Interrupt

Yes, it's a module thing.

 

What sense do you want to create? Because if you really wants GitS, then Brainhacking is common and fast and profoundly effective. If you want Inception, a single hack is a month's planning.

 

That said, I realised something about DNI the other day, and its possible applications for psychological manipulation. There are definitely some feasibly unpleasant things that could be done.

I really like your thinking on this, and I do believe it will fit nicely into R.N without much hassle.

 

I have already mentioned to Comp (and posted some notes in the G-Docs beta) how we can build a RTS-esqe Drone module that should plug in nicely to R.N

 

 

For now it seems we are on the very cusp of a (relatively) complete rules-set!

 

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

 

I do like the idea of something similar to the "aiming at the target" rule. That makes it very simple and adds a nice bonus (+1 to +3).

Benefit: Newbie hackers still have a chance to be effective, Penalty: takes several rounds for the bonuses to accrue. Overall I think a bonus, up to +3, that takes an equivalent number or round to acquire is a good trade off.

I think I lean towards a bigger bonus given that there are more resources and technology being brought to bear on the task. Aiming only gets you so far because at the end of the day its the engineering of the weapon and ballistic physics which you are up against and those are firm limiters.

 

In hacking you can theoretically do small amounts at a time, or learn enough to eventually make it a no-challenge task. This is fundamentally different and therefore supports a larger bonus.

 

The one problem I have is that, as it stands now the hacker is either taking the -1 because they are persistent actioning the Conceal, or they can try and do a conceal every round and take a -2 for doing another action. For firearms the "aiming at the target" rule has a max bonus of +3, so a -1 or -2 penalty negates a large part of the bonus received. I mean is it really worth the effort of taking three rounds just to get a +1 or +2 bonus?

Yup!

 

Them's the breaks!

 

This is where strategy comes in. I like that the player has to weigh all this and that there is (hopefully) no clear advantage either way. Anyone who has played the system will tell you that going slow with anything is scary as hell and likely to get you flatlined, and yet the possible bonus to taking your time could be crucial.

 

 

The other thing that I think will have to be altered from the base "aiming at the target" rule is that, while aiming, you can do nothing else except aim, if you do anything else you instantly loose any accrued bonus. (however, if you shoot you get the bonus to the first shot.) That is not really a viable option here as we already mentioned that the person is either running conceal every round, or persistent running it.

Yes.

 

In order to use the stacking bonus rule you will have to devote your entire TURN to this one action. However, persistent actions DO NOT count against this since the CPU is handling those as background processes and therefore you can be actively engaged in the task at hand.

 

This is true multi-tasking, something that you can't do while shooting a gun.

 

 

 

I believe that this comes down more to a difference in tactics rather than a difference in rules.

 

The "Slow Hacking" you describe would simply consist of a larger number of [Conceal] actions coupled with many [Query], [scan], and [Decipher] actions. Perhaps also some R.Space research of the system along with surveillance.

 

There is a combat rule in which each round spent aiming at a target increased accuracy by 1 point if I remember correctly. I see no reason why we couldn't do something similar by allowing a bonus to accrue for each subsequent round devoted to a single goal.

 

Thoughts?

Ok there has been a thing that I have noticed floating around and I wanted to add my two cents. The whole thing about brain hacking, GitS style. I think that I should not be a thing done in standard hacks, aka those that are done while on a run. I can see the possibility of brain hacking but I see it as another form of brainwashing/interrogation (depends on intent), and as such should take a large amount of time, a week at least.

I agree.

 

Run.Net is primarily to provide a mechanism for handling standard cyberpunk-style computer hacking. The genesis of the system was essentially to fix what was wrong with Cyberpunk 2020's system and make is so that netrunners could be a viable character type without resorting to a separate mini-game or forcing all players to be in the net at the same time.

 

It has already succeeded in these goals nicely and was so well appreciated by the community that we have been working to flesh it out into a full system.

 

Brain-hacking is either for advanced versions or perhaps optional side rules. It is not going to be a primary concern for now.

 

Ok, quick clarification for me: Are we considering different Command//Target actions to be over as soon as they are executed? I don't like the idea that all your actions in a given round count toward your process limit, but where Persistent actions do count towards that limit. And maybe even your OS is ALWAYS a persistent action, since your OS usually takes up the most resources... Ideas?

Its important to remember that all RPG rules are abstractions. In this case we are creating an abstract method to track some but not all processes in a computing system.

 

The reason we are tracking some but not all processes is that tracking every single thing a computer keeps track of is practically impossible and also not very fun at all. We are tracking just enough to keep it interesting and fun while still providing some practical limitations for gaming purposes.

 

• We are not tracking the Operating System simply because it is assumed that all devices are running one in some form. Even though in real life there are difference in Operating Systems and they technically may take up more or less system resources in respect to each other, this is irrelevant to gaming purposes. It's not something that is necessary to track because it doesn't involve choice on the part of the player or add to strategic fun of game-play.

