Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: scotthiller2002@*****.com (Scott Hiller)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Does anyone have a list of possible Matrix Sculpted
Metaphors? Shadowrun mentions a few, but I know that
since they're thematic, that there must be an endless
variety of them.

Also, I find the SR3 Matrix rules a bit confusing, in
the 1st Edition, it was easy enough to map out: You
enter the SAN, then you go to the SPU, a Datastore, a
Slave Node, or the CPU if you're feeling gutsy. And
each area was clearly defined and had their own
paydata and IC.

Can someone help clarify the SR3 Matrix rules by
running me through a basic example? It might also help
if someone could compare the current SR3 rules with
the previous SR1 rules and help me to see how they
differ, and what the SR3 Matrix rules let one do that
the SR1 rules didn't,

Thanks,

Scott



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:16:04 +0200
According to Scott Hiller, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 09:07 the word on
the street was...

> Does anyone have a list of possible Matrix Sculpted
> Metaphors? Shadowrun mentions a few, but I know that
> since they're thematic, that there must be an endless
> variety of them.

They can basically be whatever you want, but IMHO you have to keep in mind
who owns the host and what it's intended for. I highly doubt you're going
to find unintuitive stuff in corporate hosts that are used by the regular
office wage slaves (because that cuts own on efficiency), while hosts set
up by deckers for other deckers could look like _anything_.

> Can someone help clarify the SR3 Matrix rules by
> running me through a basic example? It might also help
> if someone could compare the current SR3 rules with
> the previous SR1 rules and help me to see how they
> differ, and what the SR3 Matrix rules let one do that
> the SR1 rules didn't,

Okay. How about this:

PC: "I phone up my decker contact and ask him to hack into the BigBadCorp
host. Can he find paydata on their genetics research project?"
GM: "It'll cost you a few grand, but he can do it."
PC: "Go for it."

If you want a real rules explanation, it's not actually difficult. All the
decker needs to do is choose a system operation from SR3 or Matrix that he
or she wants to perform, and then roll a Computer skill test. The TN for
this is equal to the system rating mentioned in the write-up of the
operation, minus the rating of the program that's also indicated there.

Then the system rolls a test using its security value (the 5 in "green-5")
against a TN equal to the decker's Detection Factor (= (Masking + Sleaze)
/ 2). If the host has more successes, the operation fails; if the decker
has more successes, it works as described in its write-up. In either case,
add the host's successes to the security tally and look that up in the
security sheaf to find out what the host does in response to the decker.

For example, to get into a host the decker needs to perform a Logon to Host
operation (p. 217, SR3). The TN for this is the host's Access rating,
minus the decker's Deception utility rating. So on a host with Access 12
and the decker having Deception-4, the TN to get onto the host would be an
8. If this is the green-5 host I mentioned earlier, it now rolls 5 dice to
detect the decker.


But I think I figured out some time ago what my problem with the Matrix
rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In future, if I ever get
a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run the Matrix much more
like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings as attributes and
utilities as skills.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: jcotton1@*********.net (jcotton1@*********.net)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 5:53:47 -0400
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> But I think I figured out some time ago what my problem with the Matrix
> rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In future, if I ever get
> a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run the Matrix much more
> like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings as attributes and
> utilities as skills.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change the outcome from being too dependent on
dice rolls?

Joseph M. Cotton
"There are only two stories in all of literature -- a man goes on a journey, and a
stranger comes to town." Leo Tolstoy
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:31:01 +0200
According to jcotton1@*********.net, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 11:53
the word on the street was...

> Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change the outcome from being
> too dependent on dice rolls?

Mostly because the Matrix is _all_ dice rolls. Pretty much every decking
run I've seen consisted of the player deciding what to do, the GM saying
"Roll Computer skill" and rolling some dice as well, and then the desired
result happens (or not), and/or IC attacks. In the "real world", when
characters sneak into buildings (a good analogy, IMHO) the outcome depends
as much on things that no roll is made for, as on their skill tests -- but
in the Matrix, _everything_ needs a die roll, leaving very little room for
creativity or visualization. Sure, you can say that the files the decker
is looking for are locked up in a VR dungeon guarded by a dragon, but this
really differs not one little bit from the files being in a VR filing
cabinet with a guard dog before it.

What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's the physical world. You
don't roll dice to see if a character can walk down the street, so why
should you do so in the Matrix, if the whole (in-character) idea behind it
is to make computer use as close to RL actions as possible?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:34:05 -0600
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Scott Hiller
<scotthiller2002@*****.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a list of possible Matrix Sculpted
> Metaphors? Shadowrun mentions a few, but I know that
> since they're thematic, that there must be an endless
> variety of them.

Pick any movie with heavy theme elements (Troy, Raiders of the Lost
Ark, Stargate, Alien (the Nostromo as the metaphor and the aliens as
the IC), Apocolypse Now, AI, any Pixar movie, Anna and the King, etc).
If your players have seen the movie, half your work is done :)

--
-Graht
Message no. 6
From: jcotton1@*********.net (Joseph Cotton)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:40:25 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gurth
> What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's the
> physical world. You
> don't roll dice to see if a character can walk down the
> street, so why
> should you do so in the Matrix, if the whole (in-character)
> idea behind it
> is to make computer use as close to RL actions as possible?

Hmmmm... Well, I can see your point, *but* if the character was trying
to walk down the street while not being singled out as "not belonging"
by omnipresent cameras everywhere, that might be a tad more
difficult... Which is about what decking into a system is, unless you
have an account. I might could see some situations/actions where, as
a GM, you would be willing to say "this is a trivial job for one of
your skills/resources, it's done" rather than rolling it all out.

> Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Which reminds me, I never got my damn Sqooshy Ball from you when you
were here!!

Joe Cotton
Message no. 7
From: snicker@*********.net (Snicker)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:42:20 -0500
At 04:53 AM 9/15/2004, you wrote:

> > From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> > But I think I figured out some time ago what my problem with the Matrix
> > rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In future, if I ever get
> > a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run the Matrix much more
> > like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings as attributes and
> > utilities as skills.
>
>Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change the outcome from being
>too dependent on dice rolls?


In my most recent campaign, the party decker has no idea of any of the
rules. She just roleplays it. It works.

"You see a guard at the door. He's very cyborg, but looks like a typical
doorman" (Access IC)
"Um... Okay - I wait for him to open the door and slip in with the next
group of data" (Sleaze roll)

It doesn't matter if I have to bend the rules a bit, she's having fun, the
party is riveted, and that's what it's all about.

*snicker*
Message no. 8
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:52:44 +0200
From: "Scott Hiller" <scotthiller2002@*****.com>
>
> Can someone help clarify the SR3 Matrix rules by
> running me through a basic example?

This was done recently on http://forums.dumpshock.com, which has helped me
quite a bit, and I'm gone from Gurth's camp (leave it to NPCs) to a "lets
try it again" camp.

Lars
Message no. 9
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> But I think I figured out some time ago what my
> problem with the Matrix
> rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In
> future, if I ever get
> a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run
> the Matrix much more
> like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings
> as attributes and
> utilities as skills.
>

I find this to be an uncomfortable truth as well. This
creates a system where the Decker with the best
software and deck wins. There doesn't seemt be much
room for sophisticated decking tricks. Modern deckers
get by because they know something that the other
chummer deoesn't, or they exploit some hole.

Considering that the world of Shadowrun has better
security, there seems to be an implication that a
Decker survives by going back to the basics and
keeping things simple.

My deckers made out well by hitting weak systems
stealing utility code and writing a lot of his own ad
hoc programs.

