Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: taukarrie on <10-02-19/0702:33>
-
The jammer in the gear section states that a standard jammer emits a jamming field equal to its rating that drops off by 1 for every 10 meters from the center of its spherical area. It also states that if used with a wireless bonus it can allow devices and personas (presumably any number of them) to be unaffected by the jamming field.
The description of noise in the matrix section of the books states, "If noise is greater than the device rating, the device cannot access the Matrix or provide wireless bonuses."
So.. im a rigger locked in a van using my RCC to control a drone army and Ive got my rating 6 jammer strapped to my chair and going wirelessly with my own persona and each drone as exceptions to the jamming field. A decker in the area has been tasked with bricking my RCC to eliminate the drones.
first off, can he even see me in the matrix, or does he just see a bubble of noise? Secondly, if he sees me or not does it even matter? RAW is suggesting that a rating 6 jammer is an impenetrable digital wall for a decker of any skill level even equipped with an Excalibur paired with a max rating cyberjack.
high end jammers are super easy to acquire. Why wouldnt every runner just always have a rating 6 jammer with the wireless bonus going? Everyone on the team makes each other and their gear exceptions to their jammers and you now have multiple layered noise bubbles going. Suddenly every enemy decker becomes a non-issue.
There must be something that limits the effectiveness of this thing
-
If the Decker is not within the area of your Jammer, he's unaffected by it.
@61 meters away, it's possible he can't even SEE your bubble of noise much less be affected by it.
-
....and the Noise has to be higher than Device Rating so with Renraku Kitsune (DR4) + Signal Scrubber program the Hacker is free to crack.
-
so what happens if someone is in VR and someone else throws a jammer into the room that exceeds their commlink's device rating? Are they immediate taken offline and dumpshocked without any rolling?
-
so what happens if someone is in VR and someone else throws a jammer into the room that exceeds their commlink's device rating? Are they immediate taken offline and dumpshocked without any rolling?
Yeah but he could as well shoot you in the head while you are distracted :) it would only make 5P+ net hits (average Pistol with Called shot), the Dumpshock from ColdSim would be 3S.
-
so what happens if someone is in VR and someone else throws a jammer into the room that exceeds their commlink's device rating? Are they immediate taken offline and dumpshocked without any rolling?
Yeah but he could as well shoot you in the head while you are distracted :) it would only make 5P+ net hits (average Pistol with Called shot), the Dumpshock from ColdSim would be 3S.
So then what youre saying is that the jammer maneuver in this scenario is a legit prank between chummers.
-
The shooting in the head with a pistol part might be a hilarious prank amongst Troll Chummers too ;)
But the dumpshock description says you get 10-Willpower minutes a negative condition, from the description it seems to be "Dazed". So the chummer might get some Pizzas he didnt order later ^^
For a Cyberjack/Deck/Resonance user it might be possible to use "Signal Scream" for 2 Edge ignoring Noise for one Matrix Action to Jackout Change Mode to AR in the Matrix before the Noise kicks him out.
-
Maybe?
It's easy enough for any hacker who relies on the Matrix to have enough Noise reduction to survive Rating 6 Noise, and that's the maximum rating on a Jammer. If they re-introduce the Fresnel fabric for 6we, you likely be unable to jam a hacker or rigger offline as an attack much less a prank.
-
Eh, Jammers are better to block commlinks and gear, to cut people off. Or the other way around, jam your own surroundings to give a decker a dice penalty, since it should count as interference then.
-
Maybe it should, but down the path of "add up noise penalties for where YOU are, where the TARGET is, AND for distance" lies madness. Especially with regards to Hosts, which have no (known!) physical location.
-
Eh, Jammers are better to block commlinks and gear, to cut people off. Or the other way around, jam your own surroundings to give a decker a dice penalty, since it should count as interference then.
So this is back to my original example then. if wearing an active jammer creates a dice penalty of its rating for any hacker trying to mess with you or your devices it would be prudent for any runner using tech to always have a jammer going.
-
Well...
A) Michael wasn't saying it DOES, but that it "should".
B) Why don't shadowrunners ALWAYS carry around active jammers? Imagine knocking out every camera in the area! Ok, imagine it again, from a Security goon's perspective. "Huh, all the cameras just went out in C block. I wonder if that means anything's going on there, or if they all just suddenly broke at the same time in a miraculous coincidence?" And again, from the perspective of a crowded scene where you knock every civilian's commlink offline. Think anyone will notice? If you want to be SUBTLE, Jamming isn't it. (tho sometimes subtlety isn't what you care about, granted...)
-
Jammers are rated as "Avail(L)" so you need a License to use and carry them. In real life using a Jammer is usually forbidden. I ve seen people online brag with their jammers they use to block their kids Mobile Devices or whatever, but thats clearly illegal where i live. (reason: you block Emergency calls)
In that case they probably where lucky enough no one cares/noticed and they where not brought to court (yet).
If you transfer that to Shadowrun, yes Jammers are very good. They have no Device rating listed tough that could mean their Device Rating is 1 and when the Opposition has a Jammer too they cancel their Wireless of each other and you are standing in 6 Noise both ... (presuming they dont stack then)
But having an active Jammer in the wrong area should draw much Attention to you. (Law Enforcement) Like it would in real life if you start Jamming in a crowded area.
-
Noise represents any interference between a
user and their target. Noise can be created by sheer
distance or other factors, such as jamming or obstructions.
I would consider a jammer at the spot of the device you're trying to hack to count as active interference, just like you can't easily reach a device that's underwater or behind wireless negating wallpaper. Or for that matter, a device in a faraday cage.
And yes, you're not constantly wearing an active jammer because those things don't discriminate. Plus usually you need that wireless connection yourself, so no point in jamming yourself. Again, a jammer is an offensive tool, which only in the worst case can be used defensively.
As for Hosts:
Some hosts exist entirely virtually and appear
as floating above the black plane of the Matrix,
while others are attached to physical hardware at
a specific location.
-
As for Hosts:
Some hosts exist entirely virtually and appear
as floating above the black plane of the Matrix,
while others are attached to physical hardware at
a specific location.
Ah, but is the physical hardware generating a hotel's host in the hotel, or is it a life support system somewhere in the PCC desert that's keeping a dead technomancer's brain going, which is what's linking the Host to the Foundation? :D
-
That's bringing SR5 terminology and rumors in. Normal interpretation of 'physical hardware at a specific location' would indicate the hardware and the host are at the same location.
