Master_Drow

not to be a jerk. . . . but how much closer are we to a totally awesome PDF of the consolidated rules ?? (fingers crossed)

We could probably produce the basic rules in a week or two, but that would just be the barebones. We have not even started on programs, drone, etc.

 

 

Ok I fully understand the +/- 3 for speed but we need to figure out programs here. I say that instead of every program giving a -1 we make it -1 for every few programs because there are some programs/persistent that need to be run almost all the time, and I don't want to give negatives for a person persistent stealthing as then runners will almost always be getting -1. I say either we use the speed as the number of programs that can be run, or we use 1/2 interface level. Either way limits the number to a fairly low value (which is good) but is still a usable number that runners won't be taking negatives for running basic things, things which should be run at all times on a raid (stealth, IC, cypher/signal, etc.).

Should probably also say that for every program over this limit then the runner takes a negative.

Could also be for ever interval over this limit the runner gets -1. ex limit = 2 for every 2 programs run the runner gets -1. So if the runner is using 1 program he gets -0, 2 programs -0, 3 programs -1, 4 programs -1, 5 programs -2, 6 programs -2, 7 programs -3, etc., etc.

I agree on using Speed -3 to +3 as the range for decks.

 

Actions that give -1 (persistent, more than one round.)

Conceal//Target

Hiding a user or device constantly.

 

Detect//Target

Constantly scanning the area for concealed users or devices.

 

Cypher//Target

Constantly encrypting a signal or device.

 

Control//Remote

Controlling drones over many turns will be persistent, Also limits the number of drones one can command at any given time (unless they are on self AI mode).

 

Scan//Target

Constantly scanning the area for sensors, modems, etc.

 

Most importantly

Run Program//Target

A program that is either giving you a bonus on a check, or is automating certain actions, either one will be a persistent action.

 

Running IC will fall under the program category and since most people like to run IC for defensive purposes this is where the people will be using their persistent actions.

 

Should each cumulative action count up to that Cap? Or only Persistent stuff? Can you run 3 persistent and take 4 actions in a turn? Do instructions from a foreign party count against the limit?

I say no on the normal actions, I look at it this way. If I wanted to conceal myself every round with persistent actions I take a -1 to everything, if I was to take a conceal action every turn then I would be at -2 for every other action that turn. So it is actually better to run persistent actions rather than do the action every turn. I don't see the gameplay reason then to have the cumulative action count against the cap, they already cost twice as much as a persistent because of the -2 to other actions.

As far as intrusions from other parties we run into a pickle. If another party is running a program or a persistent action on your deck then your deck is taking the negative. Luckily in order to run a program it would need to be installed (several minutes of work). Thus you are basically safe from them getting in and running a program on your deck (during a run, long term hack is still possible), but if the program is already installed then they could access it and run it. As far as running persistent actions on your deck I say we should just make all persistent actions run on the deck the user is connected to, makes it easier. And it solves the problem of a bot net, aka using many weak computers vs a single strong one, if one were to rotate between the computers he could get no negatives because he is always running his actions from different comps, thus no -2. However programs could still be installed on the many computers and that would work, but programs cost money, and take time to install, so balanced is achieved.

 

I'm happy to keep the Speed in a -3..+3 range, and use it as an equipment quality bonus.

I like the Cap on persistent actions because it allows a person to stealth, cypher, or run IC without taking a hit to every action. When I use a persistent action I make a note of it and then every time I do ANYTHING I had to remember to check my note for the negative I was getting. It is currently just another modifier that needs to be kept track of. But if we have a cap then the modifier is removed, faster gameplay and less modifiers. (If we use a cap system their should be a way of going over that cap limit.)

 

Using this list

http://vfte.cyberpunk.co.uk/index.php?s=&a...st&p=131790

were they operating outside of their appropriate difficulty steps?

I see your point. These characters were good at net hacking, but they would not be so good in a fistfight or if they were providing medical help.

 

Sequencing remains an issue.

I think I will go make an actions chart, similar to the networking one, this should help clear up that problem.

Ok it came up again in todays play test.

 

Today we were play testing early game characters (interface 4 and 5).

The characters were a 51 point build and a 62 point build (interface 4 and 5 respectively)

The decks were speed +3.

The dice loved us.