So it can work, it also helps to be a computer geek in
real life.
Message no. 10
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to jcotton1@*********.net, on Wednesday 15
> September 2004 11:53
> the word on the street was...
>
> > Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change
> the outcome from being
> > too dependent on dice rolls?
>
> Mostly because the Matrix is _all_ dice rolls.
> Pretty much every decking
> run I've seen consisted of the player deciding what
> to do, the GM saying
> "Roll Computer skill" and rolling some dice as well,
> and then the desired
> result happens (or not), and/or IC attacks. In the
> "real world", when
> characters sneak into buildings (a good analogy,
> IMHO) the outcome depends
> as much on things that no roll is made for, as on
> their skill tests -- but
> in the Matrix, _everything_ needs a die roll,
> leaving very little room for
> creativity or visualization. Sure, you can say that
> the files the decker
> is looking for are locked up in a VR dungeon guarded
> by a dragon, but this
> really differs not one little bit from the files
> being in a VR filing
> cabinet with a guard dog before it.
>
> What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's
> the physical world. You
> don't roll dice to see if a character can walk down
> the street, so why
> should you do so in the Matrix, if the whole
> (in-character) idea behind it
> is to make computer use as close to RL actions as
> possible?

Of course you end up treating all Matrix runs like a
UV host - so how do you make a UV host scary. My
characters were always scared of the UV host because
its sim feed was too realistic. I found one once, I
think it was that Alice chick from the 2029 crash. It
takes a lot to get me worried about a character, I was
worried.

- Failhelm
Message no. 11
From: bmonroe@******.fsu.edu (Blair Monroe)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:58:46 -0400
Gurth wrote:

>But I think I figured out some time ago what my problem with the Matrix
>rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In future, if I ever get
>a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run the Matrix much more
>like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings as attributes and
>utilities as skills.
>
>
>
Yeah, it does tend to be a bit dice heavy and very abstracted. The
thing about the newer Decking rules I always disliked is that they
didn't seem to really fit backwards to earlier Matrix rules very well.
I like the idea of using Matrix rules for most of a decker's matrix
activities but shifting back into the earlier style rules where decking
is more tactical than abstract...more like interacting with a real
world... for the occasional critical system. I suppose it could be made
to work, but given that none of my players have any interest in actually
playing a decker I've not compared the rules thoroughly.

-- Blair Monroe

Long time Lurker and SR GM

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+ SR3++ h+ b+++ B++ UB+ IE+(-) RN- W+ gm+ M-(+) P--
Message no. 12
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's
> > the physical world. You
> > don't roll dice to see if a character can walk down
> > the street, so why
> > should you do so in the Matrix, if the whole
> > (in-character) idea behind it
> > is to make computer use as close to RL actions as
> > possible?
>
> Of course you end up treating all Matrix runs like a
> UV host - so how do you make a UV host scary. My
> characters were always scared of the UV host because
> its sim feed was too realistic. I found one once, I
> think it was that Alice chick from the 2029 crash. It
> takes a lot to get me worried about a character, I was
> worried.

There is a difference between 'resolving' scenes more like the world,
and 'describing' scenes more like the real world. Most Matrix hosts
are relatively obvious as CGI, not quite real. You and the player
can dialogue things more freely, stay away from dice rolls as much a
possible, and still have the PC moving through an obvious Matrix
environment. Consider:

GM: Ahead of you, the wall is mirrored. You are guessing the access
point has loaded some barrier IC since the system alert went out.
Somewhere behind you, you can hear the giggling of the clown with the
knife... probably no more than one or two nodes away. Obviously, its
trace code is not using linear recursion, probably some sort of
cached system snapshot, compared to the current image... following
the things you change rather than you.

Player: Okay... waving my wand, I scatter some pixie dust over the
tiles... fingers flying over the keys as I struggle to get the script
right on the fly... I want to hack the current system image and make
a bunch of random changes in the node... false trails, basically.

GM: <Quietly> Roll Willpower and Computers please. <after results>
Sweating with the effort of fighting the RAS to type, you edit the
utility's executable options, mimicing the system sculpting. The
circus motif is a pain, and your tooth fairy persona filter keeps
lagging as it tries to translate. The giggling is higher pitched
now, and you guess the IC is working through the transfer protocols
to enter this node.

Player: I execute the utility and then dive at the middle mirror,
hoping I remember the door's location correctly.

GM: <quietly> Roll Intelligence and Computers. <after results> The
mirror does not impede your progress, and your Sleaze log updates as
you pass through another set of system handshakes, logging into the
new node in an instant.

This is an example of something we do all the time at my gaming
table. We mostly roleplay the process, with a few quick computer
rolls here and there. The whole thing is described in such a way
that the VR aspect is transparent to what is going on. When a
situation arises that the decker could screw up, or the player wants
some additional info (such as when they are not understanding the
clues provided by the description), then we roll dice more often.

I don't ask for dice rolls in situations where they are clearly
irrelevant. If the PC has ridiculous odds for or against them, I let
roleplaying resolve the scene. Only when random chance plays a
significant role in affecting outcome do I turn to the dice.

Now consider a UV system.

GM: You burst into the room, and instantly vertigo grips you as your
reflection is thrown back at you from dozens of angles. Your pulse
pounds in your ears, sweat dripping into your eyes. How long have
you been running? Seconds...? Hours...? Where is the door? This
is where you came in, you are sure. Yet now there are only mirrors.
And the giggling. Insane, constant, louder as it gets closer. The
clown is getting closer... you can almost feel the razor cold kiss of
its knife across your back.

Player: Umm... I have to throw this clown off somehow... how do I
break the trace?

GM: <quietly> Roll Perception. <after result> The tiled floor of
the funhouse mocks you with its sterile appearance, its apparently
random scattering of white and black squares. Somehow, you know the
tiles are giving away your trail.

Player: I quickly step on as many squares as I can, and then run
towards the mirror that is where I remember the door being.

GM: <quietly> Roll Stealth. Then Intelligence please. <after
results> You notice the chaotic shifts in the pattern on the floor
as you dash about wildly, tiring yourself further. Second before you
are sure the clown will burst into the room and find you, you dive at
the largest mirror. Will it shatter? Will it... you meet no
resistance, and feel only a strange weightlessness as you fall
through into a momentary darkness.

UV systems are more immersive, and there is no transparency. In
fact, whenever the player slips into 'decking' terminology or
mentality, TNs go up and they are slowed down. The fear factor is in
the description, and the knowledge that they are out of their usual
element.

======Korishinzo
--Evil GM and eventual decker :)



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Message no. 13
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:12:11 -0700
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:31:01 +0200
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to jcotton1@*********.net, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 11:53
> the word on the street was...
>
> > Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change the outcome from being
> > too dependent on dice rolls?
>
>[snip]

> What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's the physical world. You
> don't roll dice to see if a character can walk down the street, so why
> should you do so in the Matrix, if the whole (in-character) idea behind it
> is to make computer use as close to RL actions as possible?
>
Because logging onto a system where you're not welcome is always 'dicey'. The
Matrix rules assume that every action you're taking is somehow illegal,
because at every turn you are flouting and twisting the extensive
anti-cracker safeguards built into the system. I've not seen the equivalent
of 'normal' computer use during a SR game yet (with the possible exception of
a DRSL game I ran last night, where I did give the non-decker his stuff for
free because it was public information). That's the real reason for all the
dice rolls, you're in continual combat with the system.
--Anders
Message no. 14
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:32:59 +0200
According to Joseph Cotton, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 15:40 the word
on the street was...