-
If you transfer that to Shadowrun, yes Jammers are very good. They have no Device rating listed tough that could mean their Device Rating is 1 and when the Opposition has a Jammer too they cancel their Wireless of each other and you are standing in 6 Noise both ... (presuming they dont stack then)
They generate a noise level equal to their rating. purchase cost is rating x 200
and buying a decent fake license to legally carry one isnt much of an investment
B) Why don't shadowrunners ALWAYS carry around active jammers? Imagine knocking out every camera in the area! Ok, imagine it again, from a Security goon's perspective. "Huh, all the cameras just went out in C block. I wonder if that means anything's going on there, or if they all just suddenly broke at the same time in a miraculous coincidence?" And again, from the perspective of a crowded scene where you knock every civilian's commlink offline. Think anyone will notice? If you want to be SUBTLE, Jamming isn't it. (tho sometimes subtlety isn't what you care about, granted...)
I was more thinking of every time they plan to enter into a combat situation rather than walking around town. If decker opposition is expected, neutralizing it completely with jammers might be worth any other attention you might draw
I would consider a jammer at the spot of the device you're trying to hack to count as active interference, just like you can't easily reach a device that's underwater or behind wireless negating wallpaper. Or for that matter, a device in a faraday cage.
And yes, you're not constantly wearing an active jammer because those things don't discriminate. Plus usually you need that wireless connection yourself, so no point in jamming yourself. Again, a jammer is an offensive tool, which only in the worst case can be used defensively.
This is basically how I envision the jammer with the exception that it is very much a defensive tool for an non-decker who needs protection from hacking. In fact, the only decent defense option a single runner seems to have against a decker is using a jammer. Without it most would have to reboot their devices to eject hackers, if they even get a chance. If the intent is for non-deckers to be mostly vulnerable to deckers I can understand that. Also, how can you jam yourself when you can use the wireless bonus to designate personas and devices as exempt?
In the jammer's description it specifically states that "The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them.[except for designated devices using the wireless bonus]" So that reads the way Devil Rat says, that a decker not physically in its area is not affected. But I agree with Michael that a field must create interference for any signal trying to get through it from outside of it. The extent of existing rules that apply to using sensors like this are limited to the 1-paragraph description of the jammer in the gear section. Additionally, the exact nature of how it functions seems debatable as well. So is this another one of those things that are up to the GM? Generally i'm ok with that but I feel like everyone should be on the same page with how the gadgets work.
-
If the decker is already hacked into your device, would the jammer even obstruct them when your own device is shielded against the effect, though?
-
[...]
This is basically how I envision the jammer with the exception that it is very much a defensive tool for an non-decker who needs protection from hacking. In fact, the only decent defense option a single runner seems to have against a decker is using a jammer. Without it most would have to reboot their devices to eject hackers, if they even get a chance. If the intent is for non-deckers to be mostly vulnerable to deckers I can understand that. Also, how can you jam yourself when you can use the wireless bonus to designate personas and devices as exempt?
[...]
Turn your Device off is a Minor Anytime Action. As i stated in another Thread i think being percepted in the Matrix is something you notice. Even in real life you can notice if someone is "knocking" at your Firewall.
So in that case as long as you have a Minor Action left it would be like that:
- you have for example an active Smartgun Weapon running silent
- Opposition-Hacker matrix-percepts your Weapon in the Opposed test
- next you use the anytime Action to turn the Wireless off
-> Hacker cant start Data-Spiking
the RAW neither says that works nor if it doesnt work.
Another interpretation is the anytime Action is some kind of "interrupt" (known from other games) and it stops the DataSpike from happening.
-
So is this another one of those things that are up to the GM?
For whatever worth you give (or not): in 5e you would only measure Noise affecting the actor, added to distance. Since that came via clarification on these very forums rather than in the 5e CRB, it's perhaps unsurprising the 6we neglected to clarify this as well. It's possible this could see formal clarification via errata, but there's no promise of that. Until such time, I'll reiterate the following advice: "Noise only comes from conditions local to the actor and from distance to target, and nothing else". Deviating from that is a slope down which matrix actions become unusable. If you're a Rigger, you do NOT want to start seeing Noise coming from your area, your drone's area, and from every area between you and your drone.
-
[...]
This is basically how I envision the jammer with the exception that it is very much a defensive tool for an non-decker who needs protection from hacking. In fact, the only decent defense option a single runner seems to have against a decker is using a jammer. Without it most would have to reboot their devices to eject hackers, if they even get a chance. If the intent is for non-deckers to be mostly vulnerable to deckers I can understand that. Also, how can you jam yourself when you can use the wireless bonus to designate personas and devices as exempt?
[...]
Turn your Device off is a Minor Anytime Action. As i stated in another Thread i think being percepted in the Matrix is something you notice. Even in real life you can notice if someone is "knocking" at your Firewall.
So in that case as long as you have a Minor Action left it would be like that:
- you have for example an active Smartgun Weapon running silent
- Opposition-Hacker matrix-percepts your Weapon in the Opposed test
- next you use the anytime Action to turn the Wireless off
-> Hacker cant start Data-Spiking
the RAW neither says that works nor if it doesnt work.
Another interpretation is the anytime Action is some kind of "interrupt" (known from other games) and it stops the DataSpike from happening.
There's no indication that a silent running icon is given any notice that someone has successfully spotted it. In an out of character sense, perhaps the player knows because the player had to roll a defense test against it and he can probably guess the outcome if he had few hits. But the CHARACTER has no reason to know.
-
Yeah i know you wrote that in the other thread and it was convincing, but some official example would be good to clarify.
edit: Added that to Errata thread
-
[...]
This is basically how I envision the jammer with the exception that it is very much a defensive tool for an non-decker who needs protection from hacking. In fact, the only decent defense option a single runner seems to have against a decker is using a jammer. Without it most would have to reboot their devices to eject hackers, if they even get a chance. If the intent is for non-deckers to be mostly vulnerable to deckers I can understand that. Also, how can you jam yourself when you can use the wireless bonus to designate personas and devices as exempt?
[...]
Turn your Device off is a Minor Anytime Action. As i stated in another Thread i think being percepted in the Matrix is something you notice. Even in real life you can notice if someone is "knocking" at your Firewall.
So in that case as long as you have a Minor Action left it would be like that:
- you have for example an active Smartgun Weapon running silent
- Opposition-Hacker matrix-percepts your Weapon in the Opposed test
- next you use the anytime Action to turn the Wireless off
-> Hacker cant start Data-Spiking
the RAW neither says that works nor if it doesnt work.
Another interpretation is the anytime Action is some kind of "interrupt" (known from other games) and it stops the DataSpike from happening.
Interesting. I had assumed that a simple matrix perception check wouldnt alert the target icon, especially since you can probe someone without calling attention to yourself. And every other matrix action does pretty obviously raises flags.
