keep getting melted brains, bad for business and all.

So far, this is how it has been since the beginning. My plan has been to make it such that you can stun or boot a user from the net by default but if you want to do actual physical damage it is more difficult and complex.

 

As far as corporate responsibility and selling units - all modems come with default security that allows no lethal signals through whatsoever. The flip-side to this is such a massive slow-down in functionality (from a hacking standpoint) that no Netrunners leave this safety feature in place.

 

This helps divide the civilians from the Netrunners. Civilians can use the net and command//target actions, but they are so inhibited as to not be on the same level as the Netrunners, who in turn can't actually directly damage civilians due to the safety buffer.

 

Side note: It would be convenient to somehow combine this thread and the main discussion thread as we are now ready to work on programs. A new main discussion thread may be in order just to discuss programs in great length and detail. Just a suggestion.

I don't agree with this.

 

We have split out so many threads because it actually becomes more complex when they are lumped together, the key is keeping each discussion strictly on topic. This thread is exclusively about the idea of causing physical damage to users through the Net and should remain that way.

 

The primary discussion thread is fine to discuss how programs are to be limited and executed but effecting actual damage should be referenced from here.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that a kingdom raping dragon like Smaug got punked down by a single arrow fired from the right weapon. This applies to Hugh Jass mainframe systems as well. If they get the right info and/or the perfect weapon to tackle that mainframe, then they have that perfect weapon to bring it down and shouldn't have much of a problem doing so

Exactly.

 

The Command//Target system assumes all of the myriad little programs (custom or otherwise) that a Netrunner is using to complete those actions. These are your standard hard-working not-worth-mentioning-by-name applications ranging from text editors, to calculators, to tiny batch-codes, to signal generators, and so on.

 

So you are exactly right, It has always been envisioned that hacking phones and taking down big systems with small programs would be the way of things.

 

All we are trying to determine now is how to best articulate the role of more complex programs - if needed at all…

I myself don't agree with most of the ideas laid out above. I don't really like programs that give a bonus on a skill, which is often as powerful or more powerful than the players skill. (also if I wanted a narrative I would play a diceless RPG)

I see a program as just tool that expands upon the runners basic skills. Like how a sword is a tool that is used in a melee. The tool should not be required to play a character, but should instead be a limited advantage to the character. (ex swords hurt more than a fist does.)

Isn't the sword just giving a bonus over fist? That contradicts your initial premise.

 

----------------------------Idea One----------------------------

I propose that the majority of programs just be automated lists of command/target actions. Basically you have the computer do some of the work for you so you can deal with more important things.

The problem with this is that the Command//Target list already is using programs - they are assumed in the system and invisible. There is nothing you can do with a computer at all without the aid of some form of program, therefore programs are an inherent function of Interfacing with the Net. We are currently only discussing the concept of programs that go above and beyond this essential base.

 

A great example would be encrypting the signal that your team is using. If one were to do this via persistent action then you would encrypt the signal once and that would be that. However if someone wants to break into that signal they only have to get past the encryption once. Now a program could create a rolling encryption. Here the program re-encrypts the signal every few turns so that if someone does manage to break the encryption they will only have access to the network until the signal is re-encrypted, in a few turns. The only difference here is that the persistent action is a fire and forget setup, while the program is a recursive setup.

This could even lead to a very simple pricing structure based upon the equivalent skill of the program and the frequency which it activates. For more complex programs the price would have to include multiple command/target

I'll have to think about it more, but I like this kind of possibility. It seems to enhance something that the character can do otherwise but it provides more than a static bonus to the roll.

 

 

For example $100 buys you one rank of a command and target skill. So a program that uses Cypher/Signal at rating 3 costs $300. Or a program that uses Cypher/Signal 3 and Login/modem 2 will cost $500.

Each program activates only once per turn, but for programs that don't need an action every turn every turn that it delays decrease the price by 10%. So the Cypher/Signal rating 3 cost $300 if it re-rencrypts every turn, but if you only want it to re-encrypt every 3 turns it costs $210. This is a nice savings but decreases the effectiveness of the program. (all of these prices are off the top of my head and are used for simple maths, final pricing open to negotiation.)