> Hmmmm... Well, I can see your point, *but* if the character was trying
> to walk down the street while not being singled out as "not belonging"
> by omnipresent cameras everywhere, that might be a tad more
> difficult... Which is about what decking into a system is, unless you
> have an account. I might could see some situations/actions where, as
> a GM, you would be willing to say "this is a trivial job for one of
> your skills/resources, it's done" rather than rolling it all out.

True, and I realize the major difference between being in the real world
and being in a computer system is that the computer has a much easier time
tracking everything that's going on in it, so doing unauthorized stuff
should be more difficult in it, while finding things should be easier than
IRL. But trying to make things like that puts you at exactly the place the
SR Matrix rules are: turning everything into a series of dice rolls
without any need for setting the tone, visualization, minor but sometimes
important actions, etc.

> Which reminds me, I never got my damn Sqooshy Ball from you when you
> were here!!

I think bOb is buried somewhere in the back of my wardrobe...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:34:46 +0200
According to Lars Wagner Hansen, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 16:52 the
word on the street was...

> This was done recently on http://forums.dumpshock.com, which has helped
> me quite a bit, and I'm gone from Gurth's camp (leave it to NPCs) to a
> "lets try it again" camp.

Note that my main reason for usually wanting to leave decking to NPCs, is
that it leaves the other players sitting bored around the table while the
decker PC does his thing. The rules being roll-heavy doesn't help, but
that's not my main reason for preferring not to have decker PCs.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:37:41 +0200
According to failhelm, on Wednesday 15 September 2004 17:21 the word on the
street was...

> Of course you end up treating all Matrix runs like a
> UV host

In a way, yes, but the deckers would still know they are in a host rather
than in the real world. For the characters, nothing would change -- for
the players, this approach would mean they get to _roleplay_ the Matrix
much more than they currently can (because it's 99% rollplaying ATM).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:29:56 -0400
On Sep 15, 2004, at 3:07 AM, Scott Hiller wrote:

> It might also help
> if someone could compare the current SR3 rules with
> the previous SR1 rules and help me to see how they
> differ,

SR1: Really bad rules surrounding a completely flawed concept.
SR3: Fairly decent rules surrounding a completely flawed concept.
Message no. 18
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:37:29 -0400
On Sep 15, 2004, at 8:31 AM, Gurth wrote:

> According to jcotton1@*********.net, on Wednesday 15 September 2004
> 11:53
> the word on the street was...
>
>> Perhaps I'm being dense, but how does that change the outcome from
>> being
>> too dependent on dice rolls?
>
> What I want to do is handle the Matrix as if it's the physical world.

Bingo.

See my posts from years ago on the subject:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selmÚwordman
-1006990108440001%40100.100.100.10&rnum=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lward.773384389%40husc7&rnum=4
Message no. 19
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:49:15 +0200
According to Wordman, on Thursday 16 September 2004 03:29 the word on the
street was...

> SR1: Really bad rules surrounding a completely flawed concept.
> SR3: Fairly decent rules surrounding a completely flawed concept.

You forgot VR1.0: Adjustments of SR1 rules that made them even worse,
surrounding a completely flawed concept.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 20
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:56:56 +0200
According to Wordman, on Thursday 16 September 2004 03:37 the word on the
street was...

> See my posts from years ago on the subject:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dawordman
> -1006990108440001%40100.100.100.10&rnum=1

I see you make the same point as I usually do to my group when decking
comes up (for the record, I'd never seen your post before, as I don't read
r.g.f.c :) namely, that the Matrix rules were set up for deckers instead
of for regular users. Some very good points, and a text IMHO everyone who
doesn't like decking should read :)

> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lward.773384389%40husc7&rnum=4

I haven't read this one yet, but plan to.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: wolfjack@********.org (Adam J. Lyle)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:16:47 -0400
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
>
> Can someone help clarify the SR3 Matrix rules by
> running me through a basic example? It might also help
> if someone could compare the current SR3 rules with
> the previous SR1 rules and help me to see how they
> differ, and what the SR3 Matrix rules let one do that
> the SR1 rules didn't,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott
>

While it doesn't compare the SR1/2 rules to the current, SR3, rules
there is a nicely detailed thread on the Dumpshock forums that fulfills
this request:

http://forums-temp.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=90&hl=matrix

Has two examples of runs on it, detailing both the PC side and the
system(GM) side.


-Wolf
Message no. 22
From: wolfjack@********.org (Adam J. Lyle)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:32:10 -0400
<various and much snippage>

> GM: <Quietly> Roll Willpower and Computers please. <after results>
> GM: <quietly> Roll Intelligence and Computers. <after results> The
>
> Now consider a UV system.
> GM: <quietly> Roll Perception. <after result> The tiled floor of
> GM: <quietly> Roll Stealth. Then Intelligence please. <after
>
> =======
> Korishinzo
> --Evil GM and eventual decker :)
>
>

I think I can understand why you are making rolls like this, trying to
make the Matrix more real then anything else, I just can't see why.

This kind of goes against what the Matrix is, a complete hallucination.
Doesn't matter what my meat-body stealth skill is, I am not moving my
arms or legs. Doesn't matter how sharp or good my meat-body eyes are,
here I am using my system's built in tools and utilities.

I always keep in mind the line Morpheus said in "The Matrix":
"Do you really think that their being faster or stronger has anything to
do with their muscles in this place? Do you think that's air your
breathing?"


-Wolf
Message no. 23
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
> I think I can understand why you are making rolls like this, trying
> to
> make the Matrix more real then anything else, I just can't see why.
>
> This kind of goes against what the Matrix is, a complete
> hallucination.
> Doesn't matter what my meat-body stealth skill is, I am not moving
> my
> arms or legs. Doesn't matter how sharp or good my meat-body eyes
> are,
> here I am using my system's built in tools and utilities.
>
> I always keep in mind the line Morpheus said in "The Matrix":
> "Do you really think that their being faster or stronger has
> anything to
> do with their muscles in this place? Do you think that's air your
> breathing?"

Because ostensibly, the UV host is so real that the decker cannot
distinguish between the hallucination and reality. Which means they
are going to try and move their muscles and draw breath. RAS ensures
they won't, but the synaptic activity their attempt causes in the
motor impulse portions of the brain will be picked up and translated
by their interface with their deck. Are they really "sneaking"
through the host? No. Can they tell they are not? No, not at a
reflexive level they can't. I treat UV hosts exactly like first of
the Matrix movies. It looks and feels so real that the decker starts
thinking it is. Sure, rationally they know it is not real, but when
the time comes to jump from one sky scraper to another, they fail.
At least the first few times they try anyway. In the end, it is the
blurring lines between meat and matrix that keeps UV hosts flat out
terifying in my games.

======Korishinzo
--Evil GM



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Message no. 24
From: wolfjack@********.org (Adam J. Lyle)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:18:49 -0400
> Because ostensibly, the UV host is so real that the decker cannot
> distinguish between the hallucination and reality. Which means they
> are going to try and move their muscles and draw breath. RAS ensures
>
> =======
> Korishinzo
> --Evil GM
>

And Matrix, p49, backs you up on that. That's what I get
for responding to e-mail first thing in the morning before
coffee or food.


-Wolf
Message no. 25
From: scotthiller2002@*****.com (Scott Hiller)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
According to Gurth, on Wednesday, 15 Sep 2004 11:16:04
the
word on
the street was...

They can basically be whatever you want, but IMHO you
have to keep in
mind
who owns the host and what it's intended for. I highly
doubt you're
going
to find unintuitive stuff in corporate hosts that are
used by the
regular
office wage slaves (because that cuts own on
efficiency), while hosts
set
up by deckers for other deckers could look like
_anything_.