For whatever worth you give (or not): in 5e you would only measure Noise affecting the actor, added to distance. Since that came via clarification on these very forums rather than in the 5e CRB, it's perhaps unsurprising the 6we neglected to clarify this as well. It's possible this could see formal clarification via errata, but there's no promise of that. Until such time, I'll reiterate the following advice: "Noise only comes from conditions local to the actor and from distance to target, and nothing else". Deviating from that is a slope down which matrix actions become unusable. If you're a Rigger, you do NOT want to start seeing Noise coming from your area, your drone's area, and from every area between you and your drone.
This makes sense to me and I wish i could just run with it. But unfortunately the description of the jammer fouls this all up.
"This device floods the airwaves with electromagnetic jamming signals to block out wireless and radio communication. The jammer generates noise equal to its Device Rating. The area jammer affects a spherical area—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 10 meters from the center. The directional jammer affects a conical area with a thirty-degree spread—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 30 meters from the center. The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them. Walls and other obstacles may prevent the jamming signal from spreading or reduce its effect (gamemaster’s discretion). Jammers are available with ratings from 1 to 6. Wireless bonus: You can set your jammer to not interfere with devices and personas you designate."
Weve got noise coming directly from the jammer and weve got a wireless bonus that allows an unlimited amount of devices and personas that can be set to ignore the jamming. So theoretically a rigger wouldnt have to worry about a thing as long as the RCC and all the drones are on that whitelist.
Ive got a group of 7 teenagers, all first timers coming off a DnD game, about to start running and no one wanted to be a decker. So now theyre all digging through the options to make themselves as deckerproof as possible. the Jammer is the favorite option so far so I need to decide how im going to allow this device to be used as an active countermeasure, if at all.
-
Interesting. I had assumed that a simple matrix perception check wouldnt alert the target icon, especially since you can probe someone without calling attention to yourself. And every other matrix action does pretty obviously raises flags.
Important is thats a pure "Meta"-Level point of view. In a perfect Group the StreetSam lets the Opponent-Hacker brick his Smartgun weapon. Next turn the sam drops the Main Weapon and draws a Backup Weapon without Smartgun.
edit:
Ive got a group of 7 teenagers, all first timers coming off a DnD game, about to start running and no one wanted to be a decker. So now theyre all digging through the options to make themselves as deckerproof as possible. the Jammer is the favorite option so far so I need to decide how im going to allow this device to be used as an active countermeasure, if at all.
thats sad, hackers can be very powerful. By RAW you can easily use at least one ONI Drone as little Helper. The ONI has Pilot rating 3 so he can run 3/2 = 2 Programs, thats 3 with Virtual Machine. So enough for Weapon, Evasion, Maneuver (switch Weapon with Stealth if needed). Slaved to the Deck the ONI can be controlled with 1 Minor Action and has like all Drones 4 Initative Dice giving him 1 Major +4 Minor Actions.
Like that a Hacker can stand his ground in Combat without using a RCC together with Deck (which is presumably not intended to work)
-
If you want to be hackerproof, but don't want to have a hacker yourself, the built-in defense is to forfeit your wireless bonuses and just go wireless off.
You shouldn't be allowing Jammers to fill in for someone playing a matrix specialist for several reasons, but of course your game is your game.
EDIT: Since an official clarification is something that you're seeking but isn't going to happen (at least anytime soon), let me try pointing something else out.
Let's go back to the jammer text, copypasta'd from your own quote:
"This device floods the airwaves with electromagnetic jamming signals to block out wireless and radio communication. The jammer generates noise equal to its Device Rating. The area jammer affects a spherical area—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 10 meters from the center. The directional jammer affects a conical area with a thirty-degree spread—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 30 meters from the center. The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them. Walls and other obstacles may prevent the jamming signal from spreading or reduce its effect (gamemaster’s discretion). Jammers are available with ratings from 1 to 6. Wireless bonus: You can set your jammer to not interfere with devices and personas you designate."
Is the decker inside the area? It's a binary yes/no. Let's assume no, since if were yes there'd be no conflict of opinion.
Is the device the decker is trying to hack in the area? Presumably yes, BUT: if you're using the wireless bonus you are exempting certain devices from the Jamming noise. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. The hacker has a clean connection via the Matrix since the device's signal is being exempted from the Jamming...
-
Another question is if noise stacks.
If I activate a Rating 6 Jammer in a Rating 4 Spam Zone, is the effective Noise Rating 6 or 10 within 10 meters of my jammer?
-
Until such time, I'll reiterate the following advice: "Noise only comes from conditions local to the actor and from distance to target, and nothing else". Deviating from that is a slope down which matrix actions become unusable.
Decker in a Van, needs to hack an interior door lock (or whatever), building has Anti-wireless paint on the exterior. No penalty to the Decker though since they are outside the building? Seems wrong.
I totally get what you're saying, Local Noise plus Distance is sane and easy. And trying to figure out how many spam zones or salt water fish tanks (Hacking around Seaworld is just impossible I'd guess) are between you and your target a couple klicks away isn't something a sane GM would want to fiddle with. But some of the more common Matrix counter measures are things like Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint, they just don't work if the Hacker is a block away? I should think Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint would fall under the specific trumps general clause. YMMV.
And to Michael's point upthread, if you except your own devices is the Jammer doing you any good defensively? Asked and answered.
-
Is the decker inside the area? It's a binary yes/no. Let's assume no, since if were yes there'd be no conflict of opinion.
Is the device the decker is trying to hack in the area? Presumably yes, BUT: if you're using the wireless bonus you are exempting certain devices from the Jamming noise. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. The hacker has a clean connection via the Matrix since the device's signal is being exempted from the Jamming...
Thats genius level :) i hope this makes it into some kind of offical FAQ
-
Until such time, I'll reiterate the following advice: "Noise only comes from conditions local to the actor and from distance to target, and nothing else". Deviating from that is a slope down which matrix actions become unusable.
Decker in a Van, needs to hack an interior door lock (or whatever), building has Anti-wireless paint on the exterior. No penalty to the Decker though since they are outside the building? Seems wrong.
I totally get what you're saying, Local Noise plus Distance is sane and easy. And trying to figure out how many spam zones or salt water fish tanks (Hacking around Seaworld is just impossible I'd guess) are between you and your target a couple klicks away isn't something a sane GM would want to fiddle with. But some of the more common Matrix counter measures are things like Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint, they just don't work if the Hacker is a block away? I should think Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint would fall under the specific trumps general clause. YMMV.
Anti-wireless negation is mentioned in the CRB, but never defined (sigh). In light of that, plus the spirit in what it's supposed to mean, yeah I can see that being a potential exception to the general rule of "Local conditions plus distance, only". But as discussed with Jammers... if the signal isn't being jammed, the signal isn't being jammed.
-
Is the decker inside the area? It's a binary yes/no. Let's assume no, since if were yes there'd be no conflict of opinion.
