Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 12:55:01 2002
I've got a question for ya chummers!

I've got a fairly new to SR group on myhands. We've played about 3
games now (4 runs) and they've done pretty well. The group consists of a
Aspected Mage, an Adept, a Ganger-type, a "Face" template, a Merc-type, and
a Covert-Ops-type. (Considering my most recent discussions, it was VERY
hard for me to "type" these characters! LOL) Anyways, you may notice that
there is a lack of a decker/rigger. Which is fine with me, I emphasis
role-playing so I didn't want anyone to fell they HAD to play something...ya
know? But they are having the WORST time defeating cameras of all things!
I was just gonna make an NPC decker that freelances with them, so they
can hire on a pro bono basis. But running a NPC decker through the Matrix
to do jobs is going to monotonous if I do it correctly....but if I skim over
it, it's not going to be true to what a decker can/can't do.
So do I just let them be miserable trying to get around cameras? Or do
I give them a non realistic NPC? Or are there any other ideas for defeating
cameras out there? Or any other solutions I'm missing?

Meph
Thanks
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wildside)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 13:55:01 2002
--- Meph <meph@*********.net> wrote:
> I've got a question for ya chummers!
>
> I've got a fairly new to SR group on myhands. We've played about 3
> games now (4 runs) and they've done pretty well. The group consists of
> a
> Aspected Mage, an Adept, a Ganger-type, a "Face" template, a Merc-type,
> and
> a Covert-Ops-type. (Considering my most recent discussions, it was VERY
> hard for me to "type" these characters! LOL) Anyways, you may notice
> that
> there is a lack of a decker/rigger. Which is fine with me, I emphasis
> role-playing so I didn't want anyone to fell they HAD to play
> something...ya
> know? But they are having the WORST time defeating cameras of all
> things!
> I was just gonna make an NPC decker that freelances with them, so
> they
> can hire on a pro bono basis. But running a NPC decker through the
> Matrix
> to do jobs is going to monotonous if I do it correctly....but if I skim
> over
> it, it's not going to be true to what a decker can/can't do.
> So do I just let them be miserable trying to get around cameras? Or
> do
> I give them a non realistic NPC? Or are there any other ideas for
> defeating
> cameras out there? Or any other solutions I'm missing?
>
> Meph
> Thanks
>
> I would let them hire a decker when they feel it is necessary. I was the
GM for a group that had no decker or rigger for a couple of years and it
really led to them coming up with some creative solutions to get around
security systems. It may be a bit frustrating for them but those are the
breaks. The fact that the rigger/decker is someone they have to hire can
be a convenient plot dvice for you.
Don't make the NPC unrealistic. WHen they set out to hire someone,
likely through a fixer, they will have a small tlent pool to choose from.
The price of that talent will be reflected in how good the NPC is. If they
are willing to hire RED WRAITH to run a matrix system then they would
likely have to pay a lot for it.
In terms of ways to get around cameras. Have they tried an improved
invisibility spell or trid phantasm spell(you mention 2 spell casters
above), ruthenium polymers (unlikely due to the cost and this is a rookie
team), creative subtrefuge, scamming their way in. How about a good old
fashion Stealth skill to slip past the camera (not always practical I
realize - like a security camera on an open parking lot but there are
times when it is feasible). As time passes, one of the non-magical types
(or one of the magical types for that matter!)may pick up the Cyberware
and skills to do the Matrix run. In the group that I was GMing for, one of
the players took the bull by the horns and became one of the best DECKERS
on the planet, second only to Fast Jack in my opinion (playing for 12
years and collecting a HELL OF A A LOT of karma and money helps with
that).


I hope this helps in some way.