 

This was leading to very high rolls, it was rare to get less than a 20 on any given roll. Often the numbers before the dice roll were in the 15 to 17 range.

 

Here is how.

My character had an INT of 7, Interface of 4, deck was speed +3.

Command #

Detect/Conceal 2

Locate 3

Infiltrate/Login 3

Control 1

Secure 1

Cypher 3

Scan 2

Query 1

Edit 2

Run Program 1

 

Target #

File 2

Cyber 2

Comm 2

Sensor 1

Remote 1

Modem 2

Vehicle 2

Weapon 3

System 3

User 2

 

So when I was infiltrating a security camera it was Int 7 + Infiltrate 3 + Sensor 1 + Speed 3 + 1d10

This is equal to 14+1d10 range of 15 to 24.

This is a starting character, it is even underpowered compared to most starting characters as it is only 51 build points. This starting character has no problem with easy check (dc 10), will have no problem with average tasks (dc 15) will make a difficult task (dc 20) 50% of the time, and can almost make a Very difficult task (dc 25). Now this is not counting modifiers, but tonight I even found that the negative never really added up. The most I had was -4 and that was one time, often I was at -1 or -2.

 

It felt to the people who were playing that we were very powerful for starting characters.

Ok so a new network/internet map. This has just about everything that I can think of. Excluding weird cases of network trickery.

(Cellular modems are not included for simplicity, basically they attach to the "wireless router" [i.e. cell tower] and go from there.)

I only detailed the Cybermodem because it is the only one that matters for gameplay. Obviously Servers have CPU, MU, Programs, etc.

 

 

As you can see attacking a person, AI, or program is very odd when you think about it. Instead you could destabilize/crash any part of the local network up to that point and the program/user/AI will be stopped cold. It also shows that in the internet it is very hard to stop a signal by crashing a sever, it will just get routed to another server almost instantly. Even the ISP will have multiple servers and multiple outgoing/incoming connections.

 

The only real reason to attack programs, users, and AI is so you can access the stuff on the cybermodems/servers they are guarding.

Well I can show you how Shadworun does it.

First definitions, so that the information makes sense.

Firewall is the device’s built-in security software. It protects against unauthorized access and fends off hostile access attempts and exploits.

Response is the speed of the device’s hardware. Also speed of the Net connection.

Signal represents the broadcasting power of the device’s hardware. (Range of signal)

System measures the power of the device’s operating system (OS) software.

 

Ok and now the Processor limit rule:

Processor limit:

Every device has a processor limit, the number of programs at which its Response starts to degrade. Like any computer, running too many programs at once can cause a device to slow down. At every multiple of the processor limit, a device’s Response is reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0. For example, if a commlink has a processor limit of 5, then its Response is reduced by 1 for every 5 programs running on it.

Most devices have a processor limit equal to their System rating. Servers have larger processor limits (System x3).

 

Now in no way am I saying we should use this, I'm simply showing how other systems have handled the processor limit problem.

 

Oh and this is how Shadowrun handles having a bunch of items that the GM has to keep track of.

Device Rating:

There are far too many electronics in the world of Shadowrun for a gamemaster to keep track of their individual Matrix attributes. Instead, each device is simply given a Device rating. Unless it has been customized or changed in some way, assume that each of the Matrix attributes listed above for a particular device equals its Device rating. (Basically it is the average of the Firewall, Response, Signal, and System. This average is then used whenever the GM needs the device to do anything. Fast and simple.)

 

Note: Information in this post has been summarized and simplified for a non-shadowruner audience, all shadow runners who have issue with this information are kindly reminded that I don't care.

 

ps Due to popular request more charts coming soon!

I have a question, now that we are using the -2 for extra actions rule, how are we dealing with programs and process limit? I know that many are vehemently against just adding -1 per program so what are we doing?

I'm the one who ends up GMing all the time, and thus imagining how I think things work, but in RL networking is kryptonite. I just cannot do it.

 

I would be interested in creating 'sets' of DV hurdles to represent the progress of a Hack, but again, I think they're a module thing.

As it happens I can do some basic Networking, at least the hardware part of it. So I'll try and explain some.

 

Basic Local Area Network (LAN):

The local network here is often the wireless router or some local switch/server (wired connection). Either way, if it is a public router/switch/server then it should allow all connections and not check them, it is just there to forward the data.

