Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bull bull22@*******.com
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:03:58 -0400 (EDT)
Ok, let me preface this by saying I'm not looking for a discussion here.
this is a topic that gets discussed to death. :]

Instead, I'm looking for, in simple terms, your top 3 reasons for not
using/allowing/having deckers in your Shadowrun games (as PCs, at least).
Please keep these concise (One sentance or so). As I said, we've seen
plenty of reasons hashed out before, I'm just looking to see what the most
common reasons for it are.

I'm going to try and work up a TSS article discussing this and possibly
addressing and/or fixing some of these problems to the best of my ability.

Also, please change the topic line if you decide you do want to discuss
and/or has out this thread (It would greatly help my filtering and it would
be greatly appreciated :)).

Bull

--
Bull -- The Best Ork Decker You Never Met!

bull@***********.com = bull@*********.com = bull22@***********.com
Bull's Place! == *New Address!* == http://bull.dumpshock.com
ICQ: 35931890

====================================================== =
= Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any Fours? = =
======================================================
"She's already a plot device, might as well make it legal!"
-- Gahbardi, Ghede Houngan on buying a ring for his GF
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Message no. 2
From: Alexandre van Chestein havoc@*********.ca
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:57:58 -0400
Bull wrote:
>
> Ok, let me preface this by saying I'm not looking for a discussion here.
> this is a topic that gets discussed to death. :]
>
> Instead, I'm looking for, in simple terms, your top 3 reasons for not
> using/allowing/having deckers in your Shadowrun games (as PCs, at least).
> Please keep these concise (One sentance or so). As I said, we've seen
> plenty of reasons hashed out before, I'm just looking to see what the most
> common reasons for it are.
>
> I'm going to try and work up a TSS article discussing this and possibly
> addressing and/or fixing some of these problems to the best of my ability.
>
> Also, please change the topic line if you decide you do want to discuss
> and/or has out this thread (It would greatly help my filtering and it would
> be greatly appreciated :)).
>
> Bull
>

Righto, lemme contribute right off the bat. :)

Note that I have nothing against deckers; these are just reasons
I don't usually include them in my games. I'd use them fine in decker-
only teams and solo games.

1) The matrix rules give me a grade-A headache.

2) Whilst the decker does his thing, it's hard to keep the rest of
the team going simultaneously; this often results in long periods of
waiting for the non-deckers.

3) I prefer to leave decking to NPCs; the focus of my games, as
far as information searches go, is away from the Matrix without ruling
it
out entirely.


Havoc out.
Message no. 3
From: Steven A. Tinner bluewizard@*****.com
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:11:17 -0400
Why I Don't Allow PC Deckers
by Steven A. Tinner, EGM

1. The Decking rules are counter-intuitive, and work in a completely
different manner from ALL other SR rules systems. Decking is the only SR
rules system that forces the player into preset "System Operations".

2. With the NEW decking rules, almost all the "color" has been removed from
the system. No longer do you have fun nodes and interesting IC. Now you have
a straightforward Security Sheath and Response Charts. Rolemaster anyone?
;-P

3. The rich guy always wins. Once a decker has bought a big enough deck,
with the right size programs, he can almost instantly crash any IC he
encounters. Odds are he can supress the system with no trouble too. It's
just boring, and makes the Matrix dull IMO.

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://listen.to/tinner
"I'm a man. But I can change. If I have to. I guess. But not that much." -
The Possum Lodge Motto, The Red Green Show
Message no. 4
From: Adam J adamj@*********.com
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:15:13 -0600
At 18:11 22/09/2000 -0400, Steven A. Tinner wrote:

>1. The Decking rules are counter-intuitive, and work in a completely
>different manner from ALL other SR rules systems. Decking is the only SR
>rules system that forces the player into preset "System Operations".

Would the various Free, Simple, and Complex actions that the other systems
have be fairly comparable to Systems Operations?

*ducks*

Adam
--
< adamj@*********.com | ICQ# 2350330 | TSS Productions >
< The Shadowrun Supplemental: http://tss.dumpshock.com >
< ShadowFAQ: http://shadowfaq.dumpshock.com >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader: http://lists.dumpshock.com >
Message no. 5
From: Steven A. Tinner bluewizard@*****.com
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:25:26 -0400
> >1. The Decking rules are counter-intuitive, and work in a completely
> >different manner from ALL other SR rules systems. Decking is the only SR
> >rules system that forces the player into preset "System Operations".
>
> Would the various Free, Simple, and Complex actions that the other systems
> have be fairly comparable to Systems Operations?