______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 14:00:01 2002
>
>
> I hope this helps in some way.
>

Yeah most times my old group needed to get past cameras we used a physical
mask spell combined with a con job. Get into their main security area and
shut down what you need (we conned our way into a facility by pretending to
be on a secret inspection...physical masking yourself into an exec pretty
much assures no one is gonna cross you...plus gives a reasonable explanation
as to why you have a street sam or mage with you.)
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Joshua Mun)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 14:30:01 2002
Meph wrote:
>
> I've got a question for ya chummers!
>
> I've got a fairly new to SR group on myhands. We've played about 3
> games now (4 runs) and they've done pretty well. The group consists of a
> Aspected Mage, an Adept, a Ganger-type, a "Face" template, a Merc-type, and
> a Covert-Ops-type. (Considering my most recent discussions, it was VERY
> hard for me to "type" these characters! LOL) Anyways, you may notice that
> there is a lack of a decker/rigger. Which is fine with me, I emphasis
> role-playing so I didn't want anyone to fell they HAD to play something...ya
> know? But they are having the WORST time defeating cameras of all things!
> I was just gonna make an NPC decker that freelances with them, so they
> can hire on a pro bono basis. But running a NPC decker through the Matrix
> to do jobs is going to monotonous if I do it correctly....but if I skim over
> it, it's not going to be true to what a decker can/can't do.
> So do I just let them be miserable trying to get around cameras? Or do
> I give them a non realistic NPC? Or are there any other ideas for defeating
> cameras out there? Or any other solutions I'm missing?
>
> Meph
> Thanks

In a campaign I once played, the gm provided an npc decker. She was a
good decker and quite the looker. Half the team was drooling over her.
In any case, one time we went on a run out of town and left her behind
to dig up any dirt she could. When we came back from the run we found
her dead and the bounty hunter that killed her sitting in the room
waiting. After that we were without a decker but we still had her
tripped out deck. My character decided he would take up the slack and
started learning to be a decker.

The point is that the decker became a great plot device and the
motivation for a character to expand his ability.
--
--------------------
"...Capitalist success [in the new information economy] is possible only
as long as most of the researchers remain 'communists'."
- Dr. Pekka Himanen (The Hacker Ethic)

"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life."
- Bertolt Brecht
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 14:50:01 2002
> I've got a question for ya chummers!
>
> I've got a fairly new to SR group on myhands. We've played about
3
> games now (4 runs) and they've done pretty well. The group consists
of a
> Aspected Mage, an Adept, a Ganger-type, a "Face" template, a
Merc-type,
> and
> a Covert-Ops-type. (Considering my most recent discussions, it was
VERY
> hard for me to "type" these characters! LOL) Anyways, you may notice
> that
> there is a lack of a decker/rigger. Which is fine with me, I emphasis
> role-playing so I didn't want anyone to fell they HAD to play
> something...ya
> know? But they are having the WORST time defeating cameras of all
things!
> I was just gonna make an NPC decker that freelances with them, so
they
> can hire on a pro bono basis. But running a NPC decker through the
Matrix
> to do jobs is going to monotonous if I do it correctly....but if I
skim
> over
> it, it's not going to be true to what a decker can/can't do.
> So do I just let them be miserable trying to get around cameras?
Or
> do
> I give them a non realistic NPC? Or are there any other ideas for
> defeating
> cameras out there? Or any other solutions I'm missing?
>
> Meph
> Thanks

Well as I've got that dilemma as far as the whole matrix thing goes I'll
offer my help, I had one player that was playing a VERY bland meat merc,
no cyber at all, and had taken all of the skills to have a VERY good
start at being a decent combat decker (as in a decker that's just as
good with a gun as he is on the 'trix) I had a one on one talk with him
about something I was wanting to do as a plot device that would actually
help him out and asked him if he'd ever considered playing a hacker, he
wanted to but was worried that since the team he was with got so much
wetwork action that he'd end up getting slaughtered real fast like. I
pretty much explained that your deckers, riggers, and mages are VERY
valuable to the team and that any team worth its cred is more than
willing to protect them so it's actually a safe choice. We came to the
agreement that he'd like to try it and on the next run he sat out as he
was "extracted" and "brainwashed" by a corp to be one of their
"blackops" expendable deckers, he was "saved" before they could turn
him
into one of those loyal till I die zombies and now he's the best decker
that the group's ever ran into. The moral of the story is, talk to your
players and see if any of them have ever contemplated it, also take it
from the perspective that one of THEM could make a second character
that's a decker and then they could have to play the decker when it's
required, not all runs require the decker to be onsite.
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:55:01 2002
> I would let them hire a decker when they feel it is necessary. I was the
> GM for a group that had no decker or rigger for a couple of years and it
> really led to them coming up with some creative solutions to get around
> security systems. It may be a bit frustrating for them but those are the
> breaks. The fact that the rigger/decker is someone they have to hire can
> be a convenient plot dvice for you.

Yeah, that's what I leaning towards now!