 

• We are making rough descriptions of the Command//Actions bearing in mind that each one represents vastly different processes and programs as well as methodologies. This is abstract, but allows us to have the fun of giving the player strategic choices without having to do the work of writing out all the detailed logic of real-life programs and computer systems.

 

• In trying to strike a balance between simplicity and realism I suggest that we can assume each Command//Action is considered 1 game action and said action is considered resolved and accounted for once it has been executed. Just like firing a gun or throwing a punch.

 

• In addition to this I suggest that we are only tracking Process Limit as a means to prevent players from attempting to run a billion programs while controlling a billion drones while maintaining a billion Persistent Actions

 

Basically this is all in place to stop a player from loading up all his persistent actions at the beginning of each run and gaining the advantage of carrying all this locked and loaded for any encounter. That would slow down the game and basically create a bunch of munchkinesque silliness.

 

I hope that answered your question.

 

 

@Interrupt: Sorry if I came off a bit harsh. Now that I understand the rational I full understand. I am always happy to provide another set of eyes, but I'll try to be more restrained than my previous post.

Not at all. I have found your posts to be thoughtful, level, and constructive.

 

I saw no harshness in your comment and genuinely appreciate the help from you and everyone else who is working to make this system fun and functional.

 

Wow some how I had not even thought about that, makes total sense. I would suggest we add something like this to the rules so as to stop any more confusion in the future.

Your attention on this is most appreciated.

 

You have been very helpful in bringing out issues that need more clarity and definition. It is good to have a new set of eyes looking at this.

 

I have had these rules kicking around in my head and in notebooks for years now so some of it makes sense to me but has not yet been written down publicly. Comp and Malek have also been developing and writing a lot together outside of the forum, so we all appreciate the reminder of what should be clarified in the public rules.

 

 

I think that processor limit should be mostly Hardware, as I have no idea how being good at using a computer would allow one to improve its processing power this much.

That's an excellent point, but I have a simple answer for it.

 

Process Limit (Not Processor Limit) measures not just how much your hardware can handle, but also how much the user is capable of keeping track of skillfully. The reason skill factors in just as much is that in places where computers are used extensively, a smart person can gain substantially more efficiency out of their equipment than someone with less skills/experience.

 

I work in such an industry. Two people with exactly the same computer and exactly the same programs given the same set of tasks can vary massively in efficiency. This is where skill comes in. The skilled individual will know small tricks to get more from the same gear - and I am not talking about technical fixes, I am talking strictly know-how.

 

I see it all the time. There are countless methods to achieve the same goal and some are dramatically superior to others. They utilize the same hardware and software, but the methodology is different. THIS is what we are demonstrating with our version of Process Limit.

 

As a specific example, in my studio there is a type of multi-page report that we generate monthly. The method that was utilized before required a computer to run for hours in addition to several additional steps to collect and process the numerous files involved. A new person came on to our team and pointed out that a nearly identical report could be generated by a single menu-click in a different program. Instantly efficiency in that task was increased by 1000x.

 

--->Same hardware. Same software. Different skill. 1000x improvement.

 

 

 

 

 

Remember the things that count towards processor limit are Huge programs not just some little everyday one. If you look at the [Command//Target] list those are all programs. The only time that they take any processing limit is when they are running persistently.

Right. Process Limit essentially measures the total number of things you can juggle before you start having problems. It DOES NOT measure every little thing your equipment does.

 

The amount of Actions Per Round is another form of measurement of how your skills/equipment handle tasks. With this factor we are accounting for how [Command//Actions] are processed in real time and with Process Limit we are accounting for juggling additional layers of strain on the system.

 

Process Limit effectively accounts for how many stacks of [Command//Actions] can be run simultaneously by a given User/System.

 

 

 

 

Process Limit: Must be comprised of both hardware and character skill. The reason for this is that weak hardware is more limited but skilled hackers are crafty in overcoming limitations. This is represented by some permutation of CPU + Interface.

 

If CPU is 0-5 and we use 1/2 Interface that gives us a nice 1-10 Process Limit

 

or…

 

If CPU is 0-10 (which I like) and Interface is 0-10 then we can simply half the result for a nice 1-10 Process Limit.

 

Keeping 5's and 10's would be more elegant for the whole system if possible.

 

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

 

Reliability: I haven't seen nearly as much flux here as you seem to. It works like a gun. If you have hardware which is subject to failure at some point it will fail, reliability is the measure of the system's integrity. Exceeding the Process Limit is one way to do this, fumbling is another. In the case of a fumble there should be a secondary roll (like the standard rules) to check before hardware failure, otherwise its simply a failed roll.

 

The Process Limit is rather easy to exceed actually - remember that any Persistent Actions, Controlled Systems, and Active Programs all count against the total Process Limit. If you try to go into a system with Conceal active (as many would) then you have 1 point against PL. If you maintain a Locate or Scan while you run then that is another 1 or 2. If you keep an ICE-Breaker loaded and ready that is another one. If you have tapped into the security cameras [sensor] or are maintaining an open [Comm] channel or have any [Remote] drones out and about, each of those count as 1 a piece.