This is a non-starter. What hacker pays for their software? We have to come up with rules-limitations rather than cost because cost is the first thing that any n00b netrunner would be able to circumvent otherwise they are just a normal customer like anyone else.

 

Price as a primary limiting factor is no-go.

 

----------------------------Interlude----------------------------

Now there should probably be a few other types of programs, like IC and stuff but the idea above should be the average program that the average user has. The idea below is for special programs that are more unique and are more expensive. Also idea one and idea two be used together in a program, if desired.

We aren't going to list average programs at all for the very reason that they are average. We are trying to avoid making a player track all sorts of stuff just to be able to handle the basics. The Command//Target list assumes all of the average programs.

 

 

 

----------------------------Idea two----------------------------

For the other programs I say we make a list of good attributes for programs, give each attribute a point cost, then allow the players to mix and match as they see fit. Final price will be the total point cost times a multiplier (ex $50 per point). This is easy to do, allows the GM to quickly add new attributes he wants, and is very modular meaning we can add more attributes later if we want. Also each program needs to have a strength, the higher the strength the more it costs. Use strength as a multiplier (ie strength 3 is 3x more expensive than strength 1). This is very similar to how the basic drug rules work in Datafortress/Interlock Unlimited.

This is a great idea in theory (except for the price issue) but I see problems with it.

 

1. We are trying right now to determine what a list of good attributes are and its elusively wide open and naturally defies simplifying. This basically just restates the original goal.

 

2. Cost is nearly pointless for reasons listed above. Hackers don't pay for software - not PC level ones anyway.

 

3. Strength is a good idea, but your initial paragraph argued against a simple numerical strength value.

 

For example we could have

Sacrifice- 3 points- the program takes the next attack that would normally hurt the runner. Then the program crashes and will need to be relaunched. (could even add a delay between crash and launch).

Shield- 2 points - reduces the damage done to the runners icon, the reduction is equal to the strength of the program x2.

Mind fuck- 5 points- On a successful hit this attribute causes an enemies User Interface to change randomly, causing much confusion. this reduces the enemy runners skill by the programs strength for a number of turns.

Jack Hammer- 1 point- reduces enemy firewall by the programs strength for a number of turns, but automatically alerts every user and IC to your presence.

Padded Hammer- 5 points- the same as jack hammer but allows one to remain hidden from other users and IC.

Authenticate- 3 points- every turn the programs checks the Identity of one random user, if the user's ID does not match records then the programs alerts its user and any IC in the system.

IC- 2 points - the program attacks any user that has triggered an alert. The program will continue to attack until the user is no longer present, or the alert is cancelled.

Some of these are interesting ideas but my problem here is that they completely negate the Command//Target function. If we allow programs which supersede our whole skill system then we are effectively telling players to forget Interface and put all their effort into programming. At which point we might as well just use the Interlock unlimited system and make every netrunning task a DV vs Programming.

 

 

 

----------------------------Attacking Icons with Programs (leads to problems, but very fun)----------------------------

When attacking a person in the net really you are just attacking their Icon not the actual person. This is often done by destabilizing the persons hardware or connection.

…

As for attacking we should just copy how the meat space does this, but since cover and BTM don't exist this will be a simplified version. Basically one rolls to hit against a flat DC (like meat space), then rolls damage, then the defender reduces the damage by his/her shield and takes the rest. Icons need to have some sort of health system, probably based on signal or deck or something. (This needs to be seriously thought about as it opens a whole messy can of worms, and is in no way supported by the current system.)

I am absolutely, unequivocally, unrepentantly, immutably against anything to do with using Icons/Avatars as a functional element of the rules!

 

Not only is this unrealistic it is a fundamental reason the original rules were broken as hell.