Is the device the decker is trying to hack in the area? Presumably yes, BUT: if you're using the wireless bonus you are exempting certain devices from the Jamming noise. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. Ergo, the Noise is not affecting them. The hacker has a clean connection via the Matrix since the device's signal is being exempted from the Jamming...
Thats actually a great way to handle jammers in general. Thanks for this idea.
thats sad, hackers can be very powerful. By RAW you can easily use at least one ONI Drone as little Helper. The ONI has Pilot rating 3 so he can run 3/2 = 2 Programs, thats 3 with Virtual Machine. So enough for Weapon, Evasion, Maneuver (switch Weapon with Stealth if needed). Slaved to the Deck the ONI can be controlled with 1 Minor Action and has like all Drones 4 Initative Dice giving him 1 Major +4 Minor Actions.
I'd like to know more about this? I'm not familiar with ONI. Can you direct me to some sources?
-
thats sad, hackers can be very powerful. By RAW you can easily use at least one ONI Drone as little Helper. The ONI has Pilot rating 3 so he can run 3/2 = 2 Programs, thats 3 with Virtual Machine. So enough for Weapon, Evasion, Maneuver (switch Weapon with Stealth if needed). Slaved to the Deck the ONI can be controlled with 1 Minor Action and has like all Drones 4 Initative Dice giving him 1 Major +4 Minor Actions.
I'd like to know more about this? I'm not familiar with ONI. Can you direct me to some sources?
page 302 Nissan Samurai/Oni
the Oni is listed under Medium Drones but is actually a large Drone (see the description text p.300)
for more information how drones work Rigger chapter, the retractable Blades can be handled as Ramming from Rigger Chapter (that would be 5P)
-
The jammer in the gear section states that a standard jammer emits a jamming field equal to its rating that drops off by 1 for every 10 meters from the center of its spherical area....
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...
-
The jammer in the gear section states that a standard jammer emits a jamming field equal to its rating that drops off by 1 for every 10 meters from the center of its spherical area....
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...
Yes, I quoted this as well a bit further back. Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius, or if the field is somehow visible to matrix users perceiving the area near it. I liked Devil Rat's suggestion that devices designated exempt to the jammer by its wireless function are also not protected by it. That along with this quote mostly solve the issue for me. But im still not sure how i would handle someone trying to locate a nearby active jamming field for the purpose of avoiding or investigating it.
-
But im still not sure how i would handle someone trying to locate a nearby active jamming field for the purpose of avoiding or investigating it.
I would say that the Jamming signal should probably still be detectable from ranges beyond where it's strong enough to actually be Noise. It's hard to find ideas for what the Electronics Warfare specialization of Cracking would be used for, but I daresay this would be an example. Since a Jammer is just a device screaming RF waves, it ought to be an unopposed test to identify what the signal is and potentially the direction and distance its coming from. Probably threshold of 2 for the former, and maybe 4 or so for the latter.
-
There must be something that limits the effectiveness of this thing
I'm all for clear guidelines / rules being set up. If for no other reason than to reduce the size of the questionnaire players have to submit to GMs to know how that specific instance of the game world works.
Without it, it is pretty much left up to each table to work out on their own. Most of the GMs I've ever experienced handwave / ignore Noise. Of course, that was 5e, where Noise couldn't stop a Meta Link from making a call...
Here is a Noise survival guide to hold people over until / if official rules are handed down:
Now, I'm not talking about the mechanic, it obviously exists. I mean Noise itself isn't any "real" thing in the game world. It is heavily abstracted, and based on a bunch of (in-world) mechanical assumptions that don't make a whole lot of sense, so you can't expect Noise to make a whole lot of sense in itself.
The sooner you can make peace with that, the less headaches you will have.
- It's purpose is respectable, however it's existence is questionable
The primary purpose is to make things "interesting" (in the Chinese curse kind of way) for Tech characters. It is very much like Background Count for Mages in that sense. "What's Background Count? It isn't in the Core Book..." Exactly my point. ;)
(It is one of the legs of the MagicRun complaint.)
If you are a character the will likely run into Noise frequently, it is often very easy to negate it most of the time. Or, at least, come close to negating it.
It only really ever plays a part on those next to the character that will likely run into it frequently.
- It is a level of complication that some GMs won't even bother with
While it is okay to theorycraft and try to figure out how it works in RAW, it may never come up in games. Depends on the GM, and the characters at the table. If the group doesn't have any Deckers/Riggers (quite common in 5e), there isn't any real need for it except as a plot point.
If the group does have a Techie, if it becomes clear that Noise will never really impact them, then it will likely get sidelined as a rule not worth the effort.
All of this is a YMMV topic, of course.
But im still not sure how i would handle someone trying to locate a nearby active jamming field for the purpose of avoiding or investigating it.
Ehh... That is a much more difficult question. It would depend heavily on the character in question and what mode they are in. I would think it would be much easier for someone in VR to "spot" a distortion field caused be a Jammer...
Mechanically, I would suggest have the most likely individual make a Matrix Perception check, with a Threshold of 6 - Jammer Rating (or equivalent) to notice the distortion.
I mean, if you are using it as a plot point, there isn't any real need to make it more complex than that.
-
Handwaving rules away, as you write, away is the same as making up houserules. *we as a group decide not to use rule y" (y being Noise in that case). Its not that formal but that is exactly what happens. If the whole Group gives the GM the right to make up houserules thats not different.
Now when you want to talk with other groups there must be some kind of mutual agreement what is lore, rules and whats not.
In 5th Edition the Noise may have been pointless. But in 6th it shuts devices down and a decker can only reduce it by 2, a Rigger by 8.
The 8 being interesting because it is the maximum Range penalty. But hacking on another Continent is harder because of Distance, thats RAW.
Edit:
(and yes with Satellite Uplink its actually -5 max Range penalty kind of a must have together with Signal Scrubber Program for Deckers)
-
This makes sense to me and I wish i could just run with it. But unfortunately the description of the jammer fouls this all up.
"This device floods the airwaves with electromagnetic jamming signals to block out wireless and radio communication. The jammer generates noise equal to its Device Rating. The area jammer affects a spherical area—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 10 meters from the center. The directional jammer affects a conical area with a thirty-degree spread—its rating is reduced by 1 for every 30 meters from the center. The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them. Walls and other obstacles may prevent the jamming signal from spreading or reduce its effect (gamemaster’s discretion). Jammers are available with ratings from 1 to 6. Wireless bonus: You can set your jammer to not interfere with devices and personas you designate."
Weve got noise coming directly from the jammer and weve got a wireless bonus that allows an unlimited amount of devices and personas that can be set to ignore the jamming. So theoretically a rigger wouldnt have to worry about a thing as long as the RCC and all the drones are on that whitelist.