 

I have just described an easy 7 points which could count against PL.

 

The goal is not to have the player's deck's crashing all the time, it is to make them think carefully about loading up crap-loads of persistent actions and programs and keeping an eye on every single security system and drone in the area. To me this seems like a moderate and realistic limitation on such activity.

So Basically to go over the processor limit you need to overlock the processor which can have serious problems...

Bingo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Potential rule:

 

Overclocking Processor (CPU) = Tech + Cyberdeck Design (or other applicable tech skill) + D10 vs. 20 + Current CPU.

 

// Requires tools, parts, and a clean static-free environment in which to work. Each point of CPU gained through overclocking subtracts a point of reliability.

It was based on the idea that a deck becomes vulnerable to reliability problems when it's running more persistent actions than the Process Limit allows. That's an interesting idea.

Right. It's realistic too, if you run every program you have and command them all to do something processor heavy you will probably experience some kind of failure. Either one of the programs will stall or the whole machine might freeze up or at the very least it will run at an absurdly slow speed. Any of these would be a big problem while netrunning.

 

IMO, it should work like the Reliability system for guns. UR, ST, VR. In the event of a crash - as a result of failing reliability rolls to made when running more processes than the process limit can handle, there's a small table that determines if it locks up, or something like that.

That sounds about right.

 

It might be a mistake to base it on process limit. Its too specific and... "i'm running 6 processes and my HDD melts? How 1999...". So maybe we just use it for fumbles in general!

Its VITAL to remember that the Process Limit doesn't describe all processes, only the major ones. This is important because we don't want to have to account for every single tiny program, app, or file on a computer but we do want to account for some of them. In order to avoid jokes and misunderstandings like you mention above (har har a computer that can only run 6 things at once?!?) we are specifying the limit of major strains on the system. The Process Limit refers to these and these alone.

 

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

 

Reliability would come into play when the Process Limit is exceeded. The reliability of the system is tested due to physical factors like overheating, or potential short-circuits, or quality of internal components, as well as software factors like permissions conflicts, stack order, buffer overload, cache clearing, or logic failures.

 

The specific nature of the failure is not so important, but rather the fact that any number of things can and will go wrong if the Process Limit is exceeded. This factor adds danger to exceeding Process Limit without dictating that the number is some arbitrary barrier which magically can't be crossed.

First, are these new rules supposed to be compatible with all of IU or just the future setting. The reason that I ask is that it would be weird to have a game set in modern times (for example) and still have a viable target be cyberware, and to just remove it would throw off all the balancing issues that are inherent with the system. I guess you could remove it an reduce the possible points by 10% but that seems very sketchy.

One thing at a time. We will settle netrunning for the Cyberpunk setting first and then worry about other settings later. Likely there should be another target type in its place rather than removing it.

 

 

Second,

Rolling To Hit

Int + Interface + Command + Target + Mods + 1D10 vs DV.

This is not interlock compatible. Most checks are Stat(3-10)+Skill(0-10)+1d10(1-10). This give a very nice possible 4-30 and that is why the DV's are 5, 15, 20, 30 ect. But Int(3-10) + Interface(0-10) + Command(0-5) + Target(0-5) + 1D10 (1-10) gives a range of 4-40. Meaning that now an impossible DV is 40 not 30, and all of the other DV need to be adjusted as well.

I would probably just remove interface from this equation as it is already a component in the command and target and is just being counted twice.

Int(3-10) + Command(0-5) + Target(0-5) + 1D10 (1-10) = range 4-30

You are correct. The original version of the rules is as you describe. This is probably just a typo.

 

Good catch.

 

Style recommendation:

 

We should adopt the common usage of [Command//Target] for the standard Syntax.

 

If we can be consistent in our usage of it, I feel it will probably be easier to follow along as rules develop.

 

Thoughts?

Reliability

 

Malek's Option :

 

 

I'm thinking Reliability should be a value in the stat-line, a cap there. So it's not a +3, its the threshold at which you have to start making Crash saves...

 

i.e. : Your reliability (Rel) value is 3.

 

If you run 4 programs simultaneously*, you are over Theshold, and must make a Crash save.

You must roll 4+ on a D10 each turn you have those 4 programs running.

If you fail, you get a Blue Screen of Death.

You will then need to reset and reload and log back in etc etc etc...

 

*. 4 programs simultaneously could be a huge stack of Persistent-Actions, or it could be the four different programs you've run that turn.

So if you [infiltrate//Modem], then [Query//System], then [Edit//File], then [Cipher//File].....that fourth action not only gets a -6 for being the third extra action, it also triggers a Crash Save.

 

Thoughts?

My first thought is that we already have a Process Limit function and therefore to handle it via Reliability would be redundant.

 

I feel it is a bit too brittle and finicky to have fails after running such a low level of processes and I like having the Runner's skills effect how many processes they can maintain at a time. This keeps with the ethos of skill over hardware. So I suggest we stay with the current Process Limit rule and run reliability as a value to save against failure if certain conditions are met.