Sure. But why aren't they presented that way?
I've played with the decking rules, and I know how they work, but the
explanations in the book are unclear at first read IMO.

Compare the decking rules to the rules for melee combat, or even
spellcasting.
Those two are both in this format ...
1. Step 1
2. Step 2, etc.

Decking is NOT laid out anywhere near so clearly. There isn't one set of
general principles to follow, that apply to multiple variations. Instead
there's a number of different systems that apply to different situations.

Also there's way too much bookkeeping IMO. ;-P

> *ducks*

/me gives FRO a Frankensteiner off the top rope! ;-)

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://listen.to/tinner
"I'm a man. But I can change. If I have to. I guess. But not that much." -
The Possum Lodge Motto, The Red Green Show
Message no. 6
From: Augustus shadowrun@********.net
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:28:53 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: Bull <bull22@*******.com>

> Instead, I'm looking for, in simple terms, your top 3 reasons for not
> using/allowing/having deckers in your Shadowrun games (as PCs, at least).
> Please keep these concise (One sentance or so). As I said, we've seen
> plenty of reasons hashed out before, I'm just looking to see what the most
> common reasons for it are.

I don't disallow them... but I discourage players from playing deckers...
because:

1) It throws the money system out of whack. Deckers need alot of money to
keep going... better cyberdecks, better programs... yes, everybody needs
money, but the decker moreso than any other characters in the campaigns I've
run.

2) Using up time. This comes in two different things... during and between
the run, so I'll adress them both here.
-DURING THE RUN: having the decker do his thing 'simultaneously' as the
rest of the PCs can sometimes really lag the game down and especially if you
haven't mastered the system. If the decker decides to do anything more than
the minimum requirements for his part of the run, the rest of the group gets
on edge and starts to rag on him if he is using up too much of "their time".
-BETWEEN THE RUN: This was a HUGE problem for me with my last decker
PC... he used up more time between runs than he did on them. When the party
is down after a run... maybe the Sammy is in the shop getting medical
treatment, the mage is off learning new magical techniques, the other Sammy
is sucking up to his contacts for future favours, etc... the decker PC would
ask that I maybe let him run a job against a small corp or something, to
generate extra money, etc...
Yes, if the rest of the party is 'occupied' for the next 2-3 weeks that
would make a tonne of sense... but those 2-3 weeks might only take 10-45
minutes of roleplay (depending on what all they do). But 2 or 3 runs versus
small corps so the decker can make a few extra bucks can use up hours of
game time.

3) The system is slow to use. Sure, when my group went from SR1 to SR2... a
typical combat between 4 PCs and 6 Go-Gangers... mighta taken an hour or two
while we kept looking up the rules and such... but through use and time the
same combat would now take minutes to resolve... because the party works
like a well oiled machine when it comes to combat.
But... because we hardly ever use the decker rules, when we do the
whole thing just slows down to a snail's pace while we try to get through
them.

Hmm... thats abit longer than 1 or 2 lines of text describing my answer, but
oh well, I feel abit long winded today.

Augustus`
Message no. 7
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 01:32:34 +0200
1. It takes up too much time with the current system.

2. With all matrix operations presented as "super-fast",
this IMO results in big problems with "real-time"
interaction. It appears to me a decker could browse
a whole mainframe while a Mage walks through a door ;)

3. I don't like them. So sue me ;P
Message no. 8
From: Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:33:59 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bull" <bull22@*******.com>

> Instead, I'm looking for, in simple terms, your top 3 reasons for not
> using/allowing/having deckers in your Shadowrun games (as PCs, at least).

1) The rules are too difficult to manage in-game, unless you have them
well-memorized.

2) Keeping other players interested while the decker is spoofing security
is quite difficult.

3) NPC deckers are great plot devices (finding one you trust, what happens
when your decker cover legitimately screws up, etc.)
Message no. 9
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:08:19 +0200
According to Bull, at 17:03 on 22 Sep 00, the word on
the street was...