Ive got a group of 7 teenagers, all first timers coming off a DnD game, about to start running and no one wanted to be a decker. So now theyre all digging through the options to make themselves as deckerproof as possible. the Jammer is the favorite option so far so I need to decide how im going to allow this device to be used as an active countermeasure, if at all.
I have a simple solution. Pick the option that will be the most fun for your teenagers. :)
-
I totally get what you're saying, Local Noise plus Distance is sane and easy. And trying to figure out how many spam zones or salt water fish tanks (Hacking around Seaworld is just impossible I'd guess) are between you and your target a couple klicks away isn't something a sane GM would want to fiddle with. But some of the more common Matrix counter measures are things like Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint, they just don't work if the Hacker is a block away? I should think Jammers and Anti-Wireless paint would fall under the specific trumps general clause. YMMV.
I'm with you on this.
Noise local to one end of comms and noise local to other end of comms makes a lot more sense to me than only considering one end, and doesn't feel unbearably complex. Instead of one pretty arbitrary GM-made-up number, we have two, added together [1]. It would be very weird if a decker was crippled with noise while trying to hack something in the next room but could make the noise vanish that by driving a half-klick up the road. I mean, who possibly thinks that's reasonable? Either mechanically or in fluff terms? My players would laugh me out of the room. And rightly so!
Noise in-between the two things communicating can easily be handwaved away though -- it's a mesh network, it routes around noise automatically, it's almost impossible to disrupt all possible routes through the mesh from A to B, yadda yadda. That keeps things practical.
[1] Unless you want to say that Noise isn't cumulative and only the single highest score counts -- which might be a decent idea, I think?
-
Wireless bonus: You can set your jammer to not interfere with devices and personas you designate."
...
Ive got a group of 7 teenagers, all first timers coming off a DnD game, about to start running and no one wanted to be a decker. So now theyre all digging through the options to make themselves as deckerproof as possible. the Jammer is the favorite option so far so I need to decide how im going to allow this device to be used as an active countermeasure, if at all.
Have you considered outright dropping the wireless bonus? That's a lot of the source of your problem, and I don't think it makes the jammer underpowered if you simply remove it. I don't think jammers offered this in 5e.
-
@penllawen
In 5th Edition Jammer had the same Wireless Bonus p.441 5th Core Rulebook.
I think the way to go is really if your device is not jammed, by wireless bonus, its not protected either. Even if you stand next to it, why is the Device not affected when it accesses - for example - the Weather Channel but its "positivly jammed" when a Hacker accesses it ? (the same as Stainless Steel Devil Rat has written with different words ^^)
I would really like the Noise like you suggested to be calculated like that:
Range + Highest Noise Source affecting either Hacker or Target
-
@penllawen
In 5th Edition Jammer had the same Wireless Bonus p.441 5th Core Rulebook.
Well for pity's sake, keep it quiet so my players don't find out!
-
@penllawen
In 5th Edition Jammer had the same Wireless Bonus p.441 5th Core Rulebook.
I think the way to go is really if your device is not jammed, by wireless bonus, its not protected either. Even if you stand next to it, why is the Device not affected when it accesses - for example - the Weather Channel but its "positivly jammed" when a Hacker accesses it ? (the same as Stainless Steel Devil Rat has written with different words ^^)
I would really like the Noise like you suggested to be calculated like that:
Range + Highest Noise Source affecting either Hacker or Target
With 5e we got the really weird clarification that wireless functionality ONLY meant wireless bonus, not actual wireless functionality (which meant headjammers literally could not block a commlink from calling, even though their description said so). The biggest differences between SR5 and SR6 Noise would be that now it explicitly can kill your connection with the Matrix, and that static/spam zones are not explicitly described anymore.
Anyway, yeah, I would go with 'your own noise determines whether you can get online, and when dealing with a target the highest of target/you is added to the range noise' myself.
-
Ah, but is the physical hardware generating a hotel's host in the hotel, or is it a life support system somewhere in the PCC desert that's keeping a dead technomancer's brain going, which is what's linking the Host to the Foundation? :D
Making the matrix closely parallel to magic was a mistake.
-
Ah, but is the physical hardware generating a hotel's host in the hotel, or is it a life support system somewhere in the PCC desert that's keeping a dead technomancer's brain going, which is what's linking the Host to the Foundation? :D
Making the matrix closely parallel to magic was a mistake.
For what it's worth... I do support that particular piece of lore and is not referenced directly in the CRB matrix chapter for a reason.
-
In 5th Edition the Noise may have been pointless. But in 6th it shuts devices down and a decker can only reduce it by 2, a Rigger by 8.
How can a rigger reduce it by 8? I thought they only had access to the same scrubber programs the deckers use.
-
Device rating of RCC reduces noise by its rating. So DR6 RCC + SignalScrubber 2 =8 reduction
-
RCCs also provide noise reduction, reducing
noise penalties by their Device Rating.
-
Device rating of RCC reduces noise by its rating. So DR6 RCC + SignalScrubber 2 =8 reduction
Wow, i completely missed that. but there it is right in the end of the CRB RCC description. Thanks.
-
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...
...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius
It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.
It's hard to find ideas for what the Electronics Warfare specialization of Cracking would be used for...
Check OS, Hide, Jam Signals, Snoop, Spoof Command as well as controlling devices such as maglocks, elevators, ventilation, lights, sensors, alarms...
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
A Smoke Grenade inflict the Blinded I status for anyone acting through the smoke (and Blinded II for anyone acting from within the smoke).
While a Jammer seem to only inflict noise on devices acting from within the area of effect.
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
A Smoke Grenade inflict the Blinded I status for anyone acting through the smoke (and Blinded II for anyone acting from within the smoke).
While a Jammer seem to only inflict noise on devices acting from within the area of effect.
A jammer is kind of the electronic equivalent of a smoke grenade though. While the negative rating by RAW applies to devices inside the range of the jammer, any device outside the range would still have to penetrate the noise to reach a device inside the noise bubble. The noise exists as a barrier to make a connection, so in theory it should work in both directions.
-
A jammer is kind of the electronic equivalent of a smoke grenade though. While the negative rating by RAW applies to devices inside the range of the jammer, any device outside the range would still have to penetrate the noise to reach a device inside the noise bubble. The noise exists as a barrier to make a connection, so in theory it should work in both directions.
I personally do not think a smoke grenade is a good analogy, because a smoke grenade affects everyone equally while a Jammer has a specific rule that allows it's effect to not be applied to devices you choose.
In this respect, I think someone said it best earlier in the thread; a jammer is an offensive weapon, not a defense one. When you jam all devices in an area you are attempting to accomplish one of two things;
1. Block incoming and outgoing communication
2. Same as 1, but also allowing your own communication equipment to remain functional
In other words, you are not using a jammer to make it harder on the hacker who is miles away when your own communication equipment is exempt from the effects of the jammer in the first place. Instead, you are using the jammer from preventing people in your immediate vicinity from being able to even call out to the hacker in the first place.