 

If you are running over your process limit, you must roll a D10 under a reliability value to prevent some type of freeze, glitch, or total boot from the system depending on the results. This could be spelled out in a chart or it could be GMs choice per situation.

 

CONCEAL!

 

A LOT of attention has been given to this command. So here is an attempt to clarify. There are 2 main forms of using [Conceal].

 

• The first is the Persistent Command form in which you activate [Conceal//User or CPU] on yourself or your kit and maintain it as long as needed. This has the benefit of applying the value which you roll at the start of the Persistent Command to every subsequent Action until that Command is deactivated. The cost of doing this is that it will count against your Process Limit, which may be crucial.

 

• The second form is used after-the-fact on a previous Action or Location or any Target outside of yourself and your CPU. This is like sweeping up your tracks or throwing camouflage netting over vital equipment - it functions as a normal Command//Action and the value that your roll determines the difficulty value for an opponent to Detect the Target in question.

 

• Any Target that is Concealed must first be Detected before any other Command can be applied to it. This has strong defensive applications as your opponent cannot attack what s/he can't see; however, any direct Actions you take against another User or other Detecting Target will immediately negate the need for a Detect command all enable them to Locate you until you successfully re-activate Conceal.

 

• Conceal cannot be stacked. Only 1 value remains in play until that value is defeated or deactivated. The GM may want to keep the results of a Conceal Roll secret so the player can't know how successful her efforts are.

 

• Deactivating a Persistent Action costs 1 Action.

Some ideas that have developed lately:

///////////////////////////////////////////

 

Number of Actions is now limited exclusively by a cumulative -2 to each action rather than a fixed number.

 

(Int + [Command//Target] + Mods + D10 - 2/round) Vs (Standard Difficulty Values 0-30 or Opposed Roll)

 

The first Action is taken at no penalty, but each subsequent action degrades at -2 per round. This will quickly discourage Netrunners from getting too fancy during their turn for they risk potentially lethal failure.

 

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

 

Persistent Commands are [Command//Actions] which are activated and left "on" until they are shut off or fail. Persistent Commands count against your total Process Limit.

 

Process Limit is calculated as (CPU Speed: 0-5) + (1/2 Interface round down: 0-5) = PL: 1-10

 

 Exceeding this Limit immediately forces a reliability check against the CPU you are utilizing to Interface with. Failing a reliability check will cause automatic failure of all actions that turn and possibly losing connection to the Net (save by rolling 1D10 UNDER your PL value).

 

Other factors which count against Process Limit are: Maintaining control of any infiltrated Target, running additional Programs, Using additional ICE or any buffering hardware.

 

 

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

 

Hopefully more to come soon. Please continue discussion in the Discussion Thread

 

 

 

I just joined the site yesterday, was browsing and trying to find ideas for Cyberpunk when I found this site, so hello.

Hello!

 

You came to the right place. Take a look around, get familiar, ask questions, don't feed the locals, carry an extra clip, you'll do just fine.

 

 

Welcome aboard!

 

Hi all from Sydney, Australia .. I am not a spam bot! at least not yet

Hi.

 

Welcome aboard! We're all in some stage of digital decay here anyway…

 

 

W10ec0oe a0oar! e0're1allin 1sme s1ageof di1itaay 10ere an1yway…

 

 

110e0c0e 1a0or0! e'1re1a0lin 11se s01agof1 di01iaay 0e1re n1ywy…

 

 

110e001e a00o10!0 '11r01a00i1n 01s1es101g0of1 di01iay 01rn1yy…

 

 

11010011 100o10!0 '11r010i1n 01s10s101g0of1 1i010a0 011n1y0…

 

 

11010011 10011010 011101001 01101101001 1101000 01111100…

 

 

 

...can I have Breakers, pleeeeease?

Yes of course you may… they are already implied by the system.

 

But we are still figuring out how to walk before we can fly here.

 

 

Pre-programming will be automatic once the component steps are all sorted out. We already said Programming is requisite for setting it up, once we have solid resolution for every command-action you will be able to program and counter-program to you heart's content.

 

Happy?

Are we going to do a separate thread on Firewalls, and Breakers? In game, most of my runners don't use the latter because the sysadmin tends to notice when the 'wall goes down. Instead, find out what kind of Firewall it is, and Edit: (Programmer skill) the packet so it passes through the filters without notice. If you want to actually go in there, and look around, then you'll need a breaker, but it's a lot better stealth to send in a Trojan WORM, and see what it sends back, (Phishing.)

Right.

 

As Psi points out, there are many ways that a player can creatively use this system to achieve their goals, and Run.Net allows for a variety of different commands and choices in doing so.