> Can someone help clarify the SR3 Matrix rules by
> running me through a basic example? It might also
help
> if someone could compare the current SR3 rules with
> the previous SR1 rules and help me to see how they
> differ, and what the SR3 Matrix rules let one do
that
> the SR1 rules didn't,

Okay. How about this:

PC: "I phone up my decker contact and ask him to hack
into the
BigBadCorp
host. Can he find paydata on their genetics research
project?"
GM: "It'll cost you a few grand, but he can do it."
PC: "Go for it."

If you want a real rules explanation, it's not
actually difficult. All
the
decker needs to do is choose a system operation from
SR3 or Matrix that
he
or she wants to perform, and then roll a Computer
skill test. The TN
for
this is equal to the system rating mentioned in the
write-up of the
operation, minus the rating of the program that's also
indicated there.

Then the system rolls a test using its security value
(the 5 in
"green-5")
against a TN equal to the decker's Detection Factor
(= (Masking +
Sleaze)
/ 2). If the host has more successes, the operation
fails; if the
decker
has more successes, it works as described in its
write-up. In either
case,
add the host's successes to the security tally and
look that up in
the
security sheaf to find out what the host does in
response to the
decker.

For example, to get into a host the decker needs to
perform a Logon to
Host
operation (p. 217, SR3). The TN for this is the host's
Access
rating,
minus the decker's Deception utility rating. So on a
host with Access
12
and the decker having Deception-4, the TN to get onto
the host would be
an
8. If this is the green-5 host I mentioned earlier, it
now rolls 5 dice
to
detect the decker.


But I think I figured out some time ago what my
problem with the
Matrix
rules is: they depend far too much on dice rolls. In
future, if I ever
get
a PC decker in my campaign again, I intend to run the
Matrix much
more
like the real world, with the deck's persona ratings
as attributes
and
utilities as skills.

Cool! Thanks, Gurth. I was wondering why all the
systems were so much tougher for a decker to hack,
after reading what you types up, I see I was
forgetting to subtract out the Program Rating the
decker was using! Oops!

Anyway, one more question: In SR1, a Blue System
required at least one success for a decker to
accomplish a task illegally in a system. A Green
System required a minimum of 2 successes, while an
Orange system required a minimum of 3 successes and a
Red System a minimum of 4 successes. Is that still
true in SR3? If not, then how is the color system
used?

Thanks!

-Scott Hiller



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Message no. 26
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:25:05 +0200
According to Adam J. Lyle, on Thursday 16 September 2004 13:32 the word on
the street was...

> This kind of goes against what the Matrix is, a complete hallucination.
> Doesn't matter what my meat-body stealth skill is, I am not moving my
> arms or legs. Doesn't matter how sharp or good my meat-body eyes are,
> here I am using my system's built in tools and utilities.

That's why I'm thinking of using utilities as if they were skills, instead
of using actual skills (although those would get used in a UV host).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 27
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:42:46 +0200
According to Scott Hiller, on Friday 17 September 2004 05:52 the word on
the street was...

> Cool! Thanks, Gurth. I was wondering why all the
> systems were so much tougher for a decker to hack,
> after reading what you types up, I see I was
> forgetting to subtract out the Program Rating the
> decker was using! Oops!

That would be making things difficult for the decker, yes :)

> If not, then how is the color system used?

Mostly as an indicator of how tightly the security sheaf is set up -- on a
red host, there will be much less space between steps than on a blue one
(see p. 211, SR3). It also determines IC initiative (p. 223) and one or
two other things.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Als ik efficiënt wilde zijn dan nam ik om te beginnen niet eens
de moeite om vandaag aanwezig te zijn" --G. de Vader
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 28
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:48:00 +0200
Gurth wrote:
> According to Scott Hiller, on Friday 17 September 2004 05:52 the word on
> the street was...
>
>
>>Cool! Thanks, Gurth. I was wondering why all the
>>systems were so much tougher for a decker to hack,
>>after reading what you types up, I see I was
>>forgetting to subtract out the Program Rating the
>>decker was using! Oops!
>
>
> That would be making things difficult for the decker, yes :)
>
>
>>If not, then how is the color system used?
>
>
> Mostly as an indicator of how tightly the security sheaf is set up -- on a
> red host, there will be much less space between steps than on a blue one
> (see p. 211, SR3). It also determines IC initiative (p. 223) and one or
> two other things.

ICE initiative for example, and target number in combat.
Message no. 29
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:43:00 +0200
Scott Hiller wrote:

> Anyway, one more question: In SR1, a Blue System
> required at least one success for a decker to
> accomplish a task illegally in a system. A Green
> System required a minimum of 2 successes, while an
> Orange system required a minimum of 3 successes and a
> Red System a minimum of 4 successes. Is that still
> true in SR3? If not, then how is the color system
> used?

No, one success and you're in...
As Gurth already pointed out it influences the hosts security reaction.
The higher the code the harder it hits back.

ICE initiative raises (p.223), target number of the hacker drops and of
the ICE raises (p.224) and damage level increases (p.224).
Also the step in the security tally sheaf become smaller resulting in
more early occurring countermeasure (means launching of more ICE)
(p.211), and because that is not enough higher dumpshock damage (p.226).

Forgotten anything, perhaps but enough for the start.
Message no. 30
From: scotthiller2002@*****.com (Scott Hiller)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Cool. After reading much of the posts, I've thought of
some possible sculpted themes:
1) Medieval-era
2) fantasy Medieval-era
3) Ancient Rome
4) Ancient Greece
5) Actually ... ANY Historical era
6) Futuristic theme
7) Space Theme
8) Banking Theme
9) Hospital Theme
10) Chicago Prohibition Gangster Theme
11) Mass Transit Theme
12) Wilderness Theme
13) Sea-Faring Theme (Any Era)
14) Pirate Theme
15) Any Fable Theme (ex: Hercules, Robin Hood,
Grendel, etc.)
16) Amusement Park Theme
17) Any Sports Theme
18) Hotel Theme
19) Farm Theme
20) Airport Theme
21) Dance Club Theme
22) A city's LTGs can be made to look like the
physical city (appearing to be actual size).
23) A state's LTG can be made to look like the
physical state appearing to be actual size)
24) Tolkein's Middle Earth
25) The Star Trek Enterprise
26) WW2 Europe
27) Feudal Japan
28) Feudal Europe
29) Medival Russia
30) Israel in the time of Christ
31) the old Aztec or Mayan Empire

Just some ideas ... would anyone like to expound on
these or offer your own?

Also, Virtual Realities 1 gives some examples of UMS
default icons for SANs, DataStores, etc. I assume
SANs, Data Stores, etc. aren't being used anymore and
have been replaced with Access Tests, Slave Tests,
etc. Are there still UMS default icons? And, if so,
then what are they used for? Can someone list off
their names and descriptions for me for Host
Components, LTG Components, RTG Components, and IC
(ARE there UMS icons for IC)?