 

When you make netrunning work like a virtual recreation of real-space that is what leads directly to the dreaded mini-game which plagued the original rules. This alone puts us back to square one with the entire system and is the first thing I eliminated from the original rules when I developed Run.Net.

 

I can't stress enough how much we are not going to make any virtuality based movement or combat systems as a functional aspect of the system. That's Run.Net 101.

 

However black programs do exist (often hard to find). Black programs actually damage the users physical body in some way or another, often by overloading the persons senses, dealing short term memory damage, or causing psychosis. (all up for debate)

I'm glad you brought this up. As you know, we already have a discussion on this topic located here.

 

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

 

I feel that Compañero has described the basic types of programs which we need to cover. Things that can't be accomplished through the standard Command//Target List, Some sort of limited bonus to standard functions (similar to accuracy bonuses for guns), and of course so called "Black Programs" which are the only means of causing physical damage to a user through the Net.

Most of the old programs have been subsumed into the command/target lists now and aren't important. The hacker might be using loads of them.

 

However, there will be times when you need special programs. Narrative times!

The above is exactly why an extensive program list is not a key element.

 

 

I have been brainstorming and chatting with Comp about programs and will be posting on this, but I wanted to say something first.

 

When I first came up with Run.Net part of my goal was to do away with the necessity to track a lot of disparate components that existed in the previous system. I felt (and feel) that part of what made it so cumbersome to be a Netrunner is that setting up a deck was just as much work (if not more) as setting up a character. In addition to this it has a strong tendency to make it all about the gear rather than the character, and in a game which tends strongly towards materialism and equipment I didn't want to fuel that tendency more than necessary.

 

Even today programs are very ephemeral. They are here today and gone tomorrow. In my line of work I use a variety of programs for everything I do and ultimately it's not my programs or my computer that makes me good at my job - it's the skills.

 

Don't get me wrong, programs and equipment sure help a lot, but great characters do more with less.

 

With this in mind I want to be exceedingly careful that Run.Net maintains a focus on the core essentials (which we have already mapped out) and not go down the rabbit hole of the myriad shiny programs which can be made and used.

 

The reason I don't feel program creation rules are essential to a core rules-set is that Programming is already a separate skill than Interface. We can create a sample list of programs to use which will handle a lot of quality gaming without having to make a bug-free Program creation system. Let's face it, creating a program creation system with no flaws is practically as much of a job as creating a program that has no flaws.

 

Whatever system we create will be prone to broken results and opportunity for abuse - to assert that it is an essential part of the core rules is tantamount to injecting those flaws into an already functional and effective system.

 

I and others have run fun games using Run.Net without having to create programs. I would hate to build a flawed program creation system as an after thought that will take "a week or two" only to have that mar a great system which has been developed over more than a couple of years.

 

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

 

Please don't misunderstand, I am on board with using programs and already working on rules for them, I just wanted to clarify my views on their role in Run.Net.

 

So you are adding the control to vehicle to get 9 here? because I thought the cap was 5 for command and target individually.

Correct. The range for each Command and Target is 0-5 for a combined total of 0-10.

 

Other than that question I see how this works. You use the smaller of the normal skill and the net skill to determine your skill number when driving/piloting/controlling things via the net.

I would assume this extends to all things like if you were to repair a car by hacking a local automated car factory you would use either the repair skill or the sum of control//remote, whichever is lower.

Correct. The Run.Net Command//Target list deals with Netrunning specifically and therefore does not supersede the other skills in the standard list.

 

Performing any skill through the interceding networks would inhibit the use of that skill to some degree, this is why the smaller value is used.

 

Wait if pilot:drone is a skill then what is the command//Remote for? I thought that was the thing used for drones...

This discussion came up a while back and the answer is relatively simple.

 

There are people who's sole occupation is to pilot remote drones but they don't have a lick of hacking ability whatsoever. Likewise, there are people who are excellent at hacking and can control a drone, but they don't focus their energy on that primarily.