> Don't make the NPC unrealistic. WHen they set out to hire someone,
> likely through a fixer, they will have a small tlent pool to choose from.
> The price of that talent will be reflected in how good the NPC is. If they
> are willing to hire RED WRAITH to run a matrix system then they would
> likely have to pay a lot for it.

I actually didn't mean it that way. I meant it like this. If I'm
playing an NPC decker (named Bob now) and I want to run the matrix to
disable a security device. Now a couple of things are necessary. One is
that I need to come up with all the stats for the system JUST for the NPC.
Then, I spend time making my rolls vs my rolls! Then i have to decide is
there is a corp decker in the system and if there is, I need to have combat
between me and me! This just seems crazy. I'm really leaning towrds
simplifing the rolls to streamline it. But then it becomes easier for the
decker to deck! That's what I mean by unrealistic. If it's an NPC I'm not
gonna be so worried about the all the IC and corp deckers, and resolving
combat the correct ways. I just wanna know if he can do it, and how quickly
so we can get back to the game....ya know? Like I said, I'm really big on
role-playing so it just seems to be taking away from the game if I spend a
lot of time on the NPC in the matrix....

Meph
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 16:55:05 2002
> was "extracted" and "brainwashed" by a corp to be one of their
> "blackops" expendable deckers, he was "saved" before they could
turn him
> into one of those loyal till I die zombies and now he's the best decker
> that the group's ever ran into. The moral of the story is, talk to your
> players and see if any of them have ever contemplated it, also take it
> from the perspective that one of THEM could make a second character
> that's a decker and then they could have to play the decker when it's
> required, not all runs require the decker to be onsite.


Yeah, I have one plyaer who WILLING to do that. But it just seems
like I'm punishing her for it. And she's really not even into hackers, just
willing for party balance. And I HATE that! Ya know? I don't wanna make
her play the decker just because we need it! Besides her character is
really cool! I was working on one of my characters that's playing a very
bland merc type, but he does not seem to be remotely willing. But I'm glad
it worked out well.

meph
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:00:01 2002
> The point is that the decker became a great plot device and the
> motivation for a character to expand his ability.


Yeah, like I said, I think that's what I leaning to right now. Oh well,
it works I guess so Hey!

Meph
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:00:08 2002
Ohh, and someone responded to defeating cameras without deckers. I
appreciated that. yeah, our mage was out for the game last week so we
didn't even have magic! THAT sucked! They were trying to figure out how to
defeat two stationary cameras, without leaving a trace they were there. It
actaully turned out to be VERY funny!

Meph
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wildside)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 17:15:01 2002
--- Meph <meph@*********.net> wrote:

I actually didn't mean it that way. I meant it like this. If I'm
> playing an NPC decker (named Bob now) and I want to run the matrix to
> disable a security device. Now a couple of things are necessary. One
> is
> that I need to come up with all the stats for the system JUST for the
> NPC.
> Then, I spend time making my rolls vs my rolls! Then i have to decide
> is
> there is a corp decker in the system and if there is, I need to have
> combat
> between me and me! This just seems crazy. I'm really leaning towrds
> simplifing the rolls to streamline it. But then it becomes easier for
> the
> decker to deck! That's what I mean by unrealistic. If it's an NPC I'm
> not
> gonna be so worried about the all the IC and corp deckers, and resolving
> combat the correct ways. I just wanna know if he can do it, and how
> quickly
> so we can get back to the game....ya know? Like I said, I'm really big
> on
> role-playing so it just seems to be taking away from the game if I spend
> a
> lot of time on the NPC in the matrix....
>

> There is a way in one of the books (probably VR2 or Matrix) to resolve a
matrix run with a few dice rolls.


There is a webste that can be used to generate hosts very quickly. It is:

http://archive.dumpshock.com/ArchiveHostGeneratorIndex.php3

You can use the host generator to make quick systems.





______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Wed Jan 30 21:35:01 2002
Meph writes:

> I was just gonna make an NPC decker that freelances with them, so they
> can hire on a pro bono basis. But running a NPC decker through the Matrix
> to do jobs is going to monotonous if I do it correctly....but if I skim over
> it, it's not going to be true to what a decker can/can't do.
> So do I just let them be miserable trying to get around cameras? Or do
> I give them a non realistic NPC? Or are there any other ideas for defeating
> cameras out there? Or any other solutions I'm missing?