Thanks,
Scott



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 31
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:28:50 +0200
Scott Hiller wrote:

> <>Cool. After reading much of the posts, I've thought of
> some possible sculpted themes:
> 1) Medieval-era
> 2) fantasy Medieval-era
> 3) Ancient Rome
> 4) Ancient Greece
> 5) Actually ... ANY Historical era
> 6) Futuristic theme
> 7) Space Theme
> 8) Banking Theme
> 9) Hospital Theme
> 10) Chicago Prohibition Gangster Theme
> 11) Mass Transit Theme
> 12) Wilderness Theme
> 13) Sea-Faring Theme (Any Era)
> 14) Pirate Theme
> 15) Any Fable Theme (ex: Hercules, Robin Hood,
> Grendel, etc.)
> 16) Amusement Park Theme
> 17) Any Sports Theme
> 18) Hotel Theme
> 19) Farm Theme
> 20) Airport Theme
> 21) Dance Club Theme
> 22) A city's LTGs can be made to look like the
> physical city (appearing to be actual size).
> 23) A state's LTG can be made to look like the
> physical state appearing to be actual size)
> 24) Tolkein's Middle Earth
> 25) The Star Trek Enterprise
> 26) WW2 Europe
> 27) Feudal Japan
> 28) Feudal Europe
> 29) Medival Russia
> 30) Israel in the time of Christ
> 31) the old Aztec or Mayan Empire
>
> Just some ideas ... would anyone like to expound on
> these or offer your own?
>
> Also, Virtual Realities 1 gives some examples of UMS
> default icons for SANs, DataStores, etc. I assume
> SANs, Data Stores, etc. aren't being used anymore and
> have been replaced with Access Tests, Slave Tests,
> etc. Are there still UMS default icons? And, if so,
> then what are they used for? Can someone list off
> their names and descriptions for me for Host
> Components, LTG Components, RTG Components, and IC
> (ARE there UMS icons for IC)?


Virtual Reality 2 states that there are still UMS systems around,
basically system where the owner can't afford to pay the sculpting, as
creating the metaphor is a complex programming task. So you either have
a sculpted or a UMS system, no default icons in sculpted systems.

There is a UMS icon for every type of IC. If you have SR 2nd Ed. at
hand, take a look at the IC descriptions pp.169-171.
Message no. 32
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:50:10 +1000
> Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>

> UV systems are more immersive, and there is no transparency. In
> fact, whenever the player slips into 'decking' terminology or
> mentality, TNs go up and they are slowed down. The fear factor is in
> the description, and the knowledge that they are out of their usual
> element.
>

IMHO, the fear of a UV system is there because the decker cannot escape,
and doesn't know what he's facing.

Beyond that, it's fairly obvious that you're not just reducing the
number of rolls you make - you've thrown the decking rules out the
window entirely.

I agree with whoever said "throw out the current decking rules, because
they're just an exercise in rolling dice".

Every single decking run, unless the decker is unusually familiar with
shadowrun's decking rules, consists of "log on, find host, log on to
host, find objective, perform objective, leave, leave again". And each
of those involves a dice roll. I mean sure, you can pretty them up, but
what it all comes down to is a slideshow with dice rolls indicating
whether the slides go on to the next or back to the previous.

It's bloody boring. And even if you are familiar with SR's mechanisms,
the routine still doesn't change - because you get access to a bunch of
countermeasures which you will then use every single time, resulting in
more rolling, and just as little tactics or choice.

Being a decker is, at present, a great way to save a contact slot and
simultaeneously waste your fellow players game time, at the price of
lots of money.

Personally - I'd be looking for a system which

1) Allows the other PC's to participate if the decker is going solo
(something which lets them play some of his utilities would be ideal...)

2) Allows a player new to shadowrun, or new to the decking rules, to
relate and be able to contribute

3) Has some interesting differences so it's not just all identical to
the normal stuff.

Number 1 means more effective and more numerous agents and daemons. If a
player routinely goes into the matrix with 5 agents active, then I've
got my entire running group involved in the matrix part of a run. And if
they're doing something in the real world at the time, then the agents
can just be NPC'd.

Number 2 means that matrix problems have to be represented in ways that
a normal person can intuitively grasp. The doorman example presented
earlier is a good one. Additionally, the mechanics have to be identical
to those used in the real world. The decker rolls his 'stealth' utility,
just like he'd use his 'stealth' skill in the real world. A player can
sit down, look at the character sheet for his online persona, and away
he goes.

Number 3... I'm not sure. The ability to alter the persona and agents on
the fly would be a good start.
Message no. 33
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:43:29 +0200
According to James Niall Zealey, on Monday 20 September 2004 01:50 the word
on the street was...

> Beyond that, it's fairly obvious that you're not just reducing the
> number of rolls you make - you've thrown the decking rules out the
> window entirely.

Although IMHO they should be replaced by something that makes things
obviously different from physical actions, but with much the same freedom
of action to them. Thus, my idea of using utilities as skills -- which,
unfortunately, has the drawback that their descriptions probably need to
be totally re-written :(

> Every single decking run, unless the decker is unusually familiar with
> shadowrun's decking rules, consists of "log on, find host, log on to
> host, find objective, perform objective, leave, leave again". And each
> of those involves a dice roll. I mean sure, you can pretty them up, but
> what it all comes down to is a slideshow with dice rolls indicating
> whether the slides go on to the next or back to the previous.

TBH, breaking into a building in the real world is really not that
different: roll dice to sneak past the guards, roll dice to open the lock
on the door, roll dice to see if you spot the important stuff you're
looking for, etc. However, the difference is that in decking _everything_
depends on dice rolls and a few limited choices that affect those dice
rolls, whereas with physical actions you have much more choice and freedom
of action.

> It's bloody boring.

Amen.

> Being a decker is, at present, a great way to save a contact slot and
> simultaeneously waste your fellow players game time, at the price of
> lots of money.

And take it from me, reducing the price of decks and programs doesn't help.
Yes, it will get more people decking, but at the same time makes their
decks so ludicrously powerful that decking becomes even less interesting.

> Number 2 means that matrix problems have to be represented in ways that
> a normal person can intuitively grasp.

Which, if you read the fiction text in all the SR books, is what the Matrix
is supposed to do.

> Additionally, the mechanics have to be identical
> to those used in the real world. The decker rolls his 'stealth' utility,
> just like he'd use his 'stealth' skill in the real world.

Not sure the name would need to be the same (this could easily lead to
confusion -- like rolling the skill instead of the utility rating), but
the mechanics should be, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 34
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:11:49 +0200
Gurth wrote:

>According to James Niall Zealey, on Monday 20 September 2004 01:50 the word
>on the street was...
>
>
>
>>Additionally, the mechanics have to be identical
>>to those used in the real world. The decker rolls his 'stealth' utility,
>>just like he'd use his 'stealth' skill in the real world.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure the name would need to be the same (this could easily lead to
>confusion -- like rolling the skill instead of the utility rating), but
>the mechanics should be, IMHO.
>
>

It would also lead to another problem already addressed somewhere in
this thread:
The task of decking would be even more "just programs".
Someone complained that with the current decking rules the programs are
so important in contrast to the skill and that so many decker just go
and buy their programs instead of programming them themselves.
If you now drop this skill enhancement scheme and make programs work
like skills, the computer skill becomes useless.

I don't like the idea very much... The "you are what you can afford to
buy" theme is already very strong, and I think, it will be amplified.

--
This is free space. Good ideas for a sig are welcome.
Contact:
aim: drawentasqad | icq: 196218950
!jabber: timothyryan@******.org!
Message no. 35
From: milliken@*********.on.net (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:09:50 +1000
Michael writes:

> It would also lead to another problem already addressed somewhere in
> this thread:
> The task of decking would be even more "just programs".
> Someone complained that with the current decking rules the programs are
> so important in contrast to the skill and that so many decker just go
> and buy their programs instead of programming them themselves.
> If you now drop this skill enhancement scheme and make programs work
> like skills, the computer skill becomes useless.

It would work if you factored in Computer as an important skill somehow. Perhaps as a Dice
Pool to augment the rolls for the program "skills"? Or perhaps as a
"Limiting Skill", whereby no program "skill" rating can exceed the
Computer skill of the Decker. There are a number of ways to do it.