-
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...
...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius
It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.
Put a jammer next to a turret. Put a decker next to the jammer. The decker tries to hack the turret. The jammer imposes a noise penalty. The decker fails the hack.
The decker walks away, out of range of the jammer. He tries to hack the turret again. The jammer no longer has any effect. The hack succeeds.
Forget the letter of the rules for the moment. Does that seem reasonable to you?
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...
Yes, which is why, as I already stated, I believe that if you're exempted you don't get to use it as defense either. But if you're not exempted, I believe the hacker targeting you will suffer. I used it as example to disagree with the 'well it says only devices inside, so if you hack from outside in you're fine no matter what' reasoning. The phrasing is more likely to be about 'there's no such thing as going THROUGH the area with your signal, so the Noise won't be noticable by people on the outside'. That smoke grenade will impact if you fire from one side to the other. In the matrix that isn't a thing, which explains the phrasing.
If I try to hack something that's 5 meters underwater, I face a penalty because of the Noise that device is suffering, even if I'm fine. If I try to hack something that's being jammed, I believe I should suffer the penalty as well. And that is how I will rule it as GM, because I'm not rulelawyering that description when other plausible readings exist. So at my table, it will be 'highest of attacker/defender noise, + distance', and if the attacker or defender is actively jammed, that will count. If you're exempted, it doesn't.' I do want some proper SRM clarification in half a year, but at my table I'm fine right now.
-
If I try to hack something that's 5 meters underwater, I face a penalty because of the Noise that device is suffering, even if I'm fine. If I try to hack something that's being jammed, I believe I should suffer the penalty as well. And that is how I will rule it as GM, because I'm not rulelawyering that description when other plausible readings exist. So at my table, it will be 'highest of attacker/defender noise, + distance', and if the attacker or defender is actively jammed, that will count. If you're exempted, it doesn't.' I do want some proper SRM clarification in half a year, but at my table I'm fine right now.
This seems to be the most sensible approach to me. I echo the desire for clarification, too.
-
It makes sense to me that devices inside a jamming field are vulnerable to hacking if they are at that time exempted. But if I have a jamming field going what happens to all of my own devices inside the jamming field that are not exempted? If I engage a jamming field but dont exempt any of my devices doesnt that render all of my devices useless? I feel like it does. In that case it seems like a better idea to just turn everything off if hacker defense is my goal. The exempting feature would be useful for things like subduing someone so you can jam their commlink while keeping yours functional, or beating a rigger with a bat and steaming trids at the same time while preventing drone reprisals.
So I agree with a few posts here so far that the jammer's applications are mostly offensive.
-
The exempting feature would be useful for things like subduing someone so you can jam their commlink while keeping yours functional, or beating a rigger with a bat and steaming trids at the same time while preventing drone reprisals.
So I agree with a few posts here so far that the jammer's applications are mostly offensive.
Exactly. Just like throwing a wet blanket on a fire, your primary goal when employing jamming should be to prevent your opponent from communicating. Take the meager micro-transceiver, for example; place a jammer or two in strategic locations (directional jammers help here) and exempt your micro-transceivers but nothing else. You're taking out the opposition's communications capabilities, potentially depriving them of the ability to call for reinforcements (physical, magical, or matrix), potentially causing riggers to get dumpshocked (unlikely, but possible with high strength jammers) and/or knocking non-rigged drones and cameras off-line so a spider can't jump into them until they connect to the Matrix again, all the while maintaining some comms of your own.
I very much see jammers as offensive tools, especially in Shadowrun where communication is ever-present. As someone else in this thread pointed out, though, it's not subtle; activating a R6 jammer, directional OR area, is going to raise all kinds of hell and is the sigint equivalent of going in guns blazing.
-
Yep. Jamming the site's sensors and comms IS the SIGINT equivalent of going in guns-a-blazing. (edit: It's probably a very reasonable assumption that when QRF and/or HTR shows up, they're showing up with benefit of a top of the line, maybe even milspec, jammer...)
So if that's your plan, then by all means jam the opposition. But if your plan ISN'T "kick the door in", then remember that's essentially what you're doing anyway on the Matrix frequencies when you have an active Jammer going...
-
...so in theory it should work in both directions.
I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.
In this edition you are also not really hacking individual devices anymore.
Rather you seem to be hacking the entire 'network' the device is attached to to.
-
A smoke bomb won't impact people outside its range but they still face smoke problems when firing at someone inside the cloud.
But not so much if there are holes opened up in the smoke cloud so certain people inside can see out just fine...
If you happened to be perfectly aligned with the small holes that constantly change alignment depending on where the people are looking; there's no logical reason you should be immune to the noise penalty unless you're operating on the same frequency as the exempted user, and what are the odds of that? Alternatively, if the rigger has enough noise cancellation on their RCC, they don't even need to use their jammer in wireless mode. Br'er Rabbit the rigger scurries into the briar patch of noise and laughs as Br'er Fox the decker gets pricked and tangled up trying to follow him.
-
...so in theory it should work in both directions.
I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.
The fact that the Matrix doesn't resemble current-day computer systems much doesn't mean the Matrix rules shouldn't be internally consistent. Which is Hephaestus's point - the rules aren't consistent if noise at one end of a connection doesn't effect the other end. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the "the decker walks up the road and magically he can hack again" scenario, which I've yet to see any refutation of.
-
If you happened to be perfectly aligned with the small holes that constantly change alignment depending on where the people are looking; there's no logical reason you should be immune to the noise penalty unless you're operating on the same frequency as the exempted user, and what are the odds of that?
I'm not a fan of this approach, as I think the wireless Matrix is presented (consciously so) as more abstract than I'm about to write, and it's broadly better not to get bogged down in details. But if you want some fluff to justify it, here goes: most wireless devices (both today and in SR) will be frequency agile, hopping from one channel to another. The jammer could be set up in such a way as it leaves tiny, shifting holes in the frequency space un-jammed, and it broadcasts the sequence of those holes to "friendly" devices so they can still communicate by dancing through the clear, un-jammed air. The sequence of holes would need to be very long and unguessable, so "foe" devices couldn't figure out how to jump onto them, but that's a solvable problem.
Source: I have a PhD in frequency hopping network design from my dark and misguided past.
-
Yep. Jamming the site's sensors and comms IS the SIGINT equivalent of going in guns-a-blazing. (edit: It's probably a very reasonable assumption that when QRF and/or HTR shows up, they're showing up with benefit of a top of the line, maybe even milspec, jammer...)
So if that's your plan, then by all means jam the opposition. But if your plan ISN'T "kick the door in", then remember that's essentially what you're doing anyway on the Matrix frequencies when you have an active Jammer going...