If everything the GM is controlling is to do with NPCs, then there's really
no need to make any dice rolls at all ;-). This is true whether the NPC
interaction in question is the negotiations between world leaders, police
snipers taking out a hostage taker, two 1,000 men armies battling it out, or
an NPC decker raiding a host that the PCs are never going to look inside
anyway.

As such, you as the GM can pretty much declare what happens. If you want to
speed things up, let the decker succeed. If you'd like to throw the PCs an
unexpected challenge, have the decker fail. If you think that the decker
would be capable (knowing how good they are) of defeating the host, then
just let them. If you think that the host is just too hard, then have the
decker fail. Something I often do is assign a probability of success. So a
decent decker would have a 5/6 chance of breaking an average difficulty
host. I roll 1D6, and if the result is a 6, the decker has failed.
Otherwise, the decker succeeds. This method is fast, easy, and still allows
room for some randomness.

As for the cameras, do any of the team have electronics? Most of my runners
spend inordinate amounts of time sneaking past cameras (by investigating the
coverage arcs, timings of sweeps, field of vision of the 'Sentinel Mk II
camera system', and so on). Then they get to the right place at the right
time to either knock out the camera, splice in a loop, or otherwise
deactivate it (possibly without the camera operator observing). In some
ways, I give them a bit of a break, as I often ensure that cameras have
_some_ weakness (eg, they rotate, giving the PCs a 6 second window to get to
a wall that they know has the control cables in. If they can break open the
wall and splice the cables into their already prepared loop footage, then
they can spend some time covering up their wall damage and nobody will be
the wiser).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a25 C++ US++>+++ P+ L+>++ E- W+ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@ M--
V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X+>+++ R++ !tv(--) b+ DI+++@ D G+
e++>++++$ h- r++>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 00:00:00 2002
> If everything the GM is controlling is to do with NPCs, then there's
really
> no need to make any dice rolls at all ;-). This is true whether the NPC
> interaction in question is the negotiations between world leaders, police
> snipers taking out a hostage taker, two 1,000 men armies battling it out,
or
> an NPC decker raiding a host that the PCs are never going to look inside
> anyway.

See that's what I want to do but it sounds to arbitrary....Me and my
plausiblity problems! :> See what the issue is is that I am a player at
heart and have a hard time..'just doing' stuff. Ya know?


>
> As such, you as the GM can pretty much declare what happens. If you want
to
> speed things up, let the decker succeed. If you'd like to throw the PCs an
> unexpected challenge, have the decker fail. If you think that the decker
> would be capable (knowing how good they are) of defeating the host, then
> just let them. If you think that the host is just too hard, then have the
> decker fail. Something I often do is assign a probability of success. So a
> decent decker would have a 5/6 chance of breaking an average difficulty
> host. I roll 1D6, and if the result is a 6, the decker has failed.
> Otherwise, the decker succeeds. This method is fast, easy, and still
allows
> room for some randomness.

See, that sounds good! What I did last game was take the security
rating of the system and did and success test vs the decker's comp skill.
It worked out pretty good. But it just seemed waaaayyyy oversimplifiing.
And making the decker more powerful! But I think I'll just do that. Or use
your prob tests or something similiar. Thanks!

>
> As for the cameras, do any of the team have electronics? Most of my
runners
> spend inordinate amounts of time sneaking past cameras (by investigating
the
> coverage arcs, timings of sweeps, field of vision of the 'Sentinel Mk II
> camera system', and so on). Then they get to the right place at the right
> time to either knock out the camera, splice in a loop, or otherwise
> deactivate it (possibly without the camera operator observing). In some
> ways, I give them a bit of a break, as I often ensure that cameras have
> _some_ weakness (eg, they rotate, giving the PCs a 6 second window to get
to
> a wall that they know has the control cables in. If they can break open
the
> wall and splice the cables into their already prepared loop footage, then
> they can spend some time covering up their wall damage and nobody will be
> the wiser).


Thanks again. Unforntunately they were dealing with stationary cameras.
I thought it would be easier (stupid me!). But you and the others have
definately given me enough to work with! thanks everyone!

meph
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 06:15:05 2002
According to Meph, on Wed, 30 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> > I would let them hire a decker when they feel it is necessary.
>
> Yeah, that's what I leaning towards now!

The only real problem with this is when you want to GM an adventure from a
book, and it requires a decker to do important stuff. Avoiding this is
mostly a matter of picking the right adventures, of course, but if (like my
group a few years ago) you're doing a campaign consisting of all
FASA-published adventures in chronological order, it can be difficult. The
adventure goes from "Get the decker to location X so you can have fun doing
Y in the Matrix" to "Get the decker to location X so you can sit around
while the GM describes how nothing happens in the real world"...