 

Ultimately we are trying to set out rules for Netrunning with the goal of handling a player's abilities during an actual game. Once that is all hammered out, it should be simple for GMs to allow pre-programming to their heart's content. I personally would probably not go that route too much as it would become just about as fun as actual programming. Like accounting - which would come up for characters managing money, or going to the bathroom - which would come up for characters consuming food; I don't feel it adds much to the fun of the gaming experience and therefore is not my main focus. Basically, if they edit it out of a movie, I probably edit it out of my game for a similar reason - time is precious and spending it on boring tasks is not why me or my players do this hobby. We do it to experience action and drama that can't be duplicated easily in our daily lives.

 

I think its a GREAT idea to require Programming skill in order to set up ICE Breakers. It limits it that much further and it only makes sense to do it this way. I wonder if the number of actions that a breaker can perform should be limited by the Programming skill? Perhaps a total of 2x skill level? In any case this is pretty cool. (And yes, maybe we should set this in its own thread.)

 

MODERATOR: is there any way that we can have all Run.Net specific threads grouped together in their own section?

 

EVERYONE: Does anyone else think this would be helpful in organizing this information?

Great work! I get the chance to talk with Comp and Malek about the system over MSN from time to time and I like where this is going. Here are some thoughts so far:

 

• MU is NOT something to be tracked. The reason I took it out of Run.Net is due to the fact that as memory capacity increases, so does the average memory usage of individual software components effectively leveling the difference, in addition to this it is just a whole lot of accounting which adds NO FUN to the game WHATSOEVER. I have tons of applications on my comp and frequently use many of them at the same time, neither of these choices impacts the functioning of my system enough to warrant the kind of bean counting that MU tracking creates and therefore it should eliminated. (A Terabyte is hardly infinite even by today's standards - we have a 1.5Tb mirrored server with 2 separate 1Tb backup drives at my small 4 person studio and that setup is pushing maximum capacity already)

 

• I would also add "slots" or "ports" to this category. For the very reason that Psi stated. Though it is a realistic problem, any hacker worth their bits will know how to get around this limitation by kit or kludge. If all it takes is carrying a $5 adapter with you, then dammit your netrunner would have 3 on them at all times. More likely they might build one or find some clever way to network other devices to use those ports. Bottom line - its not something that adds dramatic suspense or fun to the game, it only simulates the real-life annoyance of a trip to RadioCyberShack™

 

• Lets keep some reigns on automation. I do like the idea of creating breakers, but I would like to see it HEAVILY limited to avoid a lot of pre-fab programming sessions and push-button results to the game. In real-life™ I sometimes use batch functions in Photoshop, but the reality is that you have to spend time setting it up and testing or it often runs the risk of producing unwanted and costly results. In Run.Net this would be simulated by having the breaker fail if any step in the execution process fails - meaning that they are only effective in limited use and largely too inflexible to be reliable in serious runs.

 

• Due to the above I DO NOT want to see counter-breakers. That could quckly devolve into a long stretch of dice vs dice and suddenly everyone is watching to see who's pre-scripted playbook is more bestest than the other guy's and I find that to be boring, time-consuming, and moving towards the type of thing Run.Net was designed to avoid. If the GM and player WANT this kind of thing lets let it be firmly in the realm of additional rules and leave it out of the standard lexicon.

 

• Stat-line for equipment is teh Win! I was skeptical at first, but Comp has warmed me up to the idea and now it makes hacker equipment feel like combat equipment which is what this system is designed to do - get people thinking as strategically about Net-work as they do Wet-work (see what I did there )

 

• Drop interface mode from the basic stat-line The reason being that there are so many different ways that one will end up interfacing with a specific piece of equipment at different times and there will be enough options available to kludge an interface option together from scene to scent that locking it down in the stat-line is not relevant. If I hack into another person's deck it wont matter to me what their default interface is. If I want to manipulate their interface it only matters what they are using currently and even then, it may not be necessary to achieve my goals.

 

 

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

 

Basically I like a lot of these developments but I would like not to track anything which doesn't contribute to the dramatic action or fun of a game. It must mark a distinct choice to the player not minute degrees of difference. The choice of major processor type has larger ramifications than accounting for memory. The R.N rules already have a system for handling the number of programs a netrunner can utilize at once without resorting to hardware specs - I would prefer to keep it that way.

 

Excellent work though!

I remember hassling my local game shop regularly throughout the years before the upgrade.

 

I remember dreaming about how cool it was going to be when it did come out.

 

I remember coming to terms with the fact that it was just vaporware and would never happen.

 

I remember hearing the rumors that it was in the works and hesitantly let my hopes rise.

 

I remember my friend lending me his copy to read through when it finally did come out.

 

I remember seeing those puke-green dolls and horrific layout…

 

I remember wretching/cringing/gagging/and fuming upon reading (some of) it.

 

I remember consciously deciding that it never existed.

I see your point, Interrupt. You love the idea of full-immersion VR and hackers having to worry about programs jamming them up on the meat side.

Not really. I personally think in terms of command-line netrunning rather than VR. Like I said above, this is an academic question regarding Run.Net since it is agnostic to what the character sees while netrunning.