 

Much like the difference between First Aid and Surgery (or Medtech depending on how you play the game) some skills cover the same ground but to different extents. Melee is said to handle close range hand-held weapons, yet there is also a Fencing skill. I'm sure if we dig around there are other examples as well.

 

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

 

How does this affect the rules?

 

• Control//Remote is literally the ability to send commands to the remote and not primarily how skillfully you do so. Pilot:Drone is the skillful technique of piloting remote drones and provides no ability to send commands to remotes that you don't have a built-in controller for.

 

• When a Netrunner Infiltrates a Remote s/he must then use Control//Remote in order to send it operational commands from outside said Remote's standard control interface. If a player has both skills, they are free to utilize Pilot:Remote up to the limit of their Control//Remote skill, but no further. The GM may rule if their is a penalty for operating the Remote without any Pilot:Remote skill at all.

 

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

 

• This is the same for any other physical device that can be controlled within the Net. If there is a physical skill to control said device, it may be used for all skill checks up to the limit of the hacking ability to gain control.

 

• e.g. A Netrunner may have a Driving skill of 8, but only has a Control//Vehicle skill of 4 and therefore can only make Driving skill checks based on 4.

 

• Another Netrunner may have a Driving skill of 5 and a Control//Vehicle of 9 but will still only be able to make Driving skill checks at 5 since the ability to hack control of the vehicle doesn't make them a racing driver.

 

 

 

Hope that makes it clear.

Works for me!

 

Now on to Programs, Drones, and Items!!!

On this note I have something to suggest:

 

Programs = Supplemental list (non-essential to core rules)

 

Drones = Additional Rules-Set (tangentially related but not essential to hacking)

 

Items = Supplemental List (non-essential to core rules)

 

 

In other words; it seems we may be at a point where the basics to handle the netrunning itself are ready and these additional supplements can be handled on their own.

 

We're a forum, not some top secret members only backroom ninja club.

I take exception to this.

 

Interrupt, my friend... I am sensing more than a small amount of snark here...

'Cause I'm snarking you dude.

 

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

Edit: Whilst chatting with Comp and Malek I was informed that not everyone could sense that I was being light-hearted (maybe I should use more emoticons). So I'll clarify…

 

TOTALLY BEING LIGHT-HEARTED.

 

I've been developing Run.Net for over 2 years on and off of this forum and a lot of the information has been repeated several times in several places. When Wisdom casually suggested that Run.Net essentially failed to accomplish the one main goal it was designed to address, I felt that it was worth countering that for anyone reading.

 

I was teasing Wisdom about it a bit because…

 

(1) repeatedly in game-testing the exact problem he mentioned - the creation of a 'sub-game' which takes netrunners out of the flow of participation with the group - had been soundly covered and reported on in detail. Despite the large number of posts going back and forth during development, this original goal was not really a point of confusion or dispute.

 

(2) Wisdom has worked extensively on his Interlock Unlimted rules update (which I have and continue to recommend) which I have read and used. However, in those rules there are several instances where the intricacies and complexities of certain sections like; driving, npc contact creation, drug creation, and his own combat-actions table, make his assertion of distracting complexity a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

There, hope that is all cleared up. No hard feelings. I was just giving my digital pal a hard time.

 

From the Architypes thread…

 

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

If I am wrong, I apologize, but I wasn't talking time wise, I was speaking mechanically.

I have seen your rules. Specifically:

 

• NPC contact creation rules

• Driving / Chase rules

• Drug creation rules

 

 

Each of those are just as involved and complicated as Run.Net and I would argue that they are less important to the Cyberpunk genre as a whole.

 

If you look at the rules for combat alone (which comprise most of the system) you will find that they take up a good deal of space to write down. This is overlooked because most people tend to view RPG systems in terms of the combat engine, however that only covers one specific aspect of the whole gaming experience.

 

Most of what has been written on this forum regarding Run.Net has been development discussion and such. The final document (whenever that will be finished) will be relatively lean.

 

I guess I just can't see what you are basing your conclusions on other than the fact that in IU netrunning is reduced to a single skill check.