> I actually didn't mean it that way. I meant it like this. If I'm
> playing an NPC decker (named Bob now) and I want to run the matrix to
> disable a security device. Now a couple of things are necessary. One is
> that I need to come up with all the stats for the system JUST for the
> NPC. Then, I spend time making my rolls vs my rolls! Then i have to
> decide is there is a corp decker in the system and if there is, I need to
> have combat between me and me!

Nah, the easy way you handle this is to judge how difficult the system is,
and how good the decker's skills and equipment are. Then, if it's an
unimportant thing, you just tell the players what happens (roll dice and
pretend to look at them if necessary to give the players the idea that this
roll matters). If it's an important situation, you roll the decker's
Computer skill against a TN that reflects the difficulty of him or her
cracking the host, and describe what happens depending on the number of
successes you get.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> 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. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 06:15:13 2002
According to Meph, on Wed, 30 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Yeah, I have one plyaer who WILLING to do that. But it just
> seems like I'm punishing her for it. And she's really not even into
> hackers

Those are usually the best decker-players, IMHO, because they don't have
all this extra "But it works like _this_ IRL!" bagage that people who are
into computers have :)

> just willing for party balance. And I HATE that! Ya know? I
> don't wanna make her play the decker just because we need it!

So do without a decker; if nobody's willing to play one, then don't have
one. I actively discouraged players from playing deckers for years simply
because the rules SUCKED. (Be glad you only started playing with SR3, and
were never exposed to the agony of the original Virtual Realities rules...)
With the revised VR 2.0/SR3/Matrix system (that's also 6+ years old by now)
it's better, but deckers still slow play down tremendously. I've been
trying to think of ways to improve the system to make it less time- and
die-rolling-intensive, but everything I've come up with so far needs more
thought...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> 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: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 06:15:26 2002
According to Damion Milliken, on Thu, 31 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> If everything the GM is controlling is to do with NPCs, then there's
> really no need to make any dice rolls at all ;-). This is true whether
> the NPC interaction in question is the negotiations between world
> leaders, police snipers taking out a hostage taker, two 1,000 men armies
> battling it out, or an NPC decker raiding a host that the PCs are never
> going to look inside anyway.

But if it does affect the PCs, such as whether the NPC police sniper kills the
NPC hostage taker holding a gun to the head of the NPC the PCs have been hired
to rescue unharmed, it helps if you _do_ roll the dice, if only because it
could complicate the PCs' lives :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> 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: shadowrn@*********.com (lance dillon)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 08:05:01 2002
Meph wrote:

> > If everything the GM is controlling is to do with NPCs, then there's
> really
> > no need to make any dice rolls at all ;-). This is true whether the NPC
> > interaction in question is the negotiations between world leaders, police
> > snipers taking out a hostage taker, two 1,000 men armies battling it out,
> or
> > an NPC decker raiding a host that the PCs are never going to look inside
> > anyway.
>
> See that's what I want to do but it sounds to arbitrary....Me and my
> plausiblity problems! :> See what the issue is is that I am a player at
> heart and have a hard time..'just doing' stuff. Ya know?
>
> >
> > As such, you as the GM can pretty much declare what happens. If you want
> to
> > speed things up, let the decker succeed. If you'd like to throw the PCs an
> > unexpected challenge, have the decker fail. If you think that the decker
> > would be capable (knowing how good they are) of defeating the host, then
> > just let them. If you think that the host is just too hard, then have the
> > decker fail. Something I often do is assign a probability of success. So a
> > decent decker would have a 5/6 chance of breaking an average difficulty
> > host. I roll 1D6, and if the result is a 6, the decker has failed.
> > Otherwise, the decker succeeds. This method is fast, easy, and still
> allows
> > room for some randomness.
>
> See, that sounds good! What I did last game was take the security
> rating of the system and did and success test vs the decker's comp skill.
> It worked out pretty good. But it just seemed waaaayyyy oversimplifiing.
> And making the decker more powerful! But I think I'll just do that. Or use
> your prob tests or something similiar. Thanks!
>

What I've done is, on my own time, do the rolls, as it were. Do a timeline of
what the decker does when (on which turn or initiative pass), making init
rolls, success tests, alarms, and whatever. That way, during the actual game,
I just follow my timeline to see what happens, when the camera shuts off,
whatever. If something happens and the decker has to get out earlier, or
something unexpected happens, I just abandon the timeline earlier. It usually
worked out well, though...