However if one wanted they could hack into the router/switch/server and that would encounter the firewalls they have.

Of course it if is not a public router/switch/server then one would have to hack their way past it and then hack the enemy.

 

Internet Connection:

Here the local network has all of the components described above. But now in order to hack the enemy one has to go through the internet. This is can be a bit tricky as one would need to follow their signal/connection back to their local area network. The internet part is described in the CP2020 rule book, but it is only one option.

 

Cellular Connection:

This connection connects directly to the internet via either local cellular towers or via satellite. Either way is a public connection as long as you have a data plan with a provider.

If the enemy is on a cellular connection it can be hard to get them, the towers/satellite wont provide a problem, but I have no idea how one would connect to the enemies cellular cybermodem. Cellphone connections are weird and I don't really know how they work.

If the person is using a standard (non-cellular) satellite connection then it works just like standard internet connection (see below), the modem will route to the dish and that will connect you to the internet.

 

Complex internet:

So far a I have been showing a simple version. This is a more complex, and correct, version of a wireless connection. The router captures your local wireless broadcast, forwards that data onto the modem which is what connects to the internet. The same patter can be found on the enemies side of the internet.

In the case of wired connections (not wireless) then the router is replaced with a switch and does the same function. (Note: routers can have their own firewalls, switches rarely do [not even sure if they can])

As I mentioned I already have a thread for programming and it is very long so I will not be reposting that here.

http://vfte.cyberpunk.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=8061

 

Basically the drones idea was how to make drones work well with multiple actions.

Drone control is divided into two categories. Direct Control, and Commanding.

 

Direct Control: You take control of the drones every function. You "hop in" to the drone as it were. This means that for every action that you do the drone does exactly one action, but in real time. (I'm not sure if drones can take multiple actions at -3.) Because you control the drone you use your Stat+skill when preforming actions. So you fire a gun, Your REF+Rifle skill+1d10 vs DC. To move the drone require a Pilot check when applicable.

 

Commanding: This works best when using multiple actions. You give a command to a drone, like "fire at that person". The drone will carry out the action as soon as it is able (its initiative) but will use its Stat+Skill. This is very useful when taking multiple actions as you command several drones at a time (one per action). The problem is that drone are not as smart as people and have a tendency to get confused by complex commands and must roll a 1d10 and get equal to or below the drones AI to properly understand the command. (only complex command, GM decision.) Once commanded the drone takes all of the actions needed to accomplish the task, even multiple action that can span over multiple than one round.

 

Independent mode: The drone does what it thinks is best, or does nothing.

 

Drones will need the following stats in order to work. BOD, UND, AI, common skill #, Special skill #, some form of movement. They will also need a speciality, combat drone, repair drone, house servant drone, etc.

 

BOD: Determines how much damage the drone can take, works like normal BOD for damage reduction. Also BOD x2 (or BOD x3) is the maximum amount of SP that the drone can attain.

UND: This is an undeclared stat that is used for the Drones speciality. Combat drones use REF, repair drones use TECH, etc.

AI: Used to interpret the Runners commands, or used to when running in independent mode.

Common skill: The number that is used for most skills. All skills that are not related to the drones primary functions.

Special skill: The number that is used for the drones specialized skills. A repair drone will us this for all repairs. Combat drones will use it for all weapon skills.

 

Movement should be decided by the drone movement type. Such as treads, wheels, gyro, vectored thrust, etc.

One thing i'm a little curious about is how many actions people are actually requiring to carry out hacking.

I had noticed that as well. I have a feeling that it comes from people interpreting the rule differently. Interrupt added the Locate action when he was hacking a modem, but in my game with Malek we only used Locate if we wanted to find the modems location in Real space. Also Interrupt located and hacked into the CPU of the computer after locating and hacking the modem. Again in my game the hackers CPU was his modem and once I had control of the modem I was in control of the system. Now I bet if there were two computers on one modem this would have come up in my game. So really I think their are different interpretations about what one needs to do in order to hack a system. So apparently we need to define the Command//Target list better and outline what needs to be done for a basic hack.

 

Also I think the reason that I was hacking at one action per round is that the game was me vs GM. In that situation I was going for stealth not speed. But, I know that if I was covering cyber-security for a whole team I would be doing multiple actions every turn just to make sure everyone had a secure connection.