 

You could do the same for combat, why don't you?

Excellent work!

 

Thanks for putting this together.

 

You are right about it being easier to sever someone's connection than to attack them directly - this is how the rules were set up.

 

You can also see that if each step requires at least a 0 DV action to move through, it would quickly eat up a lot of net actions just scooting around.

 

I am not suggesting that this becomes the new cross-word puzzle grid to hash out games on, since we have no "area effect" or "movement" rules (nor do we want them). I am only suggesting that (a) it is a lot easier to 'hide' in some corner or other of the network (b.) its a lot easier to cut a root connection to an opponent without ever having to 'find' them, and (c.) its a lot more steps to get through than 1-5 if you have to beat security along the way.

 

Good work.

Yes the charts are helpful.

 

I will be making pretty pictures myself whenever I get around to it. Probably for a finished snazzy PDF. But that isn't soon.

 

Your Shadowrun explanation was also quite helpful. I have not played and it's interesting to see that there are some similarity in the concepts we have developed here. I came up with Run.Net having only worked with CP2020 and borrowing the basic concept from Ars Magica (which I have also never read nor played).

 

To be honest, I do feel the -2/round has a lot of advantages to it. I also understand the simplicity of the -1 per process for tracking process limit. I am not morally against these ideas.

 

Let's just remember that this is how it starts - good ideas that work with a simple modifier. The part I am morally against is the result in Interlock where you add a list of modifiers as long as your arm for every different action only to find a net variance of +/-2.

 

No one writing those rules had that intention. No one planned that cumbersome, inefficient, inaccurate method as a goal. Each person who wrote new rules just came up with their own simple modifier and then patted themselves on the back for a job well done!

 

My only request is that we remain vigilant against that result here. We have a great system and it would be so disappointing to get lost in the small modifier abyss.

 

**NOTE: as you probably noticed, I don't have the time to devote to this that I once did or would like to at the moment. This has prevented me from being more active or taking a closer look at the rules lately or doing any editing of the project. My interest is still very much here, but real life has brought me new circumstances that must be addressed. I'm just saying this to clarify some of my recent involvement or lack thereof. I hope you can understand.

Indeed.

 

I like the charts too. I would prefer if they started with "User" in the case of a user or "AI/CPU" in the case of hardware. Also, it would be good to illustrate how multiple items utilize the same connection:

 

User..........AI.........User

..|.............|............|

...\............|.........../

.... ---------+--------

..........Hub/Router

................|

.Local Internet Connection

................|

Regional Internet Connection

................|

..............Etc…

 

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

 

I don't especially like it, but the -1 system does make sense and it is much less artificial than simply restricting the number of processes. I do actually quite like the whole "cross the process limit, become unreliable" method.

Perhaps it would be better to make a -.25 system for every point of effectiveness of a program!

 

A strength 4 program would be -1 but a strength 2 might be -.5

 

We could also ad a +1.3762 for every +/- we have included in the equation up to that point!

 

Then we simply divide by the number of pages flipped through to find each +/-

 

And multiply the end result by 9 and then subtract 5 and add if the product is 2 digits simply add both together until we come up with 1 digit.

 

That way the result will always end up being 4 (try it )

 

Since the result is always 4 we can dramatically reduce the time needed for calculating bonuses or developing rules for any of it!

 

</Snark>

 

(kidding)

During the one I played in yesterday, I never did more than one action per round. Well, I took a free 1 meter move and an action, but that was in R.space.

 

The thing is that if you go with too many actions per round you could easily hack into a system, boot the user, find the data you need, and then get out (that was about 5 actions). All of this before the other side gets to even go! That is why I had proposed my stack initiative idea, but then it created yet another thing that had to be created just so you know who goes when.

This comment concerns me because I see a misunderstanding of the rules here.

 

Detecting a viable target is one action.