-rr
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (LeBlanc, Lange)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 08:45:01 2002
> Yeah, I have one plyaer who WILLING to do that. But
> it just seems
> like I'm punishing her for it. And she's really not even
> into hackers, just
> willing for party balance. And I HATE that! Ya know? I
> don't wanna make
> her play the decker just because we need it! Besides her character is
> really cool! I was working on one of my characters that's
> playing a very
> bland merc type, but he does not seem to be remotely willing.
> But I'm glad
> it worked out well.
>
> meph
>

Like someone mentioned, there are always ways around having a decker.
But you're already learning that, having to do without so far. The group
gets more creative, and they don't bitch as much to us GMs when
something goes wrong because they didn't have a decker to cover their
asses.

My group's been through 7 runs now, a few of them pretty serious ones.
They've managed all without a decker. Now that my wife is back in the
country, and loved the idea of a combo rigger/decker, the group is
probably going to get a little lazy on ideas, now that they can rely on
some matrix and/or drone backup.

A whole new set of rules I have to re-familiarize myself with, but
living with the player has it's advantages that way *L* last run, the
group had to remove all evidence from a computer. The merc and physad
just picked up the damn mainframe and walked out with it. Now decker
(wifey) and I have been spending the downtime between runs cracking it
open ... and she's trying to do it fast before the information on it
becomes dated.

Now I just have to re-learn the driving combat rules, now that the merc
is taking to running down random go-gangers on the highways with his SUV
...
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 11:10:01 2002
>So do without a decker; if nobody's willing to play one, then don't have
>one. I actively discouraged players from playing deckers for years simply
>because the rules SUCKED. (Be glad you only started playing with SR3, and
>were never exposed to the agony of the original Virtual Realities rules...)
>With the revised VR 2.0/SR3/Matrix system (that's also 6+ years old by now)
>it's better, but deckers still slow play down tremendously. I've been
>trying to think of ways to improve the system to make it less time- and
>die-rolling-intensive, but everything I've come up with so far needs more
>thought...

Yeah, the first campaign I ran, I said no mages and no deckers!
Then realized that it suckes without mages AND deckers. So one of my
players played a old timer decker, who used a tortoise terminal and had NO
cyberware. But he was good enough for the basis crap! Just don't ask him
to take out a sec decker! But hey, he wasn't afraid of black IC! :>

Meph
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 11:10:05 2002
>But if it does affect the PCs, such as whether the NPC police sniper kills
the
>NPC hostage taker holding a gun to the head of the NPC the PCs have been
hired
>to rescue unharmed, it helps if you _do_ roll the dice, if only because it
>could complicate the PCs' lives :)

Especialliy with me! I an infamous for botching dice rolls for
NPC...especially the bad guys! :>

Meph
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 11:10:23 2002
> What I've done is, on my own time, do the rolls, as it were. Do a
timeline of
> what the decker does when (on which turn or initiative pass), making init
> rolls, success tests, alarms, and whatever. That way, during the actual
game,
> I just follow my timeline to see what happens, when the camera shuts off,
> whatever. If something happens and the decker has to get out earlier, or
> something unexpected happens, I just abandon the timeline earlier. It
usually
> worked out well, though...


Ohh! Thats a good idea. I think I'll try that. Thanks!

meph
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Mikko V. I. Parviainen)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 12:05:06 2002
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Gurth wrote:
> So do without a decker; if nobody's willing to play one, then don't have
> one. I actively discouraged players from playing deckers for years simply
> because the rules SUCKED. (Be glad you only started playing with SR3, and
> were never exposed to the agony of the original Virtual Realities rules...)

Well, yes, we did play with deckers something like ten years ago. It was a
major pain, but still fun. Especially the "run around all ICE naked with
horrendous dice pool and on-the-fly-written programs" elven decker...

> With the revised VR 2.0/SR3/Matrix system (that's also 6+ years old by now)
> it's better, but deckers still slow play down tremendously.

I started a SR campaign last autumn, after an about six-seven years
break, and disallowed PC deckers.

Magicians are still a bit of a problem, but they haven't abused astral
space yet.