Stop! Jammer time.
-
The jammer could be set up in such a way as it leaves tiny, shifting holes in the frequency space un-jammed, and it broadcasts the sequence of those holes to "friendly" devices so they can still communicate by dancing through the clear, un-jammed air. The sequence of holes would need to be very long and unguessable, so "foe" devices couldn't figure out how to jump onto them, but that's a solvable problem.
I like this.
Conceivably the sequence wouldn't even need to be broadcast. One could have an algorithm that generates the hopping sequence from a key similarly to a hashing function (e.g. easy to calculate in one direction, incredibly hard to reverse calculate). As long as all devices shared that key, they would know when to "hop" and only the communication of the key at some point earlier would be necessary to make that happen.
-
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
...The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them...
...Part of the debate happening here is if a jamming field should cause some sort of interference for devices outside of its radius attempting to interact with things inside or through the radius
It seem as if a jammer will not affect devices that are outside the jamming area.
Put a jammer next to a turret. Put a decker next to the jammer. The decker tries to hack the turret. The jammer imposes a noise penalty. The decker fails the hack.
The decker walks away, out of range of the jammer. He tries to hack the turret again. The jammer no longer has any effect. The hack succeeds.
Forget the letter of the rules for the moment. Does that seem reasonable to you?
As I wrote in a post earlier in this thread (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=30307.msg527627#msg527627) Noise doesn't make much sense. While it is dressed up to kind of look legit, it really isn't for a multitude of reasons.
If the simplest "use local Noise + Distance Noise" doesn't work for you, then the next simplest idea - that others have posted - is "use the higher of Source Noise or Target Noise + Distance Noise."
This posses it's own issues, namely adding steps, yet keeps things relatively simple.
The Local + Distance has the strange situation of a Rigger sitting in the clear being able to pilot his/her Device Rating 2 or 3 drone into an area of 12 Noise without any penalty over Distance Noise.
The Source or Target + Distance adds in the steps of checking to make sure both devices are legit able to connect to the Matrix, and then compare two values before adding Distance. On the other hand, it makes a bit more sense. Whether or not that sensibility is worth the extra effort...
-
...so in theory it should work in both directions.
I stopped trying to apply 2019 knowledge on Shadowrun Matrix rules years ago.
In this edition you are also not really hacking individual devices anymore.
Rather you seem to be hacking the entire 'network' the device is attached to to.
I forget, could you select/exempt devices in 5th, or is this new to 6th?
-
Stop! Jammer time.
Relevant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_wS0Kw6k9c :)
-
I forget, could you select/exempt devices in 5th, or is this new to 6th?
The wireless bonus for a Jammer was the same in 5e. What's new is it's explicit that Jamming (well, all Noise now) knocks you offline rather than just removing wireless bonuses.
As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field. But only if the device is being Jammed... As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.
-
As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field. But only if the device is being Jammed... As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.
Next you'll argue that the guy trying to shoot me doesn't take darkness penalties because my goggles have lowlight and thermographic vision.
-
As for the local area "wireless negation"... I think it passes muster to add the Jamming Noise as a penalty to hacking a device inside the field. But only if the device is being Jammed... As I opined before: If the device is not being affected by the Noise, then there is no Noise affecting that device.
Next you'll argue that the guy trying to shoot me doesn't take darkness penalties because my goggles have lowlight and thermographic vision.
Well, if it were a hypothetical magical darkness that allowed certain exceptions to people inside its area to not be enveloped by said darkness: then yes, yes I would. Or, a more accurate analogy would be this: Since the magical darkness isn't affecting the thermographic wavelengths and that's what you're using to see the rest of the world with, then yes you're susceptible to an illusion cast by a hostile mage broadcasting a thermographic image outside the magical darkness.
Jamming is making Noise. It can exempt certain devices. Now this is bringing real life into game mechanics, but devices communicate wirelessly on things called radio frequencies. I have zero doubts that since I'm saying this you'll disagree with me because it's me saying this, but hopefully this makes sense to other people: Jammers don't exempt devices based on where they're located relative to the jammer but rather by which radio frequencies they're using to communicate with the rest of the Matrix... so the Jammer doesn't scream on THOSE frequencies. That is how everything around them is overwhelmed with RF noise but they are not. Now, since those exempted devices have clean frequencies to use to talk to other devices, it certainly stands to reason other unaffected devices can talk back, whether they're inside or outside the Jammer's field. Because if they couldn't, the exempted devices would be suffering Matrix interruptions. Since the MeFeed host can beam you Cat videos without Noise interference, then so too can hackers contact the device without Noise interference.
-
Jammers don't exempt devices based on where they're located relative to the jammer but rather by which radio frequencies they're using to communicate with the rest of the Matrix... so the Jammer doesn't scream on THOSE frequencies.
That is one hell of an assumption. One that is completely unfounded, by the way.
It is jut as likely, and more so frankly, that the Jammer is a mobile ARP Poisoning (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27471/address-resolution-protocol-poisoning-arp-poisoning) platform that allows the user to whitelist the Matrix equivalent of MAC addresses.
Which, by the way, would completely pop your "poking holes in the shield" argument for devices whitelisted and inside the Jammers AOE being vulnerable from the outside.
-
All real-world considerations aside; if you exempt a device from jamming by using the jammer's wireless bonus, then mechanically speaking the exempted device does not suffer the penalty of noise being output by the jammer.
Are we at least in agreement on this simple game mechanic?
It would seem that logically, then, if the device does not suffer noise from the jammer then only the usual noise applies. If the hacker is far away, distance and local noise may apply. If the hacker is in range of the jammer, his device suffers noise from the jammer as well as potentially local noise and distance.
Again, separate the game world and the real world and only consider the rules. If you do not agree with the above logic feel free to elaborate on how and why, but let's try to keep it related to the pure mechanics without dragging the real world into the discussion.
-
All real-world considerations aside; if you exempt a device from jamming by using the jammer's wireless bonus, then mechanically speaking the exempted device does not suffer the penalty of noise being output by the jammer.
...
Again, separate the game world and the real world and only consider the rules. If you do not agree with the above logic feel free to elaborate on how and why, but let's try to keep it related to the pure mechanics without dragging the real world into the discussion.
Strongly agree with this conclusion and this approach (even though I started in with the real-world stuff a few posts back.)
For questions like this, I think one should
(a) determine the most desirable game outcome
(b) check this is coherent / consistent with other rules and the game's internal logic
(c) write some fluff that makes some degree of sense to explain it
To my mind, if you want the "wireless bonus: jammers magically don't jam friendly devices" mechanic, then the ideas above about how the jammer might work explain it. But I think if the jammer is running but you aren't being jammed, you have to be vulnerable to incoming hackers; otherwise I think it violates (b) above. If you don't want that bonus to exist at your table -- which I think has merit as a houserule, if only for simplicity -- then it's even easier to explain.