 

I do believe that VR will be a component in computing once direct neural interface becomes a more of a reality, but I am not partial to it personally. I feel that most hacker types won't use that interface primarily, but that average users most certainly will.

 

As a real life example, I use browser plug-ins that allow me to disable images and flash or examine deeper elements of the pages code. I also tend to use hot-keys more than mouse-clicks. Just because some people do these things doesn't mean that most people do - even if they are better techniques.

 

I see it as an interesting gimmick that really doesn't add anything other than the "coolness" factor for a few limited applications.

 

I think that AR shows a lot more promise for widespread use than VR is all.

Agreed. I wasn't drawing a line between VR and AR due to the fact that they are both visual systems for interacting with the net. I was under the impression that we were discussing the viability of people jacking their minds into computers, which I see as a likely possibility in the future. Whether they see AR or VR when they do is immaterial to me.

 

I find the original netrunning rules in CP 2020 horrible and I blame that on the designers trying to marry the mechanics to the stylistic representation of the net. VR has been pretty cheese-ball in movies and RPGs so far, but if you look at old sci-fi depictions of anything before it actually is invented it ALL looks cheese-ball before it becomes real.

 

As far as netrunning rules go, I prefer to let the GM describe how things look and leave the mechanics to do what they do - which is resolve conflict via numbers.

 

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

 

Bottom line: Corporations will do anything that makes them money. Hackers will do anything that makes them effective.

Well fiber optics are great but there still has to be: 1) an input device that converts the original electrical impulses into light, 2) the media to transmit the signal, 3) an reception/output device that converts the signal back into electrical impulses that the brain can read, and 4) a power supply of some sort that powers the reception/output device. Then you need the same for sending your signals back via fiber optics.

1) this input device doesn't necessarily have to process enough current to be dangerous 2) the media to transmit the signal - the optical fibers - aren't themselves dangerous (AFAIK) 3) the receptor/converter only needs to operate on the level of current that runs through our bodies anyway. As I noted above, we already transfer signals to and from the brain via technology; therefore we have proven this is not necessarily dangerous 4) We have cell-phones, calculators, portable game consoles, iPods, all of these have internal power supplies and despite the fact that they do explode at times, they are marketed and used widely by a rapidly growing population of consumers.

 

Hair-dryers getting wet in bathrooms are deadly too. They haven't been outlawed.

 

Cars cause deaths frequently, don't expect them to disappear.

 

Working on the brain I see like the Human Genome Project. Great stuff, very exciting for science. The problem lies in the fact that while we think we're getting somewhere, we're really just scratching the surface. Remember all of those "junk genes" that you heard about for years and years? Well, they aren't as junky as we thought. Then we found out that genes are a lot more interlinked and multi-purpose than we thought so tweaking something to fix what we thought was simple suddenly cascades into a landslide of genetic clusterfuck. Oops?

And there was once a time when we didn't even know what a gene was - yet now apparently we are mapping them and even "tweaking" them as you say. Your point that they don't have it right (yet) doesn't indicate that it won't happen. On the contrary - the fact that they are that far along mapping genes now when just 100 years ago people still thought lead was good for us and used horses to get around practically dictates that these problems will be solved and sooner than we think.

 

Remember less than 20 years ago you and I wouldn't be having this conversation - the internet only started gaining hold in the market after 1990. What could happen in another 20 years?

 

In this post there are several examples of people underestimating the development and adoption of technology. Why would this be different? Can you prove it?

 

The full emersion and kickin' chicken is great for "lulz and lawsuits" until someone really gets hurt. That truck driver that was virtua-spudding and blew his fuel truck into a school bus full of Obama Elementary's kindergarten class? Probably not going to last long. That socially challenged geek that starved to death? It's kinda funny and sad the first time but once it starts happening regularly and group like "Mothers Against Virtual Reality" start weighing in then you'll see a lot less immersion due to governmental controls. Look at Fisher Price. They just recalled ten million toys because some kids might get hurt on a long shot. How many VR companies are going to stick around with that much liability just waiting to jump down their necks? "Microsoft and Blizzard sued for 10 million dollars each when man craps himself while on Skype due to VR glitch on WoW 5" news at 11...

 

Not so good.

People get really hurt from corporate products EVERY SINGLE DAY and it hasn't stopped most companies from continuing to profit from it. Philip Morris anyone? More people die from Tylenol™ each year than from "terrorism" - do you see that making a dent in Johnson & Johnson's™ earnings?

 

McDonald's makes products that are terrible for people as a rule - no matter how many heart attacks happen, people just keep going back and getting fatter. Booze and cigarettes kill people every day like clockwork - those companies rake in profits. As long as there is profit to be made, companies will sell it - deaths haven't stopped profits before, they are unlikely to in the future.

 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving haven't stopped drinking, they haven't stopped driving, they haven't even stopped drunk driving.

 

Microsoft and Blizzard have each had more than just one person get hurt using their products and they can both laugh off a piddly $10 Mil suit as long as they are the big dogs in their game.

 

Recalls are for PR - many of the things that REALLY kill people go on for years with no recall. Period.