 

I'd really like to get onto some basic programming rules.

As far as programs I have started a thread on that in the Run.Net section of the board.

http://vfte.cyberpunk.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=8061

 

I also have a good idea for running drones, but I'm holding off on that until we get this whole round thing figured out.

OK so Interrupt Has a very good point here. And I agree with a lot of it. Still I'm going to address a few concerns.

 

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

Ok I do see the need to increase how fast the hacker can hack, else on a run he would hold up the party as he disappears into cyberspace and hacks a camera. If that takes 8 rounds then the rest of the party are just walking targets for roaming security, and even worse they are waiting around while the Netrunner does his thing.

 

In short I see the point of faster hacking and how it is easily accomplished by actions per round.

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

From my understanding these were 4 different proposals, and were not meant to overlap. (Well, the programs one does overlap.)

 

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.

I am sorry for having to point a finger but I did not see another way to post the information I needed. I have no doubt that you have spent a good deal of time on this. And in no way did I say that any of mine were the best or even should be implemented right away. The point that I was making here is that their are a lot of proposals, one of them should have the answer, can't we just choose one? [on another note I'm making another proposal at the end of the post, so I guess not ]

 

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

Well that explains why I was confused about a few things. Ok, well we can deal with how to add the interface skill to the system later, without it being a SA. (I'm thinking a skill multiplier, due to how hard programing is to learn.)

 

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.

This got me thinking about how to make a combined system of several of the proposals and I'll propose it below.

 

 

 

Ok I know I said we should just choose a system, and I know that most people have voted for the -2 system, and the rest will live with it. But, I have to give at least one more proposal, mostly because I want to at least have the suggestion out there for people to think about.

 

The Idea is this. We can combine several elements from each proposal and get a system that works well, combines hardware and skill, and is not to complex.

 

My time as a D&D player [shoot me later] has shown me that you can have reasonably complex calculations in the game as long as two conditions are met. First, the calculations have to be done infrequently, such as when the character levels up. Second, the result of the calculations has to be a single number that is written down on the character sheet. These two conditions have the benefit of being both complex enough to account for a lot of factors, and being simple enough to use in combat when time matters. Thus my proposal.

 

1) Cybermodems have a quality number. This number ranges from 0 to +5, the everyday computer being 2 (similar to how stats work, with an average person having a 5).

The quality number is how many programs can be run at no penalty. To go over this limit you must roll a value on 1d10 that is equal to or less than your interface skill. If you roll higher than your interface skill the modem crashes. Obsolete modems always have a quality number of zero. (programs do NOT provide a -1 at any point)

 

2) Interface + (Cybermodem quality x2)= Speed.

Speed/4 = actions per round.

The range for actions per round is 1-5. Meaning most Netruns can be accomplished in 2-4 rounds.

This is a modified system from an earlier cyberpunk when it was possible to get multiple actions in a round. And the final number, actions per round, will only change if the person uses a different Cybermodem or gets better at interface. Remember people use their cybermodem to interface with a computer, so the cybermodem is only changed when the runners upgrades their system. Both are actions that are done during down time and will not slow down gameplay when it matters.

 

3)OPTIONAL: Interface type limits the number of actions per round. VR allow one actions per round. Trodes allow three actions per round. DNI has no limit.

 

4) Runners can still take -2 to get extra actions. (even with the optional rule)

 

This is a very simple set of rules. All of the calculations are done before combat, and can actually be done when the players are at home before the session starts. They only bit of complexity is if you add the interface type (which I think is important) but I have set it as an optional rule so that a GM can decided to not use it if they think it will slow down game play.

Best of all is the only modifier needed during combat is the -2 for extra actions!

So with only four steps we can get the whole person-to-net interaction taken care of. In a way that is fairly simple and will not slow down gameplay.

 

 

[This system needs to be tested, because I am worried that a hammer effect might happen when a player has so many actions before the opposing side gets to go.]

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.

 

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. So the Net is now divided into those that can't hack, and those that kick their ass on the net. So really the only purpose of having skill added for some sort of speed on the net is so that 11% of the population can kick the other 89% of the populations ass even harder. (11% is if Netrunner is 1 role out of 9 possible choices, in IU it is even less).