--
Damion Milliken E-Mail: DamionMilliken@*****.com.au
--------------+---------------------------------+----------------------
ICQ 177734389 | MSN DamionMilliken@*****.com.au | AIM/Y! DamionMilliken
--------------+---------------------------------+----------------------
Message no. 36
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:26:00 +0200
According to Damion Milliken, on Monday 20 September 2004 13:09 the word on
the street was...

> It would work if you factored in Computer as an important skill somehow.
> Perhaps as a Dice Pool to augment the rolls for the program "skills"?

That reaches back to SRII's magic system, where (as I'm sure I don't need
to tell you :) Sorcery skill wasn't used by itself for just about
anything, but instead formed the Magic Pool.

However, since SR3 stepped away from that, I think Computer skill would
need to be handled in another way than turning it into a dice pool.

> Or perhaps as a "Limiting Skill", whereby no program "skill"
rating can
> exceed the Computer skill of the Decker. There are a number of ways to
> do it.

Maybe a way to do it would be to copy the magic system instead of the skill
system. Programs = spells, so you still need to roll Computer skill to get
successes, while the programs you have determine what you can do.

The immediate problem I see with this, though, is that it doesn't actually
change very much with the current way decking works -- it just substitutes
one system of rolling only tests for another.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 37
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:37:54 -0600
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:26:00 +0200, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Damion Milliken, on Monday 20 September 2004 13:09 the word on
> the street was...
>
> > It would work if you factored in Computer as an important skill somehow.
> > Perhaps as a Dice Pool to augment the rolls for the program "skills"?
>
> That reaches back to SRII's magic system, where (as I'm sure I don't need
> to tell you :) Sorcery skill wasn't used by itself for just about
> anything, but instead formed the Magic Pool.
>
> However, since SR3 stepped away from that, I think Computer skill would
> need to be handled in another way than turning it into a dice pool.
>
> > Or perhaps as a "Limiting Skill", whereby no program "skill"
rating can
> > exceed the Computer skill of the Decker. There are a number of ways to
> > do it.
>
> Maybe a way to do it would be to copy the magic system instead of the skill
> system. Programs = spells, so you still need to roll Computer skill to get
> successes, while the programs you have determine what you can do.
>
> The immediate problem I see with this, though, is that it doesn't actually
> change very much with the current way decking works -- it just substitutes
> one system of rolling only tests for another.

Yes, but the magic system works and works well (except for the odd
idiosyncrocy that's caused by a vague skill description).

<gets an idea>

The nice thing about the spell system is that there is a price to be
paid for power. This could be easily (I think) incorporated into
decking, accept instead of suffering stun damage from "overclocking"
an intrusion program the decker increase the chances of being
noticed/caught. This could be especially tricky when encountering
things like Black IC where the decker either has to keep from waking
it up (use a small but effective program) or killing it instantly but
setting off all the alarms and drawing the attention of the systems
deckers.

Great, now I'm going to have to dust off my Shadowrun books and look
into this ;p

--
-Graht
Message no. 38
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:53:14 +0100
Gurth said something like the following before Outlook mangled it and I had
to practically re-write the whole thing just to make it look like a sensible
mailer's output...

>> Additionally, the mechanics have to be identical
>> to those used in the real world. The decker rolls his 'stealth'
>> utility, just like he'd use his 'stealth' skill in the real world.

> Not sure the name would need to be the same (this could easily lead to
> confusion -- like rolling the skill instead of the utility rating), but
> the mechanics should be, IMHO.

Am I wrong or was this how things worked in an earlier edition - I was
somewhat surprised when I first read the decking rules in 3e and discovered
that utilities reduce target numbers instead of providing dice.

Regardless the decking rules are so bad that they suck and blow at the same
time. As do the vehicle combat rules, magic rules, melee rules and quite a
few other rules :)

Cheers,
Paul
Message no. 39
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:34:09 +0200
According to Paul Squires, on Monday 20 September 2004 19:53 the word on
the street was...

> Gurth said something like the following before Outlook mangled it and I
> had to practically re-write the whole thing just to make it look like a
> sensible mailer's output...

:)

> Am I wrong or was this how things worked in an earlier edition

More or less, yes, but they suffered from the whole node-mapping thing. For
a system that pretends to be set up for average users instead of deckers,
the node business didn't make one bit of sense -- I don't care if my
computer puts the programs I'm working with in its RAM or in a swap file,
as long as it lets me use them. SR1 & II matrix users, though, would need
to go to equivalents of those to perform normal tasks with their
systems...

So yes, in effect I could be proposing to go back to the old way of doing
things, but to remove the bad points of that decking system. My main
problem is that I would like to do it by having to re-write as little as
possible -- but I think it'll be almost impossible to do without writing
up completely new descriptions for all utilities in addition to combat
rules :(

> Regardless the decking rules are so bad that they suck and blow at the
> same time. As do the vehicle combat rules, magic rules, melee rules and
> quite a few other rules :)

So why don't we ditch the SR rules altogether and port the setting to
something else -- say, d20...? ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 40
From: graxius@*****.com (Graxius)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:41:58 -0500
> So why don't we ditch the SR rules altogether and port the setting to
> something else -- say, d20...? ;)

>From the FAQ on official site.
<snip>
Are you going to publish a Shadowrun D20 system?
No. We have no interest in diving into the flood of D20 products since
we are quite happy with the game system as it is. The Shadowrun system
also does not mesh well with the character-class, hit-or-miss,
no-levels-of-success D20 system.
</snip>

IMHO the licensing of D20 to anyone has cause a glut in the RPG world.
The SR rules work for the most part and I am among the many GMs who
fix what I do not like. Decking is fairly secondary (except for the
role play).

Grax
Message no. 41
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod@*******.net)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:45:32 -0700
Paul Squires wrote:
>
> Am I wrong or was this how things worked in an earlier
> edition - I was somewhat surprised when I first read the
> decking rules in 3e and discovered that utilities reduce
> target numbers instead of providing dice.
>

A fact which I actually like.

> Regardless the decking rules are so bad that they suck and
> blow at the same time. As do the vehicle combat rules, magic
> rules, melee rules and quite a few other rules :)
>

I've said it once, and it still holds truth. If so much of the game is not
to your liking, go find another one.

That said, I don't think the Matrix rules are all that difficult. I've
actually been able to teach a player how to play a decker in under half an
hour. It used to be no one wanted to play because it was so difficult. Now
it's easy. I don't see why people have such a problem with it.

Zebulin

Use Firefox!
Message no. 42
From: bandwidthoracle@*********.net (Bandwidth oracle)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:59:09 -0600
On Sep 20, 2004, at 12:45 PM, <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> That said, I don't think the Matrix rules are all that difficult. I've
> actually been able to teach a player how to play a decker in under
> half an
> hour. It used to be no one wanted to play because it was so difficult.
> Now
> it's easy. I don't see why people have such a problem with it.

I've had about the same experience with my group.
No one wanted to play a decker because the rules where hard.
So one day after the session ended I had a little matrix demo prepared.
Now the majority of my group have the compute skills, and there is
a full time decker, and an otaku.

> Zebulin
>
> Use Firefox!
Of course!
Message no. 43
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:57:06 +0200
zebulingod@*******.net wrote:
> Paul Squires wrote:
>>Regardless the decking rules are so bad that they suck and
>>blow at the same time. As do the vehicle combat rules, magic
>>rules, melee rules and quite a few other rules :)
>
> I've said it once, and it still holds truth. If so much of the game is not
> to your liking, go find another one.
>
> That said, I don't think the Matrix rules are all that difficult. I've
> actually been able to teach a player how to play a decker in under half an
> hour. It used to be no one wanted to play because it was so difficult. Now
> it's easy. I don't see why people have such a problem with it.

