silva wrote:
What that means is: if there is a security decker overwatching a system, he will make an Locate Decker test in each of its passes until he locates the intruder. But its worst actually, because the test is two-fold, as described above, instead of a single roll like in 5e. So we could have the same "detection loop" only in 3e its actually 2 rolls per detection attempt, against only 1 roll in 5e.
So, as I said, it was like that in previous editions too.
I can't tell if this is disingenuous or just wrong again. Here are multiple ways that you're comparing apples and oranges:
1. SR5 detection is an opposed test. It requires the exact same number of rolls as the example you quoted. Those rolls are split between two people, but its still two. In fact, SR5 is significantly worse because of the intensely ambiguous matrix perception roll to find hidden icons before the opposed detection test.
2. In SR3 the existence of a security sheaf meant you usually didn't have a decker running overwatch during matrix activity. The roll you cited only came up under the exceptional circumstance that a rival decker was looking for you (which popped up at security tallies of 16 or higher in the example sheafs). The ACIFS ratings and your accruing security tally usually handled all of this passively.
This is the opposite of SR5, where the only defense is matrix perception tests and a reasonable security system would put up as many as it could.
3. The SR3 rules you quoted elegantly account for multiple hiding entities: each has a stealth threshold that you need to roll above. This is different from SR5 where you have to roll a test for everything that's hiding. If, for instance, your street sam's arm, your rigger's four drones and your deck were all running hidden, you need to roll 6 times for each matrix perception check the opposition puts up. I remind you that it's possible for the opposition to put up one per in game second entirely automatically.
4. In SR3 a "find decker" test was intensely local. You were looking for deckers on the node you currently occupying. In SR5, you need to apply matrix perception to every hidden wireless thing within 100m to find a single target. In the case of a spider running overwatch and a runner team sneaking, that can easily be dozens of devices.
Now, I think you've been suggesting moving SR5 to a threshold based system. Fine, I do think that could improve it. But that requires rewriting everything from the ground up. The argument that SR5 provides the clearest matrix is experience is intensely false. At first glance it looks good (because of the simplicity of "apply marks," "take actions" that you mention below), but running it requires tremendous doublethink to prevent the table from sagging under the weight of tons of rolls.
silva wrote:pragma wrote:Oddly, I can see where you're coming from: the matrix system feels fast in a way previous matrices did not. I can't put my finger on why that it, other than the fact that it requires less overhead time (setup in SR3 or extended tests in SR4). However, that feeling goes away once you've used the rules a bit and realized just how many dice you need to throw at the hacker per second. Creating an illusion of easy resolution doesn't absolve the rules set from being deeply ambiguous, requiring thousands of rolls, and being trivially exploitable. In fact, I think it's a bad tradeoff to get a system that feels good for a while but is deeply disruptive to the game world and the flow of play at the table.
Please, then elucidate me with some actual example. Because the actual examples in the book are resolved with a couple opposed rolls most of the time. In fact, the "bricking" example on 5e pg. 228 has the decker rolling just
once to disable the opponent smartgun. If you can prove a decker could affect a device so fast in previous editions, please feel free to show me.
This entire discussion has been predicated on an example. Someone who has wirelessly active gear is sneaking into a facility guarded either by a spider or a drone running an agent and an analyze program. This setup requires at least one opposed roll per in game second, and eventually guarantees the failure of the decker.
Here's another: an rival decker has espied your surveillance drones in a public place. He's free to hack them -- requiring multiple rolls per in game second -- and the only way to get him to fuck off is to shoot him. If you best him in cybercombat he can be back in one round to continue shenanigans. However, because you can selectively reboot drones he'll never be sucessful either. It fundamentally requires two actions to succeed at your hacking "place mark," "issue command," so a rigger will always have a chance to reboot after "place mark." This situation, which is explicitly used as an example in the core rules, just adds drag at the table. It's fun to work through the rolls once, but it never takes you anywhere.
Silva wrote:Besides that, decking in 5e is resumed to 1) gaining access ("marks") and 2) issuing commands. How is this complex and unplayable ?
We weren't talking about this. We were talking about how decking breaks down as soon as dedicated opposition starts trying to counter it.
While I'm not super interested in expanding the scope of the conversation beyond the original points, I agree that the basic setup for SR5 is straightforward (I'm on the record saying "it feels fast"). That's not an OK tradeoff in my mind because the follow on effects about how security works are deeply dumb and require throwing tremendous amounts of dice for the foregone conclusion that "you will be detected." This is followed by throwing similar number of dice to say "you won't get much done in combat time." See Ice9's post for a point by point breakdown of how this happens.
I'll grant the following: this system that it handles deckers taking actions against unaware and undefended targets goes pretty quickly. That's fun, but it turns out targets can become aware and defended on a _single unlucky roll_ at which point all your work is wasted and your legwork attempt has to devolve into combat or a chase to stop the interminable rolling (see the rigger example above).
Your target might just drop off the matrix too, the penalties for doing so are laughably small (microtransceivers even allow you to talk to the team). Because of this, it requires a lot of brain glue for there to be things to hack at all. Frank's four horsemen of the matrix apocalypse are still out in force, and dropout is a really easy and viable possibility.
silva wrote:Specially compared to previous editions where you had a whole gamut of nodes and sub-systems each with different available commands (:P ), complex architecture with SANs going in and out of each other, programs with very specific mechanical behaviours and even "ratings", etc.
This is the point I was getting at with the argument that SR5 "feels fast." It's also dumb, and stripping some of the wasteful complexity out of an earlier edition would probably have made much more sense.
silva wrote:Ive played Shadowrun all my life, man. My group always had a decker. Always. And I GMed most of the time. And I tell you Matrix was never this simple as 5e reads. And you know what ? As the new fixed target makes it easy to average rolls, its even possible to simply take the average for all Host and Ice ratings and treat as thresholds for the decker to roll against, which can make the Matrix even faster than ever before.
Really, Pragma, if you have the truth on the matter, youre not managing to demonstrate it or convince me.
I've also played Shadowrun all my life and GMed for plenty of deckers. I've provided multiple demonstrations of how these rules are materially worse than SR3 (they're really about the same as SR4, which was also dumb, but with fewer extended tests). Other people who have weighed in on this thread have provided alternate explanations and demonstrations of the same phenomena. People who built the mechanical underpinnings of Shadowrun have assured you that you're wrong. All of us have provided examples of how the rules as written devolve into tons of rolls and eventual failures for the decker.
Your counter argument, as best as I can parse, is "it's better than before because it gives you tools and it looks like it takes fewer rolls." This entire post is about how it does not take fewer rolls, and the tools it gives you would require a rewrite of the system. Literally everyone else in the thread agrees with me.
No one's going to argue that the matrix was ever well written, well thought out, and that it enhanced play at the table. I've never heard a peep on this forum saying any edition's matrix was better than slipshod. All I'm arguing is that this one is particularly bad because the only means of security is infinite matrix perception rolls, and iterative probability means those infinite rolls will get the decker in the end.