 

When was the last time you heard of a cigarette recall?

 

 

I wish I lived in this world filled with concerned, responsible, frail corporations that you describe, but I just don't see it.

One thing to keep in mind is that most folks are not going to want to be in the full-tilt boogey virtual experience. It's pretty disconcerting, for one thing, and dangerous for another.

I have to respectfully disagree here.

 

Regarding how many people will want to be immersed in the virtual net, I believe the answer is; enough. (In regard to Run.Net, this is an academic question because that system doesn't require virtual immersion.)

 

Evidence that people certainly will want to go virtual is: 1) The meteoric rise of MMORGs like WOW, 2nd Life, Everquest, Ultima Online, etc; 2) The rise of global mobile computing devices 3) the rise in dangerous use of both of the above.

 

Massive online games are the closest thing we have yet to an immersive net and they enjoy a growing base of users and market-share. This may not represent the majority of all people, it may not even be most people who use the net, but it is more than enough for companies to develop it and make money.

 

Mobile devices are increasingly capable and even dependent on the net. People pay a lot of money and companies invest a lot of money in augmented reality applications that simulate a net overlay of physical space.

 

Both of these things have been shown to be dangerous.

 

Infants have been left to die while parents played Everquest a few yards away. Marriages have been wrecked. Jobs lost. People have gone without food or water playing some of these games. These facts certainly show that people do use these technologies in reckless fashion even though some get hurt. Besides the fact that cellular technology was knowingly released for public consumption without passing health&safety testing (it's true) and also the devices themselves occasionally exploding, mobile devices are ubiquitous. Net usage while driving have caused fatal accidents and laws to be passed.

 

Danger to individuals is no obstacle to capitalism. The product will be made. The consumer will be allowed to purchase.

 

(examples of the above principle are too numerous to mention)

 

 

 

Everyone's brain is slightly different and while it's fun to think that doesn't make any difference, it really does.

I agree that brains are different, and that matters - but I don't agree that it matters enough.

 

People are different sizes and dimensions, but that doesn't stop cars, houses, and clothing from being mass-produced and ill-fitting to many. If a company can make it work and make money on it, they don't care about the problems a certain segment of users have. Some people are color-blind now, that doesn't stop filmmakers and web designers from using full color. (pick any handicap for more examples)

 

This is science fiction (for now) but the the concept is very plausible and many components of it are already in place. They can connect optical and audible information directly to the brain now, soon they will send information from one brain to a computer or other brains.

 

 

Also, setting yourself up so that a minor glitch or power spike can keep you from breathing without a machine for the rest of your, probably-short now, life just won't excite most people.

They put safety mechanisms on lighters now. They put "child-proof" caps on pills. They have lap-bars at Disneyland™.

 

Do these things always stop deaths? No.

 

Does that stop the corporations making them? No.

 

Does that stop the people from using them? No.

 

These devices won't be wired into the power grid (they aren't now). In the above post, Teleran Quizari did a good job of explaining why the damage won't be electrical i.e. because it will be fiber-optic instead.

 

Between that and safety features like the Fuse, the direct neural net will be sold to consumers as "reasonably safe to use".

 

 

Does this mean that some console cowboys with low morals and lower self-preservation instincts won't get some crazy custom work done for that extra "oomph"? Of course not. But it does mean that a full-immersion world wide network, or even one for a good-sized metropolitan area, just isn't going to happen.

Exactly. People are going to break off safety gear from their units (like a jailbroken iPhone, or stolen cable). The network will exist just like facebook does now, it will be large because it will be fun and useful. Executives being able to mentally IM their staff. Online gaming (ala X-Box). Netflix/Youtube/Pandora/you-name-it, people eat this stuff up and that will only increase over time. There will be more than a cities worth, there will be whole countries of people online.

 

Think of all the advertising spam that will get injected into their minds!

 

Seizures and other goodies are also really iffy. It'll be so hit and miss, in fact, that it probably wouldn't be researched in any depth as it really doesn't do a lot. Look at it this way. The point of computer security is two-fold, right? 1) Keep unauthorized access as difficult as possible, and 2) track and intercept the people attempting unauthorized access. How does "give them the kickin' chicken for a bit" or "make them crap themselves" add to these endeavors? Where is the return for the millions and millions of dollars spent on the research and development of this stuff when compared to the comparatively low cost of tricking them to stay online long enough for a trace and sending in the big men in black with big black firearms?

Because the ones who will figure out how to do it first will be 17 years old and doing it to show off to their friends or get back at their older brother.

 

You are right about the purpose of computer security. But, just like corporations spend millions of dollars and years of research, developing bleeding-edge security today - teenagers in the future will cut through it like a hot knife through butter… just like they do today.

 

…Lawsuits and teh LULZ will reign.

Well look at you. Now you are using commands, putting together actions, attacking targets, and running programs - Bet you feel pretty tough now, don'tcha? Don't get too cocky there cowboy, you have to have your skills down cold before you get too big for your bits.