 

At this point I only see two viable options. -2 per action, or my proposal that each type of interface has a different compression factor (DNI faster than trode, which is faster than VR, which easily beats Board). To give the Netrunner role any more power would be like giving every solo a tank. We can't make one role OP just because we like it.

 

At this point I have to say that both options are good (shameless self promote) and we should just choose one.

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.

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.

 

• -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.

I totally agree, as you pointed out Wisdom000 has a great list, and it is very very long. So every action you're like "I do X" and then look over the list for 3 minutes. It really bogs down gameplay. The only option that I saw was that you could just GM rule "ok taking into account everything ill give you +/- Y to action X" but I prefer that the GM not having to guess the 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.

I half agree on the first point, agree on the second, disagree on the third point, and agree on the fourth point.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

4) I agree, 'nough said

 

• 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.

Why wouldn't you use every action? That would be like not firing your gun when your in the middle of a firefight.

• 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.

Who every said this was either wrong or misinterpreted.

• 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.

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.

 

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.

I appreciate the complement (also thanks Malek for the help). 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).

 

 

 

 

Ok now that I have dissected your argument I need to give a proposal else this is just a negative post and not helping the problem.

 

I propose that we have a compression factor for the Net. Every action in R.space should be a number of actions in N.space. Say the compression factor is 3, then every real space turn is equal to 3 Net space turns.

 

The problem is that now you have made a really big mess when you have N.space and R.space interactions. Like controlling turrets, drones, cameras, etc.

The benefit is that now when you log someone off you still have a few rounds to screw with the system/get what you need, before they turn off their modem/deck.

 

 

How about we make speed much easier to use, instead of +1 or +3 comps we just have types. They are as follows.

Board -- keyboard/mouse/monitor. Modern day computer.

AR -- Augment Reality, gloves and goggle/glasses/contacts required to work.

Trode -- Trode net that sits on head and reads the brains signals. Can switch between R.space and N.space as free action.

DNI -- Plugs into brain, but you become catatonic while in Net.

 

With these we can set up APR easily and will be marked on the character sheet, making it one very simple number.

 

Board -- To do any action in Net space is 2 Real space turns

 

AR -- Every action in Net space is 1 Real space turn.

 

Trode -- Every 2 actions in Net Space is 1 Real space turn

 

DNI -- Every 3 actions in Net Space is 1 Real space turn.

I don't mind using it as the process limit as well, but won't that drastically reduce the process limit and doing so add even more modifiers to forget to apply?

How would a -5 Speed processor handle persistent actions?

I realized that I forgot to make this clear. My suggestion is that speed basically means how good your comp is at handling programs/persistant actions. So a +3 comp could handle up to 3 programs/persistant actions with no negatives. But, if the comp runs 4 programs/persistant actions then the user takes a -1 to everything, and if they run 5 programs/persistant actions then they take -2.

 

If your computer is obsolete then it has a hard time running modern programs/persistant actions. So it starts with a negative to all actions. So a -2 computer gives -2 to all actions. If you run 1 programs/persistant actions then you are taking -3 to all actions, if you run 2 programs/persistant actions then you are taking -4.

 

That is why good computers are so expensive, a +5 allows the runner to have up to 5 programs/persistant actions running and will be taking no negative. It is also why old computers are so cheap, because you already start with a negative.

 

 

 

Ok so today malek77 and I ran a game, and then afterwords we realized we had forgotten the speed bonus the entire game. So we came up with a proposal.

 

Speed = the number of persistent programs that can be run for free. No penalty. For every program/persistent action over the speed take the -1 as per normal.

 

Now this is a very good bonus, so we made it very expensive and limited the hell out of it.

Speed can range up to +5

Cost = Speed*Speed*500 (minimum $100)

• +0 = $100
• +1 = $500
• +2 = $2,000
• +3 = $4,500
• +4 = $8,000
• +5 = $12,500

Also obsolete decks are the 100 base cost -25 for every negative

• +0 = $100
• -1 = $75
• -2 = $50
• -3 = $25
• -4 = $free
• -5 = $dirt is more expensive

If you think this is too cheap think of it this way, a +5 deck give you 5 free programs running, obviously very big power. But for the same cost ($12,500) you can get all of your limbs replace with cyber limbs and have a few grand left over.

 

Thoughts/suggestion/flamewar?

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.