 

Locating a viable access point to said target is another action

 

Infiltrating said target is another action

 

All of that supposing the target is not concealed or encrypted or secured such that none of the above actions fail the first attempt - that is three actions without so far having done anything to your target. Keep in mind that the 3 actions above have to be repeated for nearly every additional target a runner want's to control - with said control being an additional action after that.

 

Your description above is miscalculated, and would take far more than 5 actions.

 

In real life this very moment, in order for me to hack my neighbor's wireless and look at their files would require:

 

• Detecting their signal - (Check my wireless connection panel and I count 9 active signals within range of my computer right now)

 

• Locating their signal - (I choose one of the 9 available options and select it. I have to Locate because knowing that their are 9 signals is not the same as connecting with any of them)

 

• Infiltrating their signal - (it's password protected so I could either a.) attempt to guess, b.) run a brute-force program, c) attempt a more nuanced approach utilizing some esoteric knowledge of the particular hardware/software available on their system and mine)

 

• Control their network - (assuming that I gained access successfully on the first try - which is unlikely - I can now use their network to do something. Let's say I want to find their home computer - I would have to exert control over their wireless network to even start that process and if I fail to control it then I must try again)

 

• Detect their CPU - (assuming that I controlled their modem/router/network last action I can now see what is hooked up to it. In this case I luck out and find no less than 3 computers are connected to their home wireless)

 

• Locate their CPU - (once I have detected the CPU I want, I now have to find a port I can access. The Locate command allows me to do this)

 

• Infiltrate their CPU - (just because I accessed their wireless network doesn't mean I have control of everything on it. I must gain access to each item individually - which is realistic)

 

• Control their CPU - (assuming that I successfully infiltrated their CPU I need to control it in order to do anything. If they use an operating system that is foreign to me or they have multiple layers of security this will be a challenge.)

 

I just described 8 entirely realistic actions necessary before I would even be able to poke around the files on my neighbor's computer!

 

1) I do believe that hardware is a big factor in the net, if your comp can't run it then it does not matter how good you are. To a lesser extent skill should play in. Currently computers are limited to how fast a person can type. But, when I can just plug my brain into the computer I don't think skill will play as much of a factor in the speed. If you made the argument that typing is not just about speed but also accuracy I would agree, but I don't think a computer will be slowed that much if you are hacking an enemy firewall and a picture of kittens pops into your mind. So the accuracy argument is a lot less valid. Remember the computer in R.n runs at the speed of thought, a users skill matters less now that it did in the keyboard days.

I respectfully disagree.

 

I gave an example earlier from real life of how ingenuity creates an improvement in efficiency on a massive scale with computing - this only increases rather than decreases when our access to the tool involved becomes less hindered. Finger-speed is a limitation which equalizes people not one that separates people.

 

I don't feel that typing speed even ranks on the scale of what separates great hackers from crappy ones.

 

Some of the first hacking was done with captain crunch whistles. Hacking has always and will always be about skill and ingenuity rather than equipment.

 

You can see this in any arena really. Two people can hold the same sword but it's skill that separates them. Two people can hold the same paint-brush but only one is an artist. Two people can hold the same scalpel but only one is a neurosurgeon. I don't care how good you make the tool in any of these situations, you can't beat skill.

 

The reason this impacts how fast things get done in the net is simply that doing things fast in hacking is the very essence of the skill itself. It is not a side-note or byproduct. The better you are with code, the less code you need to write to achieve the same goal. You go faster because you know how to get around or through the tasks more efficiently.

 

Doing this at the speed of thought only makes the speed at which you think more of a factor - not less.

 

2) I am also annoyed by the large number of modifiers. One option is to do something similar to earlier CP games which allowed people with extremely high REF to get extra actions per turn. Generally every 4 points of REF got you an extra action.

This is an example of the kind of thinking I am looking towards.

 

3) Ok the range really needs to be no more that 1-4 actions per round. If you got to 10 the run would be over in about 2 rounds.

I disagree since I have demonstrated above that 3-4 actions is standard for taking control of just about any potential target. But even if a run is over in 2 rounds, I see no problem with that.