> Ok, let me preface this by saying I'm not looking for a discussion here.
> this is a topic that gets discussed to death. :]
>
> Instead, I'm looking for, in simple terms, your top 3 reasons for not
> using/allowing/having deckers in your Shadowrun games (as PCs, at least).
> Please keep these concise (One sentance or so). As I said, we've seen
> plenty of reasons hashed out before, I'm just looking to see what the most
> common reasons for it are.

In my case, it's most likely the following, in no particular order:

* Other players switch off when the decker does his or her thing.
* It's hard to make exciting, largely because your options are limited and
decking is too dice-intensive.
* The VR1 decking rules put me off, and their effect is still present
(though it's been much reduced by VR 2.0 and Matrix).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) 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. 10
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:08:19 +0200
According to Adam J, at 16:15 on 22 Sep 00, the word on the street was...

> Would the various Free, Simple, and Complex actions that the other systems
> have be fairly comparable to Systems Operations?

In a way, I'd say yes, they are. However, in the Matrix you're virtually
forced to choose from the available actions because there _are_ no
guidelines for doing things not covered by the rules. In both the other
"parts" of the SR world (physical and astral planes), the various
available actions are more like ideas for what you can do, rather than
things you have to do. Those areas are subsequently much easier for both
players and GMs to run around in and improvise stuff. In the Matrix, I've
found it very hard to improvise things...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) 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. 11
From: Josh Harrison mataxes@****.net
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:47:21 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Augustus <shadowrun@********.net>
> -BETWEEN THE RUN: This was a HUGE problem for me with my last decker
> PC... he used up more time between runs than he did on them.... But 2 or 3
runs versus
> small corps so the decker can make a few extra bucks can use up hours of
> game time.

Serves you right, running full-blown matrix forays during downtime. Why not
do something simple like have him roll his computer skill (perhaps with an
Etiquette (Matrix) booster) for each run, and tell him how much money he
cleared. If you're not that keen on a "rolling for dollars" scheme, then
perhaps require some kind of negotiation roll to set the final price.

Personally, I only use the rules -- any rules -- when it's dramatically
appropriate. If it isn't important to the story in some way, than I'm not
going to bog myself down with half an hour of dice rolling. Not for the
decker, or the rigger, or even the mage. Have them describe wat they're
attempting, have them make a roll, and go from there.

Now, if the info the decker finds would become important to the plot later
on, then maybe you'll want to get a little more detailed on the run. Sure,
it tends to point fingers at the "important" stuff, but how many pages of a
novel are taken up with "downtime" activities? Hell, you could even pull an
Evil-GM move, do a quick resolution of a matrix run, and then have
mysterious guys in black jumpsuits showing up to kill the decker (and
anybody with him) on a semi-regular basis. Seems that little "side run" he
went on has caused some serious problems for them. Just what was it he found
in that database?

I say stop looking at these things as problems, and start looking at them as
opportunities.

> 3) The system is slow to use.

I'll be honest, I'm not wild about the matrix rules either -- but frankly,
the entire game system bothers me. If the setting weren't so wonderful, I'd
have given up on the game years ago.

Even when I became familiar with the rules, a fairly simple firefight
between five PCs and six or seven gangers would take about an hour -- though
in game time it lasted about four full combat rounds. For my personal GM
style, this is a *huge* problem. I can fudge matrix time. I can't (in good
GM conscience) fudge combat.

Thinking about it, I'm not really wild about any systems that rely heavily
on firearms. They complicate things a great deal, and when things get
complicated, they take longer to resolve. There are many fantastic games out
there where I'm not wild about their combat system (1st Edition Blue Planet
springs to mind). I can't (and don't) say the games suck, but given a
choice, I'd use a different system.

That's the way I look at SR. Great setting, barely tolerable system (at
least for me). The matrix rules are the least of my worries, to be honest.

Well... that was a bit tangential. I'll shut up now. *grin*

-- Josh Harrison -- mataxes@****.net
Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle.
Message no. 12
From: Josh Harrison mataxes@****.net
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:55:27 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
> ...in the Matrix you're virtually
> forced to choose from the available actions because there _are_ no
> guidelines for doing things not covered by the rules. In both the other
> "parts" of the SR world (physical and astral planes), the various
> available actions are more like ideas for what you can do, rather than
> things you have to do. Those areas are subsequently much easier for both
> players and GMs to run around in and improvise stuff. In the Matrix, I've
> found it very hard to improvise things...