I agree that either there should be a larger bonus +2 instead of +1, or increase the number of turns that one can aim to 5. Either way you will still only get a small bonus (2x3=6-1=+5, or 5x1=5-1=+4) that takes several turns to acquire. As you mentioned, the time it takes is the big negative, I just think their needs to be a bit more of a positive so as to balance it out a bit more.

 

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

I am very much in favor of a module like setting. As long as we keep everything to its own module and don't have the rules for one thing appear everywhere. Keep it nice and tidy in other words. [not that R.N has a problem with that, I have just seen other systems get horribly messed up by it.]

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

Another thing that I have seen in other systems is slow hacking vs fast hacking. I am curious if that is going to be addressed.

 

Basically slow hacking is when the hacker tries to find a loophole or flaw in the targets firewall. Generally this means slowing probing the system looking for loopholes, code exploits, or unsecured login ID's. This generally takes hours or days but has the advantage of generating a reusable exploit that works until they system is patched. Another advantage is that this process is stealthy, often meaning the system does not even get to notice a hacker until the hacker uses the exploit, and is in the system, and even then it is much harder than normal.

 

Fast hacking is basically brute force. Here the hacker tries to get past any firewalls by almost any means necessary, normally password breaking or by DDOS attacks. This is much faster, generally round(s), but is much more noticeable and if this process is used the hacker must re-hack the system every time he wants to get in.

 

I know fast hacking is already in R.n but I was curious if slow hacking was going to be incorporated, was going to be held off until an advanced version, or was just not going to be in at all.

 

I'm fairly back on forth on my opinion of slow hacking as I find that it can lead to a slow down of gameplay but is often desired by lower end hackers (such as early game characters) because of the extra security that it offers.

@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.

 

Oh well in that case...

 

 

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 think that Shadowrun had a fairly good mechanic for this called "Brainwashing: programmable ASIST biofeedback". If you remember from Neuromancer/Count Zero simsense is when a person has all of their senses recorded, this allows other people to jack into the persons recored actions/memory and pretend to be that person. Basically it was Television but you were the actor, not just an observer of the actor.

The idea with ASIST was that if you did this enough, in a sensory depravation tank, the subject would take on certain parts of the recored persons personality, and if you did it long enough they would become the person. Often drugs (similar to Braindance) were used to help the processes along.

By doing similar things one could torture a victim with recording of people being shot, light on fire, and what not, all the while the victim is not actually getting shot/burned/etc. The worlds perfect torture.

Yet another use would be to fill the persons brain with weak willed personalities, the idea is that if they absorb any of these, they might be more susceptible to either suggestion or interrogation.

But at no point was it possible to hack directly into a persons long term memory and "download" them. This was accomplish on the GitS universe because of the brain case idea, the brain was encased in a cybermodem. But in cyberpunk the brain is merely attached to a cybermodem and thus limited* access is accomplished.

 

 

*limited compared to GitS.

@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.

 

I would LOVE to try it out.

This Saturday. MSN.

I'll be on ~ 8:00 am, 24-09-2011. (UTC +10)

That means FRIDAY 09-23-11.

3:00PM (UTC -7) for West coast USA, 6:00PM (UTC-4) for East Coast, and Friday 11:00PM London (UTC+1).

Well I for one would love to join in if possible. Just tell me what I need to bring and or read so that I can be ready.

 

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?

First off. Did you mean that you want actions to counts towards the process limit for that round? Isn't that already taken into account in the -2 for doing extra actions in a round?

Also if the OS was to be counted then it would be extra numbers to count. From my understanding the idea is that the hardware can already run the OS easily, but for it to do extra programs on top of the OS that is what leads to the -1. To have the OS give a -1 to all actions just complicates things and means that the hardware/person skill can't even manage the OS for even basic things... Makes no sense IMO.

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.

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.

Yes, skill hardware skill not a software skill.

Distribute your Familiarity Points to the Command list, to represent your character’s skill at performing those tasks.

 

Now, AGAIN - distribute your Familiarity Points to the Target list, to represent your character’s skill at manipulating those targets.

This is pretty good, might consider adding using the world "all", just for crystal clarity

 

Distribute all of your Familiarity Points to the Command list, to represent your character’s skill at performing those tasks.

Now, AGAIN - distribute all of your Familiarity Points to the Target list, to represent your character’s skill at manipulating those targets.