 

In my live-game playtesting I found that many small runs happened at all sorts of junctures and I liked them being short and to the point. During combat the netrunner once accessed and activated the building's sprnkler system - this is not a big deal that needs 10 rounds to play out, it works better to have the netrunner succeed along with the group in roughly the same amount of time it takes for other players to meet their goals. Combat can be over in a short number of rounds as well.

 

The variation of how many actions a goal takes to accomplish is one of the best tools a GM has to moderate how difficult something is without having to make each roll higher. A tense hack can be run with relatively simple difficulty values by the very act of making the runner step through a few links to get to their desired target. This also has the benefit of avoiding DV inflation.

 

APR in the IU system is very annoying to calculate, and I have a running thread over on that board about how to make it easier. Basically if you limited it to one skill then it is fine, if each skill has its own APR then you get complex very fast.

Though I enjoy IU and think Wisdom has done a great job, this system is not exclusively built with it in mind. The APR method is a nod in his direction but it's not married to his system. And I am not married to using the initial APR method.

 

For the record - in R.N we are talking about calculating it for only 1 parent skill, Interface.

 

On the issue of extra negatives. They only really come up if you are going over the Computers speed (then you get -1 per program running over the speed) or when you are using obsolete systems (which should be giving a negative).

Unfortunately they come up in many more places than that.

 

We have -2 per action per round

 

We have +/-(X) for CPU speed

 

We have +/-(X) for interface method (Keyboard/monitor, gloves/goggles, DNI, etc)

 

We have +/-(X) for various programs

 

and if we aren't careful we will quickly add more to that list if we haven't already.

 

 

What it really comes down to is that Interrupt wants to have skill factor in so that Netrunners can have a bunch of actions. Really I think this is not needed, because of the way net rules work, and thus even though I have given four different suggestions on how to solve the problem some people don't like them because they don't factor in skill.

Your contributions are quite appreciated and I'm very glad you are here to think these things through with us.

 

However, on the scale of things 4 suggestions is a drop in the bucket. I have 3 or 4 filled notebooks and you can see from my profile that I have put in a good percentage of posts on this topic alone not to mention the time spent chewing Comp and Malek's ears off over chat posts.

 

By all means keep the suggestions coming, but please don't be hurt or impatient when they don't immediately get implemented. If you look at some of my earliest posts on the topic, you can see that it took me most of a year to get people even talking about it in earnest without dismissing the whole thing entirely!

 

I will say this now.

Skill does not need to factor into speed because of the simple fact that only Netrunners are hacking on the net, but by no means are they the only people on the net. Net runners don't need a bigger advantage over everyone else, they are the ONLY role that gets Interface, and thus the ONLY role that can even do hacking in the R.N rules.

Sorry, I forget about this misunderstanding.

 

Like Comp and many other people on this forum, I abandoned Special Abilities a long time ago.

 

Run.Net is intended to work such that anyone can have Interface Skill. Most won't be very good with it. Others won't ever disable the safety on their cybermodems and do any real hacking. But in any case nearly anyone has the potential to attempt to hack - they will probably just suck very very badly at it.

 

My experience of the -2 system is that it requires a lot less GM thought than a system with set actions and puts an awful lot of emphasis on how much the player is willing to risk in tight situations, which I feel really adds to the tense, fast feel of the game. I really enjoyed that mechanic as a player. It's also much easier to implement into the standard CP rules than any of the other proposals - all of which are very neat on their own terms but really feel like they'd work best if the entire initiative or actions system in the game was based on it.

 

We can avoid the overburdening flood of modifiers by being disciplined about adding in new ones. Lets just ignore environmental modifiers for the net entirely and just keep what we've got now as the limit.

 

So. My vote is resolutely for -2.

As I said before, there are things I like about -2/action/round and I can see myself living with it.

 

It's not particularly inspired, but it is simple and works with the base system.