As I already stated I played Cyberpunk netrunning some time ago, and now
I love the SR3 Matrix rules. What I find very neat is they haven't
changed very much from VR II.

I don't think they are really easy (Cyberpunk rules are), but they are
as easy as you can go without making the rules a laugh-about.

>
> Zebulin
>
> Use Firefox!

and Thunderbird!

--
This is free space. Good ideas for a sig are welcome.
Contact:
aim: drawentasqad | icq: 196218950
!jabber: timothyryan@******.org!
Message no. 44
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:11:00 +1000
> Michael Schmidt <crowley@*********.ch>
>
> It would also lead to another problem already addressed somewhere in
> this thread:
> The task of decking would be even more "just programs".
> Someone complained that with the current decking rules the programs are
> so important in contrast to the skill and that so many decker just go
> and buy their programs instead of programming them themselves.
> If you now drop this skill enhancement scheme and make programs work
> like skills, the computer skill becomes useless.
>
> I don't like the idea very much... The "you are what you can afford to
> buy" theme is already very strong, and I think, it will be amplified.
>

Well, to begin with, resources are basically the currency that you spend
on being a decker, just like magic points are the currency you spend on
being a physad, or force points are the currency you spend on being a
mage. Personally I don't have a huge problem with that.

However - If you noted, in my previous email I wanted something to make
decking "different" from the real world in some way. Some ability to
change the rules. The easiest parallel I can imagine is to the movie
"the matrix". Kung-fu in the matrix is the unarmed combat(kung fu)
skill. The ability to go beyond kung fu and do superhuman stuff is the
application of computer skill (only in shadowrun you know that you're in
the matrix, and you know what you can do with your computer skill).

My initial thoughts are to let deckers cast the equivalent of spells
using their computer skill - either with the same mechanics that mages
do it in the real world OR with some sort of new mechanic.

Physad powers would work as well - say if you could roll computer skill
(probably vs a system-generated TN) and then add 1 magic point worth of
physad abilities per success.

The second is aiming more towards "the matrix". The first is more
towards traditional hacking I think.

A final possibility would be to allow deckers the ability to choose
which form of abilities they use, either based on the deck that they
buy, or just as a one-off character choice.
Message no. 45
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:04:18 -0400
On Sep 20, 2004, at 6:11 AM, Michael Schmidt wrote:

> Someone complained that with the current decking rules the programs
> are so important in contrast to the skill and that so many decker just
> go and buy their programs instead of programming them themselves.

This is actually realistic, IMO. The script kiddie honestly thinks he
is a real hacker. The real hacker honestly thinks the script kiddie is
a waste of skin. However, the script kiddie can mount a DoS attack just
as well as the person who wrote the script the kiddie is using. Now,
the real hacker is probably better at covering his tracks, but that's a
different thing: that's skill. If the real hacker released a "cover
your tracks" script, the script kiddie could do it just as well.

He'd still be a punk-ass, though.

So, basically, I think the programs vs. real skill "problem" is solve
more by in-game social forces than by mechanics.

Wordman
Message no. 46
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:13:45 +0200
According to Graxius, on Monday 20 September 2004 20:41 the word on the
street was...

> > So why don't we ditch the SR rules altogether and port the setting to
> > something else -- say, d20...? ;)
>
> From the FAQ on official site.
[snip]
> IMHO the licensing of D20 to anyone has cause a glut in the RPG world.
> The SR rules work for the most part and I am among the many GMs who
> fix what I do not like. Decking is fairly secondary (except for the
> role play).

ROTFL! May I suggest you read back the logs of the last two weeks or so?
You'll understand better why I made that comment above ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 47
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:15:37 +0200
According to zebulingod@*******.net, on Monday 20 September 2004 20:45 the
word on the street was...

> That said, I don't think the Matrix rules are all that difficult.

Neither do I -- the rules are pretty simple. My problem with them is not
their complexity but their focus on dice-rolling: on a typical decking
run, dice-rolling is _all_ you do.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 48
From: papasm@***.net (Michael Papas)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:32:22 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com [mailto:shadowrn-
> bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Gurth
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:16 AM
> To: Shadowrun Discussion
> Subject: Re: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
>
> Neither do I -- the rules are pretty simple. My problem with them is
not
> their complexity but their focus on dice-rolling: on a typical decking
> run, dice-rolling is _all_ you do.
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

In which case I have a question: When viewed in a specific manner, all
you do in any game of Shadowrun is roll dice. Do you find this
statement to be true or false? (Everything in the game can be broken
down to a dice-roll.)

Or to put it another way, the difference is between 'role-playing' and
'roll-playing' ... and you can do either with any game mechanic.

Just a thought.

...

Personally, I believe the system is fine and that the /setting/ needs a
massive update. I would merge a lot of stuff from Transhuman Space into
the setting to enhance its 'realism' (read: ability to make sense to a
current-day player). I would go into further detail, yet I am not sure
how well such a thing would be received on this list. (Conversions get
'interesting')

- Michael R Papas
"To always strive higher!"
Message no. 49
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:37:58 +0200
According to Michael Papas, on Tuesday 21 September 2004 11:32 the word on
the street was...

> In which case I have a question: When viewed in a specific manner, all
> you do in any game of Shadowrun is roll dice. Do you find this
> statement to be true or false? (Everything in the game can be broken
> down to a dice-roll.)

I thought we already covered this a few days ago? The difference between
Matrix runs and normal B&E-jobs is that in the Matrix, you pretty much
can't do _anything_ without rolling dice for it, and the only things that
matter are those that you roll dice for. Whereas with actions in the
physical world, you can do all sorts of things without needing to roll
dice, and add all kinds of nuances to the things you do roll dice for --
without the need to make an extra roll.

For example: "I duck behind the desk so I have cover from the security
guard shooting at me" is movement and so doesn't require a dice roll.
Whereas "I move to behind the slave node so the IC has a harder time
hitting me" is a combat maneuver and requires an opposed test between
Evasion and Sensors (or Security Value).

The difference, play-wise, is that in real-world actions, the scenery
matters: "The guard aims his SMG at me? Is there something I can hide
behind? Is it big enough to shield me?!" In the Matrix, the equivalent is:
"The IC attacks me? I do a parry maneuver."

> Just a thought.

Not one that I hadn't had, and voiced, before, though :)

> Personally, I believe the system is fine and that the /setting/ needs a
> massive update.

I believe we can use the Matrix as is -- at least, the fictional bits. The
rules system needs to work somewhat differently in order to provide the
same kind of roleplaying possibilities as actions in the physical world
do.

> I would merge a lot of stuff from Transhuman Space

And that is...?

> into
> the setting to enhance its 'realism' (read: ability to make sense to a
> current-day player).

Another of the things I always tell my players is that if you have any kind
of in-depth experience with RL computers, don't play a decker...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 50
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:39:09 -0300
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:37:58 +0200, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Michael Papas, on Tuesday 21 September 2004 11:32 the word on
> th
> I believe we can use the Matrix as is -- at least, the fictional bits. The
> rules system needs to work somewhat differently in order to provide the
> same kind of roleplaying possibilities as actions in the physical world
> do.
>

If I was going to reform the decking system, I'd go the other way -
make it so you can solve any Matrix run with a few die rolls and get
them out of the way as soon as possible so the rest of the group can
play again. This would also require making decks cheap, un-detailed
things, so that deckers don't feel frustrated that they only get to
use their ultra-expensive toys five minutes at a time.