 

This should stop any confusion. In the final version of Run.Net include an example and everything will be crystal clear.

 

Also we need to mention in this section the range for the Comman//Target, aka make sure to mention these are limited to 0-5.

 

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.

I like the CPU being 0-10 as this allows their to be a greater range and won't make any minor modifiers mean so much. (why buy a better CPU when you can just get a simple modifier and be top of the line.)

 

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.

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. Remember the things that count twords 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. Goes something like this

Runner: hey run this [Command//Target] program and give me the data.

OS: Ok here is the data. Now I'm off to do all of my other computery stuff, call again anytime.

Runner: ok now I need to you to run this [Command//Target] program constantly.

OS: You do realize this will cut into my ability to do other things?

Runner: Yes.

OS: Ok here is the data.

OS: Ok here is the new data.

OS: Ok here is the newer data.

OS: Ok here is the newest data.

 

Obviously one is a lot more work on the processor, and I just don't see how making the OS run slightly faster will make that much of a difference for the second case. One is taking up a huge chunk of power just for a microsecond. The other is taking up the huge chunk all of the time. And I don't think optimizing the computer OS will help to the extent that it would be needed.

The only exception that I could see would be to overclock the computer. Which is (mostly) a hardware solution, not a software one.

 

If one were to increase the capabilities of the hardware that makes sense, and their are many ways to do this. Most often people just overclock a slower processor a bit. This can lead to minor increases in speed and heat, however if one really wants to go fast then they overclock and increase the cooling capabilities of the hardware, better heat sinks is one option but it is limited to the cooling factor of air. Some people use water cooling, which can absorb much more heat than air. This has limits as well. After water is oil cooling, then liquid nitrogen, then liquid helium. The a computer that is liquid Helium cooled would probably be the size of a small building, warehouse sized. Liquid nitrogen can be run in a much smaller facility, about the size of a room. Oil cooling and water cooling is general a large fish tank size (the 100 gallon ones for example). The heat sink option just means using a better, more expensive, material for heat sinks and will often not increase the size of the computer. (note: For the liquid cooled computers the size takes into account the space needed to recool the liquid.)

 

Here is story to help you visualize. (Yeah story time!!!)

A CPU is like a secretary. A secretary has a lot of work she has to do every day, that is her job and she has to do it. She has to file papers, type up last meetings minutes, edit papers, take customer calls, send memos, etc. All of these things she has to do and can't not do them.

However if her boss asks her for a cup of coffee she could easily spare a few minutes to go down to Starbucks and get the boss a coffee. Will it disrupt her work, a bit, but she will still have no problem getting all of her work done. Now if the boss asked for her to bring him coffee every five minutes then she would have to try and do all of her other work in between going and getting coffee. This would mean she has to rush the work and she would be running everywhere frantically, she is at her limit. Now if the boss asked her to to get a cup of coffee from Starbucks and a donut from a different store, then she would have even less time. Her filing would fall behind, she wont be able to type up the meeting, take calls, etc. i.e. the secretary is lagging behind her duties.

However if the boss were to give the secretary some crack then suddenly she would be zipping around everywhere and she could do all of the tasks that she needs to do. Until the crack kills her.

 

As you can probably infer this story holds true for CPU. You can ask it to do something one time and it will have no problem. Ask it to do it a million time back to back and now it is lagging behind. But if you overclock then suddenly it can do everything, until it overheats and melts. However unlike the secretary we can cool the cpu down and then it will last longer, until it dies.

Now it is also possible to hire a second person to help the secretary, and by this i mean upgrade your other hardware, more ram might be like asking the secretary to store a bunch of coffee in the mini fridge under her desk, saving her the trip to the coffee place. A better CPU Bus would be like installing an express elevator and getting the secretary a sports car so she can get the coffee really fast. Or hey, why not have two secretaries, multicore CPU's are all the rage. Maybe you hire a delivery guy go and get the coffee, a dedicated CPU has been shown to work, we can even run programs off of special flash drives that come with pseudo-computer parts. All of these, and more, are options. But in order to keep this game simple why not just give the secretary crack?

 

Here is an extreme example of a liquid cooled computer, most are much smaller.

(note: by seconds it means it can crack a home computer password in about 46 seconds)

 

 

Edit: extra info.

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.

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

I have a few things about the rules I would like to know about.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

So say we all.