 

I do feel its vital that we not go adding more +/- and I worry that programs will do just that. I'm not sure how to avoid it. Maybe it's a flaw inherent in the Interlock system and attempts to circumvent it are folly, I don't know.

 

I would certainly like to avoid endless strings of +/- which total out in the end to no more than +/-3. That is such a headache and so anti-climactic. Every element accounted for should have some significant impact on the outcome of an attempt or else it should be mitigated.

 

If we are immovably set on having -2/action then we have to do a bit better than having CPU speed merely act as a numeric buff to your roll.

I've been thinking about some things and I wanted to bounce them off the group here.

 

Basically I am still not entirely stoked on the handling of Speed. Let me frame my problems with it:

 

• -2/action Cumulative is simple, but boring and uninspired. It allows a slight improvement over R.Space speed but is otherwise uninteresting and does absolutely nothing to take into account the Netrunner's skill or the quality of her gear.

 

• It worsens something I genuinely dislike about Interlock which is all these piddly mods which total out to nothing but require lots of pesky math. -2 +3 -1 +1 -2 etc just to find out that the end result is -1. I find that to be clumsy and boring and frankly annoying.

 

• It causes a tendency to forget one or more of the pesky mods during game play. To me this is proof that they don't add to the fun or challenge because otherwise they wouldn't be so forgettable.

 

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

 

All of the above are part of what inspired me to develop the initial Actions Per Round method in which we do the math up front and simply have a total number of actions that a runner can use per round. This met some resistance within this group and ultimately I relented in the face of some reasonable arguments, which I will try to sum up below:

 

• The APR method creates an encouragement to use ALL of the actions in every round which works against the goal of keeping a netrunner's turn on par with the other players at the table.

 

• It reduces the variability in number of actions which is klunky and less strategic than making a player decide how much they think they can accomplish before the penalties shut them down.

 

• APR is harder to remember and calculate. Even though you don't have to calculate it often, its not nearly as simplified as -2/action which is off-putting.

 

 

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

 

So how do we solve this?

 

I feel that there must be a better way than either of the above - we just have to find it.

 

Its always tempting when making rules to think up a simple mod ranging 0-5. I believe the reason for this is that it's actually rather simple to gauge how much impact a given factor will have on success and then assign it a static number and be done with it. You feel clever for having come up with a simple rule that is relatively accurate and you haven't brought in any new formulas or calculations to complicate your system down the line. The hidden problem inherent to this thinking is the litany of endless minor mods that must be remembered and accounted for.

 

Wisdom000 has done an excellent job in his Interlock Unlimited rules of accumulating and consolidating the list of mods that has been built into all the rule-books over the years. Looking at this list exposes the problem gloriously. Not only do they no longer make sense in reference to one another but the list is as long as your arm and tends to average out to no more than +/-3 after all is said and done. So now you are consulting a chart, adding up 20 modifiers, and you only have affected your chances +/-3. This is not elegant by any means.

 

The answer IS NOT finding an additional +/-1 to calibrate the system!

 

Master_Drow proposed the idea of simply using CPU Speed as a Process Limit, which is thinking in the right direction. However, that seems to bring us back to forgetting that skill is more important than hardware and also seems to have brought in another swarm of +/-1 which I would like to avoid.

 

Let's think bigger than this. We can do better as a group than tossing back and forth +/-1's for every rule. We have a great, fun, playable system here and I feel we can improve it without tit for tat tiny mods.

 

So, what are the ingredients of the ideal solution?

 

• Something that accounts for Hardware and Skill in calculating just how much a Netrunner can get done during their turn.

 

• Something that doesn't slap on more piddling +/- mods to track but produces a satisfying variation between players as well as a reasonable speed increase in N.space vs R.space.

 

• Something that ideally comes out 1-10 in total actions per round.

 

• Remember that ultimately Process Limit and Speed are not the same thing and do not have to be accounted for in one single rule.

 

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

 

Also, in all the playtesting that has been done recently, what is the average number of actions per round? I have a hunch that it comes out similarly to the previous method, but I don't have the data to compare.