> > I would merge a lot of stuff from Transhuman Space
>
> And that is...?

A nice little science-fiction setting put out by Steve Jackson games,
with a few very recent ideas that hadn't been seen in many places
before. It's a bit too optimistic, but all that's required to turn it
into proper modern cyberpunk is a bit of "focus shift".

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/transhuman/


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 51
From: papasm@***.net (Michael Papas)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:40:09 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com [mailto:shadowrn-
> bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Gurth
> Subject: Re: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
>
> For example: "I duck behind the desk so I have cover from the security
> guard shooting at me" is movement and so doesn't require a dice roll.
> Whereas "I move to behind the slave node so the IC has a harder time
> hitting me" is a combat maneuver and requires an opposed test between
> Evasion and Sensors (or Security Value).
>
> The difference, play-wise, is that in real-world actions, the scenery
> matters: "The guard aims his SMG at me? Is there something I can hide
> behind? Is it big enough to shield me?!" In the Matrix, the equivalent
is:
> "The IC attacks me? I do a parry maneuver."

Ah ... you want a poorly simulated virtual-reality to operate like the
'real world' (tm) instead of like the computer environment it is.
*blinks*

May I suggest taking the rules you are looking for (the situational
modifiers) from the combat/physical-action set and apply them creatively
to the matrix environment? Most effective change, least amount of work.

> Not one that I hadn't had, and voiced, before, though :)

*grins*

I never said it was an original thought, just my take on it. :)

>> Personally, I believe the system is fine and that the /setting/ needs
a
>> massive update.
>
> I believe we can use the Matrix as is -- at least, the fictional bits.
The
> rules system needs to work somewhat differently in order to provide
the
> same kind of roleplaying possibilities as actions in the physical
world
> do.

So add in a variety of situational modifiers that take into account such
things as cover, concealment, distractions, etc... Not hard to come up
with the modifiers either just take the details from the other
rules-systems.

>> I would merge a lot of stuff from Transhuman Space
>
> And that is...?

It is a good hard science fiction game that is powered by the GURPS RPG
(3E), set about a hundred years in the future, with a reasonably
optimistic take on the future (we have not driven ourselves extinct,
*chuckle*). See www.sjgames.com/transhuman/ for basic information.

- Michael R Papas
"To always strive higher!"
Message no. 52
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:16:41 +0200
According to Michael Papas, on Tuesday 21 September 2004 19:40 the word on
the street was...

> Ah ... you want a poorly simulated virtual-reality to operate like the
> 'real world' (tm) instead of like the computer environment it is.
> *blinks*

Did you actually follow this thread, or did you just drop in today? :)

Anyway: Not necessarily. I just want things to be more interesting, and to
do that, I feel it needs to be less strict in what you can and cannot do
-- even if this doesn't really make too much sense when you're working
with a computer (after all, I can't make my mailer calculate 1+1 simply
because it wasn't programmed to do that).

> May I suggest taking the rules you are looking for (the situational
> modifiers) from the combat/physical-action set and apply them creatively
> to the matrix environment? Most effective change, least amount of work.

I have a feeling that won't really work -- which is why I suggested
handling the Matrix just like physical actions, but with the deck's stats
as attributes and utilities as skills. This has its own problems, as has
the "magic model", and needs more thought.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V
Message no. 53
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:19:10 -0400
On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:32 AM, Michael Papas wrote:
> In which case I have a question: When viewed in a specific manner, all
> you do in any game of Shadowrun is roll dice. Do you find this
> statement to be true or false? (Everything in the game can be broken
> down to a dice-roll.)

False. Most Shadowrun sessions I've been in have involved role-playing
planning sessions and interrogations, interrupted by brief combat
scenes.
Message no. 54
From: owen@***.edu.au (Owen McKerrow)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:26:16 +1000
On 22/09/2004, at 10:19 AM, Wordman wrote:

>
> On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:32 AM, Michael Papas wrote:
>> In which case I have a question: When viewed in a specific manner, all
>> you do in any game of Shadowrun is roll dice. Do you find this
>> statement to be true or false? (Everything in the game can be broken
>> down to a dice-roll.)
>
> False. Most Shadowrun sessions I've been in have involved role-playing
> planning sessions and interrogations, interrupted by brief combat
> scenes.

I total agree, a lot of session I have there are no dice roles and its
the players interacting with each other ( and me as the various NPC's )
discussing strategies/tactics for the next run, piecing story elements
together and trying to figure out what's going on. I believe our record
is 4 sessions with no dice roles.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
People who prefer typing to pointing then seem to prefer acronyms to
save typing :-)
-Denis Stanton, On people using Command Line Interfaces
Message no. 55
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:30:12 -0400
On Sep 21, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Gurth wrote:

>> May I suggest taking the rules you are looking for (the situational
>> modifiers) from the combat/physical-action set and apply them
>> creatively
>> to the matrix environment? Most effective change, least amount of
>> work.
>
> I have a feeling that won't really work -- which is why I suggested
> handling the Matrix just like physical actions, but with the deck's
> stats
> as attributes and utilities as skills. This has its own problems, as
> has
> the "magic model", and needs more thought.

For those doing such thought, a suggestion: eliminate the entire
concept of Sleaze. Most of the more annoying rolls in the current
system are because of sleaze and the idea that the decker is "stealing
cycles" from the computer without it knowing she is there. Apart from
being just stupid, this idea brings with it a host of mechanics that
really just don't need to even exist. A combination of a deception
utility and a utility that can erase your tracks would provide the same
basic effect as sleaze, using only two rolls instead of at least one
every few actions.

Wordman
Message no. 56
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:45:18 -0400
Scott Hiller wrote:
> Cool. After reading much of the posts, I've thought of some possible
sculpted themes:
> 1) Medieval-era

...snip...

> 31) the old Aztec or Mayan Empire
> Just some ideas ... would anyone like to expound on these or offer
your own?

The benefit of the virtual reality is that, well, it's virtual. Try
these:

o Under water
o In deep space (no machinery, just celestial bodies)
o Inside the human body
o Within a DNA molecule
o Within an integrated circuit
o Hell
o Heaven
o Inside any side-scrolling video game you can think of
o The planet of the apes (if you use this idea, I require you to have
Charleton Heston screaming "You maniacs!" while pounding the sand).
o Inside the collision detector of a particle collider
o The elemental plane of air (in fact, pretty much any other from
Another Gaming System's _Manual of the Planes_)
o Diskworld
o Any cartoon you can name. (Would you tar that IC for a Scooby Snack?)
o Flatland
o etc.

Wordman
Message no. 57
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:35:42 -0700
Of course, there was the time there were 9 players, 3 GMs and I could have a
nice sidebar decking session while the rest of the game flowed on. That was
good.
--Anders
Message no. 58
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Matrix Sculpting Metaphors
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:06:42 +0200
According to Wordman, on Wednesday 22 September 2004 02:30 the word on the
street was...

> For those doing such thought, a suggestion: eliminate the entire
> concept of Sleaze. [snip] A combination of a deception
> utility and a utility that can erase your tracks would provide the same
> basic effect as sleaze, using only two rolls instead of at least one
> every few actions.

I was thinking of handling this in pretty much the same way as Stealth in
the physical world: you make one roll, and for as long as is reasonable
(that is, until you do something un-stealthy) you keep using the same
result.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
+--The end is here
|-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
|-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-
|
|GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
|O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
|Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
V

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Matrix Sculpting Metaphors, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!