Pyramid #3/21. Console Cowboys / Netrunning / Semi-Cinematic Hacking

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Wait, do the rules assume that a TL8 admin (or a TL9+ [N]AI) has to be logged on in order for Continuous-running ICEs to even get a resistance roll?

Obviously not, as that would make no sense. But the program needs to have some kind of skill level to work properly, and that makes it effectively a dedicated AI.

As for system Complexity influencing skills, I'm reluctant to use that for non-AIs, because it results in double-dipping: once for ICE Complexity and the second time for a Complexity-derived BAD or skill modifier.

True, but I wasn't going to apply the bonus for ICE complexity, I was just going to say 'when running autonomously, the ICE has a skill of 12+ICE Complexity' or something like that.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

Obviously not, as that would make no sense. But the program needs to have some kind of skill level to work properly, and that makes it effectively a dedicated AI.

True, but I wasn't going to apply the bonus for ICE complexity, I was just going to say 'when running autonomously, the ICE has a skill of 12+ICE Complexity' or something like that.

Ah, that's better. Still, 12+C seems overkill, as this grants even a modern desktop the ability to have skill 15-16ish (depending on how much resources are dedicated to ICE). At this point, sysadmins with skill below 18 make little sense.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Ah, that's better. Still, 12+C seems overkill, as this grants even a modern desktop the ability to have skill 15-16ish (depending on how much resources are dedicated to ICE). At this point, sysadmins with skill below 18 make little sense.

The 12+C bit was just off the top of my head. 10+C would probably be better. And remember that the sys admin would need to set it up to begin with.

[vicky_molokh]

Another thing that's bothering me: Trigger Complexity. Not only is Trigger of suspiciously high C (it is basically a glorified alarm clock combined with the ability to output commands and pass parameters received from an Analyse/Search program), but raising C makes no sense: since C is logarithmic, it is always more beneficial to have 2 instances of Trigger if you need to launch more than one program. I suppose I should interpret Trigger as being able to do some minor decision-making instead if I want it to look reasonable.

Also, here's my attempt at a assistant-sheet for netrunning. Okay, for assigning programs to computers, but you get the idea.

[vicky_molokh]

Another ambiguous issue:
which of the roll results are known, and which are not?

Does an admin know a Breach/Spoof is being attempted on the ICE+Listen, before it succeeds?
Does a hacker know whether a program succeeded in a given round?
Does a character know that his computer is being Analysed, or was found in a Search?
Does a hacker/admin know when a program has failed by 6+, or does he have to keep trying indefinitely?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Another ambiguous issue:
which of the roll results are known, and which are not?

Does an admin know a Breach/Spoof is being attempted on the ICE+Listen, before it succeeds?
Does a hacker know whether a program succeeded in a given round?
Does a character know that his computer is being Analysed, or was found in a Search?
Does a hacker/admin know when a program has failed by 6+, or does he have to keep trying indefinitely?

'Spoof' is only detected on a failure of the quick-contest; this is explicitly stated. Breach is instantly detected by Analyze or Search unless it's been Stealthed or the Analysis/Search program has been Spoofed.

A hacker has to know whether a program succeeds in order to actually utilize his skills, so that's a yes.

Hackers can detect Analysis or Searches through the use of Search.

Hackers and admins probably know when they've failed by 6+ simply to speed up play; more realistically, they shouldn't know.

All intrusion attempts can be detected on a critical failure (or failure by 5+) on the intrusion roll, even if the target isn't actively Searching or Analyzing for them.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

'Spoof' is only detected on a failure of the quick-contest; this is explicitly stated.

I meant such cases as when a Trigger calls for the Spoof, but Spoof finds no target (e.g. the expected Analyse is not running on the target computer), fails the roll any way. What then? Does the defender/admin notice that there was a few packets of data doing something fishy?

Originally Posted by Langy

Breach is instantly detected by Analyze or Search unless it's been Stealthed or the Analysis/Search program has been Spoofed.

Uh, Analyse can call a trigger if the ICE has been Breached. What happens if the hacker's computer is outside of a Search's zone, and the hacker invokes Breach on admin's ICE and fails (thus Analyse sees ICE as healthy)? Does the admin know the attack occurred?

Originally Posted by Langy

Hackers can detect Analysis or Searches through the use of Search.

Through Search? That sounds strange.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I meant such cases as when a Trigger calls for the Spoof, but Spoof finds no target (e.g. the expected Analyse is not running on the target computer), fails the roll any way. What then? Does the defender/admin notice that there was a few packets of data doing something fishy?

I'd say yes. Definitely yes if the other computer has Listen active to search for packets doing something fishy.

Uh, Analyse can call a trigger if the ICE has been Breached. What happens if the hacker's computer is outside of a Search's zone, and the hacker invokes Breach on admin's ICE and fails (thus Analyse sees ICE as healthy)? Does the admin know the attack occurred?

I'd say yes. Breach is not a stealthy maneuver. Possibly you need to try and detect it with Listen, though.

Through Search? That sounds strange.

Search is used to detect programs. I suppose Analyze or Listen might be better; it's unclear. But it's definitely one of the three. Now that I think about it, Listen is probably best.

[CousinX]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I suppose I should interpret Trigger as being able to do some minor decision-making instead if I want it to look reasonable.

Yes, both in the case of Trigger, and more generally ... the listed programs are abstractions of the actual software, just as the whole system is an abstraction of the actual process. It's less abstract than the Action hacking rules, which are boiled down to a few simple rolls, but not nearly as detailed as turn-by-turn tactical combat. More like the chase rules that inspired them ... a tool to add drama to an adventuring task, not get bogged down in realism or meticulous detail.

Some of the ambiguities are no doubt oversights on my part, but a lot of them are deliberate -- interpret them in the way that (a) makes sense to you in the context of your campaign, and (b) provides the most fun for you and your players. Also, bear in mind that this was meant to model Neuromancer-style Netrunning ... they can do TL8 keyboard jockeying, but that's an afterthought, and as you're seeing, will require some tweaking to fit.

Anyway, I know that's not much help if you were looking for definitive clarifications, but I'm afraid that the system isn't meant to be definitive .. more narrative.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by CousinX

Some of the ambiguities are no doubt oversights on my part, but a lot of them are deliberate -- interpret them in the way that (a) makes sense to you in the context of your campaign, and (b) provides the most fun for you and your players. Also, bear in mind that this was meant to model Neuromancer-style Netrunning ... they can do TL8 keyboard jockeying, but that's an afterthought, and as you're seeing, will require some tweaking to fit.

Anyway, I know that's not much help if you were looking for definitive clarifications, but I'm afraid that the system isn't meant to be definitive .. more narrative.

Hey, it's a Pyramid article. Of course it's short and prone to having house-rule additions.

I'm actually running a TL6+3^ console cowboy-ing. Speaking of which, tried it out For Realz on Saturday. Seems workable to me. The net run was short and paranoidly impersonal (the PC wrote a Trigger script and conned an unwitting pawn into running it from a university's mainframe, targeting a different mainframe), but the player seemed to like it a lot. Surprisingly, the act also achieved one of the party's objectives in a very convoluted, almost serendipitous way.

Also, any comments on the Program Loadout (or whatever you want to call it) Sheet (which is currently loaded with a PC's hard drive collection and a generic C5 mainframe)?