--
+++++++++[>+++++++++<-]>-.<+++++[>+++<-]++>++.<++[>++++<-]+>+.<++[>----
<-]>-.>+++[>++++++++++<-]++>++pare@***.fi<+[>++++<-]>+.->+[>++++[<<--->
>-]<-]<.>>+++++++[<++++++++++>-]++++[<+++++>-]<-.>[-]>+++[>++[<<<---->>
<>>-]<-]<<.+.>[-]++[<++>-]<.++.[-]>[-]++++[<++>-]<++.>>++[>++[>-<-]<--]
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Thu Jan 31 15:30:01 2002
According to Mikko V. I. Parviainen, on Thu, 31 Jan 2002 the word on the street was...

> Well, yes, we did play with deckers something like ten years ago. It was
> a major pain, but still fun.

The strange thing for me was that I could do decking with the SR1 rules fairly well,
but as soon as the VR(1.0) additions were included, the whole mess became just that:
a mess. I wouldn't call it fun, at least not with the VR rules.

> I started a SR campaign last autumn, after an about six-seven years
> break, and disallowed PC deckers.

Before my next campaign, I want to have a simpler set of decking rules, that's more
intuitive and less dependent on dice-rolling to achieve _anything_. Basically, I
would like to make decking similar in feel and amount of dice-rolling to breaking
into a building; so no rolls to see if you notice the obvious, to open unlocked
doors, to do nothing, and so on -- which is the way decking feels to me with the
current rules.

I'm even thinking of using a stack of cards instead of dice and security sheaves, but
I only have maybe the very basics of that worked out.

Another modification I'm going to make is to divide all cyberdeck and program costs
by 100, or even by 1000 (I haven't decided yet). Sure, this makes deckers not very
special, but at least it'll make them more common, and IMHO more realistic.

> Magicians are still a bit of a problem, but they haven't abused astral
> space yet.

Astral space is much easier to deal with than decking, is my experience.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
That's the way that I can't win.
-> 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. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Fri Feb 1 10:05:01 2002
My current campaign involves a DocWagon HRT that gets hung out to dry after
a botched response. Obviously, no decker in the group. The rigger has some
minor computer skill, but no interest in investing in a deck on top of all
his other expenses. The group has two different decker contacts that they
farm out all decking jobs to. One of the contacts only does matrix legwork
(personal paranoia) and the other has very limited equipment (member of a
small gang). I wrestled with how to make the decking completely background
without being completely arbitrary. After all, there is always some random
chance to everthing. I came up with a quick system that works fairly well.
Each system level has a success/failure threshhold, a risk/reward threshold,
and a degree of success/failure. It is all decided with a roll of three or
four dice.

success threshold = number to roll for success
degree of danger = number to roll to get a complication
risk/reward = percentage success, and possibly damage from run

Blue
success threshold: 2 (only a roll of 1 is a failure)
degree of danger: 6 (only a 6 results in complication)
risk/reward: -1/+4
risk: 0-50% [(D6-1)*10] utility/deck damage, sytem alerts, trace IC
success, etc
reward: 50-100% [(D6+4)*10] paydata points, information
retrieval/implant, etc.

Green
success: 3 (1 or 2 is failure)
degree: 5 (5 or 6 is complication)
risk/reward: +0/+3
risk: 20-70% damage, alerts, etc.
reward: 40-90% paydata, info, etc.

Orange
success: 4
degree: 4
risk/reward: +1/+2

Red
success: 5
degree: 3
risk/reward +2/+1

UV
deckers-for-hire do not risk these systems on purpose
if they end up in one it is a story event and the NPC is about to suffer
some serious deus ex machina courtesy of the GM :>

the NPC can subtract some or all of their proffesional rating from the
threshholds and risk factor, and add it to reward factors. minimum
threshold is 2, and min/max percentages are 0/100. if the decker still
fails, they raise the risk factor instead of lowering it. this means that a
decker who subtracts their proffesional rating of 4 from the success
threshold on a red system and still rolls a 1 now faces a 4 in 6 chance of
complication, but with a risk factor of +6. That gives him 70-100% deck
damage, etc!
lets look at a couple of examples of this system

Joe Decker is hired by PCs to run overwatch for their run. The host is
Orange. GM rolls a 5: success. Then he rolls a 2: no complication. Joe
Decker is successfully observing the runners, opening doors and turning off
cameras. Say he rolls a 4 on the reward roll. He has a 60% success. He
covers most of his tracks, altering or deleting logs. The host does not
even know that some of the tampering was done. Had Joe opted to use his
prof. rating of 2 to lower the threshold, he would have also have added 2 to
the reward percentage. Joe did not want to push the envelope, so he just
pulled a decent run.