There are a lot of different devices and other goodies hooked into the net that can ruin your day and frag that slime wad you call a brain. To get an idea of what is out there, just take a look at your Target List.

//The Target List:

1. File/Database - Set of data contained as a unit for use by program, system, or user
2. Cyber - Hardware that utilizes bio-mechanical interface technology
3. Comm. - Technology designed to enable the communication of 2 or more parties (e.g. phones)
4. Sensor - Hardware designed to gather sensory data (Camera, Microphone, Touch/Heat/Motion sensor, etc)
5. Remote - Mobile system operating under control of user or system from a distance.
6. Cybermodem - Hardware designed to interface a user or system with the Net.
7. Vehicle - System designed to physically transport user or materials
8. Weapon - System designed to cause physical damage
9. System - CPU in control of a given set of parameters
10. User/Runner - Human (or AI) operator connected to a system or hardware

We have already mentioned a few tricks to help you locate, sense, and mess with some of these targets, but that's not the whole story. What happens when some net-enabled device comes to track you down in the meat world? That's a whole different ball game, and something you'd better get familiar with before you learn about it the hard way.

Looking at that list, you can see that several of the targets on it act primarily in meat-space. Specifically; Cyber, Remote, Vehicle, and Weapon. Additionally, some apply to either net-space or meat-space depending on circumstance. These are Comm, Sensor, and User. Bridging the gap between net-space and meat-space is a major strategic focus. If you can't protect your meat, you aren't going to be running the net for very long.

Perhaps where this applies most is with Remotes. These little bastards can combine several features of different technology together into a small and deadly package. Remotes can be used to infiltrate hard-to-reach locations, gain reconnaissance, repair damaged equipment, act as a network relay, or even kill. Learning how to utilize or at least mitigate them is vital if you want to call yourself a netrunner.

Let's cover the basics first.

Like with any target, you will have to get control of it before you can do anything with a remote. This is achieved with the same actions you would use for any target: it has to be Located, then it has to be Infiltrated, and finally it has to be Controlled. There may be more actions required depending on whether or not you know there is a remote around, if it is concealed, if it is secured, and most significantly - if it is being controlled by another User when you go after it. If so, you will have to deal with each of those with further actions before you can get your digital paws on it.


// Example: BoxPhreak knows there is a remote being used to patrol the vault that his team wants to crack. It's his job to neutralize the little bugger before it causes any problems

// ACTION 1: Locate:Remote - This will show him how to access the Remote from the vault's network which he broke into earlier.
(INT (8) + Locate (4) + Remote (4) + 1D10 (8)) = 24 Vs. DV 15) SUCCESS! He find's the control signal for the Remote and can now attempt to Infiltrate it.

// ACTION 2: Infiltrate:Remote - BoxPhreak's system will attempt to use the Remote's signal to break in and take control of the unit
(INT (8) + Infiltrate (5) + Remote (4) + 1D10 (2)) = 19 Vs. DV 20) FAIL BoxPhreak's system crunches away as his synapses speed through the task. He can't seem to calibrate to the Remote's sequencing - he will try again.

// ACTION 3: Infiltrate:Remote - He is simply retrying the previously failed Action
(INT (8) + Infiltrate (5) + Remote (4) + 1D10 (6)) = 23 Vs. DV 20) SUCCESS! He rides the signal to the Remote's processor and succeeds in getting past its standard defences.

// ACTION 4: Control:Remote - Now that he has access to the Remote, it's time to try and Control it
(INT (8) + Control (3) + Remote (4) + 1D10 (8)) = 23 Vs. DV 20) SUCCESS! BoxPhreak has acquired Control of the Remote… at least for now.

// ACTION 5:Control:Remote - BoxPhreak decides to use the remote to help his team break into the vault room from the inside, so he is going to have it walk over to the locked door.
(No roll necessary for this Action) SUCCESS! Since he gained Control of the Remote with his previous action, BoxPhreak is free to use any of the Remote's capabilities as he chooses. However, since Real-Space works at a different speed than Net-Space, the Remote will not resolve those Actions until its own turn in the initiative order. The Remote has its own stats which determine initiative and abilities. This includes how fast it moves and how many Actions the Remote is capable of executing. Any Commands given to the Remote during the Player's turn will be resolved during the Remote's turn after that in the initiative order.

// ACTION 6: Control:Remote - When the Remote reaches the door, BoxPhreak wants it to access the control-panel for the door lock.
(The Roll for this Action will take place during the Remote's turn in the initiative order) The Remote is on it's way towards the door, but BoxPhreak will have to wait for the Remote's turn to see how these last 2 Actions resolve. Anything the Remote can do normally, there is no need to roll for; but using it to break into the door's control-panel is a bit more complicated. Either way, these things will be determined by the stats that the Remote uses.

So if I somehow merge my brain with my computer systems and become a sort of cyborg and spend all day posting would that classify me as a spam bot?

Maybe…

 

But if the posts are good we don't care either way. Welcome Spam Bot!