All decker tests in the Matrix are rolled with his Computer skill, right?
Well then, when he wants to do something not specifically covered by the
rules, roll his computer skill and decide what happens. All tests in the
matrix are handled the same way -- utilities lower the target number, and
the security rating is the number of dice for the opposed test. It's
relatively simple and intuitive (IMO).

Thinking about it, I don't see any problems with he matrix *system* that
aren't present in the other game systems. Now the presentation of the
information, OTOH, leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Funny... it seems I'm swimming against the current on this idea. I have
little trouble with the matrix rules -- it's the rest of the system that
make me pull out my hair.

-- Josh Harrison -- mataxes@****.net
Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle.
Message no. 13
From: Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:49:12 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Harrison" <mataxes@****.net>

> I'll be honest, I'm not wild about the matrix rules either -- but frankly,
> the entire game system bothers me. If the setting weren't so wonderful,
I'd
> have given up on the game years ago.

> That's the way I look at SR. Great setting, barely tolerable system (at
> least for me). The matrix rules are the least of my worries, to be honest.

::chuckle:: That's my general view of Rifts, and I play that almost every
weekend (though we're now going to alternate with Fading Suns... and that
assumes my character isn't executed for following a blatantly illegal
order...)
Message no. 14
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:25:10 +0200
According to Josh Harrison, at 10:55 on 23 Sep 00, the word on the street
was...

> Thinking about it, I don't see any problems with he matrix *system* that
> aren't present in the other game systems. Now the presentation of the
> information, OTOH, leaves quite a bit to be desired.
>
> Funny... it seems I'm swimming against the current on this idea. I have
> little trouble with the matrix rules -- it's the rest of the system that
> make me pull out my hair.

I don't have a problem with the rules, which are pretty easy to understand
(anyone who claims they're difficult hasn't read them well enough, IMHO)
but with the way they channel characters' actions into a relatively small
number of possibilities, and with the huge numbers of dice rolls involved.

With astral space, you don't roll dice to see whether you can leave your
body, if you can step through the wall into the next room, or if you can
see the spirit at the other side of the completely empty car park. In the
Matrix, that _is_ what you do -- roll to enter the Matrix, roll to get
into a host, roll to spot IC attacking you...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) 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: Meier, Frank fmmeier@********.de
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:32:41 +0200
Gurth said:
>In a way, I'd say yes, they are. However, in the Matrix you're virtually
>forced to choose from the available actions because there _are_ no
>guidelines for doing things not covered by the rules. In both the other
>"parts" of the SR world (physical and astral planes), the various
>available actions are more like ideas for what you can do, rather than
>things you have to do. Those areas are subsequently much easier for both
>players and GMs to run around in and improvise stuff. In the Matrix, I've
>found it very hard to improvise things...

You are right, but as the Matrix is a computer-driven reality there are
fixed rules which are to be followed, not like the real world. But there are
a lot of possibilities for roleplaying in the matrix. I often use virtual
meeting rooms for the decker to meet contacts. I run these meetings like
real live events. These are sculpted system where a decent bar brawl can
happen...

Just my opinion,

Frank
aka. Sleaze
Message no. 16
From: Meier, Frank fmmeier@********.de
Subject: Why you don't use deckers...
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:32:43 +0200
Hi,

I've read all the discussions about the SR3 Matrix rules and I want to
explain why I DO use deckers in my games. I've been GMing SR since 1st
Edition and I think the Matrix is a very important part of the world. In
this mail I refer primarily to VR2 as I am still reading through MATRIX.

1.) I don't like to rely on NPC Deckers if I am a player because I don't
have any influence on the outcome of a matrix run. For example, if you want
get some information on someone, I tell the GM, pay a certain amount of
money for my Decker contact and get the information or not... that's not
very satisfiying. The GM totally controls what kind of information you get
or not, without the illusion to be able to influence this.

2.) Many mentioned that the rules are too complicated and time consuming. I
disagree here. The rules are a not more complex than the magic rules (which
ARE complicated, IMHO). If you get used to the Matrix rules it can be run
quite fast. One of my players, who's playing a decker is very interested in
his character and knows the rules very well. If you have enough practive on
how to use the Matrix rules, a run in the Matrix takes not much longer than
the real world action. I would rather let a newbe play a Decker than a mage
!

As I am running a campaign based on "Brainscan" it's important to have a
decker character in the team.

Just my opinions,

Frank
aka. Sleaze

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Why you don't use 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.

Thwap!