Joe is hired to track down some info for the runners on a potential target.
He faces a red system. He throws his prof. rating into the mix, needing the
extra edge. He rolls a 2. Oops. He then rolls a 2 again. That is a big
failure. Adding his prof. rating to the risk factor and rolling the die
(4), Joe is looking at an 80% extraordinary failure. All the utilities he
used are fried, his MPCP is degraded , and the corp has a rough idea of
which grid he was decking from. Had he not given his maximum effort, he
could have aborted sooner and suffered much smaller problems.

Joe gets a call for a cake job. Post some annoying grafitti about a corp
veep on some matrix adverts. The decker sleezes onto the blue host without
a sweat. (GM rolls a 3). Then Joe's luck goes away. The GM rolls a 6 on
the degree of danger. He then rolls a 4 on the risk roll. That is a result
of 3, or 30% damage/host successes against Joe. Had Joe rolled a 4 on the
second roll, he would have just had a successful run. He then rolls for
reward, with anywhere from 50-100% success.

Note that Joe can achieve some percentage of success AND complicate as well,
facing some percentage of difficulties. (Thus the potential fourth roll.)

This system has worked well in my games for over four years. It saves me a
lot of time, and keeps the players tense about hired help. NPC deckers
usually charge a certain fee, with complication expenses negotiable on
completion. Sunday night, our last session, the group paid their decker to
scare up some information on a missing person. The dekcer got the info, but
charged an extra grand because an unexpected bouncing host turned red and
ate all her copies of an attack utility with a tar pit.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Message no. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wallace Blade)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Tue Feb 5 06:40:00 2002
Joshua Mun said:
>In a campaign I once played, the gm provided an npc decker. She was a
>good decker and quite the looker. Half the team was drooling over her.
>In any case, one time we went on a run out of town and left her behind
>to dig up any dirt she could. When we came back from the run we found
>her dead and the bounty hunter that killed her sitting in the room
>waiting. After that we were without a decker but we still had her
>tripped out deck. My character decided he would take up the slack and
>started learning to be a decker.
>The point is that the decker became a great plot device and the
>motivation for a character to expand his ability.

Yeap, completely true. I run a campaing in which I handle the npc decker and
his already kindda double-crossed them once when they had to kill one friend
of his and he arranged it all to defend him. This lead to a very interesting
run in which they had some "problems of morals or etics". Anyway, he'll
probably kill himself soon (he's too depressed) and that'll give the
campaing a tight turn, since they've learned to depend on him quite too
much.

Anyway, another possibility is for them to learn electronics and bypass the
security cameras "in sight". Kindda dangerous, but works just fine if you
plan it correctly.

_________________________________________________________________
Con MSN Hotmail súmese al servicio de correo electrónico más grande
del
mundo. http://www.hotmail.com/ES
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wallace Blade)
Subject: No deckers...
Date: Tue Feb 5 06:50:01 2002
Meph said:
> I actually didn't mean it that way. I meant it like this. If I'm
>playing an NPC decker (named Bob now) and I want to run the matrix to
>disable a security device. Now a couple of things are necessary. One is
>that I need to come up with all the stats for the system JUST for the NPC.
>Then, I spend time making my rolls vs my rolls! Then i have to decide is
>there is a corp decker in the system and if there is, I need to have combat
>between me and me! This just seems crazy. I'm really leaning towrds
>simplifing the rolls to streamline it. But then it becomes easier for the
>decker to deck! That's what I mean by unrealistic. If it's an NPC I'm not
>gonna be so worried about the all the IC and corp deckers, and resolving
>combat the correct ways. I just wanna know if he can do it, and how
>quickly
>so we can get back to the game....ya know? Like I said, I'm really big on
>role-playing so it just seems to be taking away from the game if I spend a
>lot of time on the NPC in the matrix....

No, no, if the decker is an npc you shouldn't do tests. Just decide what
he's able to do i an given time, and what is best for the adventure. ;)

_________________________________________________________________
Con MSN Hotmail súmese al servicio de correo electrónico más grande
del
mundo. http://www.hotmail.com/ES

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about No deckers..., 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.