But start from the mechanics and use that to write the fluff, not the other way around.
-
[...] Since the MeFeed host can beam you Cat videos without Noise interference, then so too can hackers contact the device without Noise interference.
Your original idea without the real life explanations was a lot better. Its simple logic. But I think adding more words wont help here ^^
-
Jammers don't exempt devices based on where they're located relative to the jammer but rather by which radio frequencies they're using to communicate with the rest of the Matrix... so the Jammer doesn't scream on THOSE frequencies. That is how everything around them is overwhelmed with RF noise but they are not. Now, since those exempted devices have clean frequencies to use to talk to other devices, it certainly stands to reason other unaffected devices can talk back, whether they're inside or outside the Jammer's field. Because if they couldn't, the exempted devices would be suffering Matrix interruptions.
Other unaffected devices CAN talk back, but chances are they WON'T. The odds that the decker's cyberdeck is going to be operating on the same frequency as the rigger's RCC are very low, and while the decker could set their frequency to match the rigger's, that would take work. It would some skill check to determine what the rigger's frequency is (assuming that it's a constant frequency, else you have to determine the pattern of frequencies the rigger uses) and then perhaps another check to dial in on the frequency. And in that time, the rigger might just have turned the decker into a corpse....or less morbidly, they might have achieved their objective, whatever it was. Or maybe they didn't achieve their objective, but they got further than they would have if the decker had been actively hacking them instead of trying to find a way to bypass all that noise.
In any case, I'll stand by my previous statement that if I have enough noise reduction, I might not even bother making my drone exempt from a jammer's effect and laugh as the decker feebly tries to penetrate the noise.
-
I would not use any {tech} explanations on shadowrun Matrix i try to show why:
Dont look at the defensive Jammer in a combat situation, look at daily life.
Imagine someone setting up the defensive Jammer Rating 6 exluding his Commlink. Now he gets calls by his customers, all using Commlinks DR3 (they are outside of the jammer field, yet they can call him) if the customers were affected by the Jam with DR3 they could not call him since Noise 6 is too much for their Devices even with SignalScrubber.
So in fact the defensivly jammed Device wouldnt be "unaffected" it would be affected in many way.
Now a Hacker could "call" him as well not affected by Noise, just like the Customers do.
If there are things like "relays" helping a DR1 Commlink to get calls out i dont know. A DR1 Commlink has a very limited Range with 0 Pogram slots. (100-1000m more is Noise 2 ...) But what "directly connected" means in the Noise table is unclear, maybe the Commlink can be connected to something to reduce the Noise to 0 ...
-
I would not use any {tech} explanations on shadowrun Matrix
I refuse. Am I supposed to just treat technology like it's unknowable hocus pocus?
-
I would not use any {tech} explanations on shadowrun Matrix
I refuse. Am I supposed to just treat technology like it's unknowable hocus pocus?
Kind of? The Matrix in Shadowrun is not the internet. Technomancers do not exist in the real world, and we know that the Matrix in 6th Edition is partially based on technomancer research.
Using real world logic to explain the Matrix is like trying to use real-world physics to explain Shadowrun magic. Both the Matrix and magic are fictional game systems, and both are highly abstracted.
In some cases, I think it's better to just let go of trying to compare Shadowrun tech to real world similes and just accept that it's a game; just like with magic, when discussing rules I think it's sometimes easier to just look at the pure mechanical implementation as written. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, this does sometimes cause issues because we just don't have enough setting or rules information.
-
I would not use any {tech} explanations on shadowrun Matrix
I refuse. Am I supposed to just treat technology like it's unknowable hocus pocus?
Yep and that has a good reason.
I give you examples:
- the entire Matrix could be using radio wavebands similar to our Mobile networks, then there would be relays etc like they exist for us. This might be the intented tech being used.
- the user could be using optical devices for communications to prevent being hacked(basically "lasers") advantage would be there is no way to spoof that (as far as modern day knowledge is concerned) but this seems not to be possible in Shadowrun
- the user could be using linked Quantum particles for communication, with todays science proven that they exist its a way to communicate with no time delay. And there wouldnt be any "distance" . Hacking that would mean you form a third Quantum particle mimicing the other two ?
since its possible in 6th edition to spoof signals and there is delay ("noise") you can argue they are using radio wavenbands like we do. While it seems as if in 5th edition it wasnt possible to entirely block a device by using "noise" ? that speaks for something else entirely tech wise.
So why not just forget about frequencies and so on and just look what the rules say ... For me much of scientific tech blabla sounds like gibberish anyway - the word {tech} is coming from Star Trek Nerds to make fun of the explanations used in ScienceFiction movies/series.
-
I like the reasoning you have (all of you), but I don't think they follow how the matrix rules are written. Maybe we are trying too hard thinking about how it worked back in 2019 and a bit too little of how the rules are actually written?
The Jam Signals Matrix Action does not only affect matrix actions conducted on devices that are inside the area of effect (like jammers do). Unlike jammers it explicitly also affect matrix actions that originate from devices outside the area of effect but are targeting devices inside the area of effect:
SR6 p. 182 Jam Signals
This action turns the wireless device you are using into a local jammer. As long as you do not use the device for any further Matrix actions, the device adds any hits you get on the test to the noise rating for all Matrix actions conducted by or targeting any devices within 100 meters.
(emphasis mine)
Unlike Jam Signals, the author for Jammer clearly choose to use another wording. A specific sentence with an explicit wording that make it clear that it only affect devices inside the area of effect were added:
SR6 p. 270 Jammer
The jammer only affects devices that are within the jamming area, but it affects all of them.
(emphasis mine)
Would it make sense if Jammer also affected matrix actions that are aimed at devices inside the area of effect? I personally think so (and so do a lot of the rest of you in this tread it seems), but the author here seem to have good reason why it should only affect devices inside the area of effect.
Either we respect what is written or we house rule that it work in a different way (that is what house rules are for after all), but I don't think one should claim that affecting matrix actions taken from devices that are clearly outside the area effect to be 'RAW' (because it isn't).
In regard to electromagnetic jamming signals in SR6 specifically it seem as if you just need to have a good connection to the "matrix" and then the "matrix" (rather than your device) will take care of transporting the signal all the way to the final target (maybe because the matrix is using a mesh network topology or whatnot). It seem as if as long as (three 'as' in a row, is that even legal??) your device have a good enough signal strength to still be connected to the matrix then it doesn't really matter how much electromagnetic jamming signals there are at the target device. It seem as if conditions at the target device will not directly affect you and your tests (unless, of course, conditions at the target device are so bad that they knock the device off-line in which case you cannot take any matrix action against until it resurface somewhere in the matrix).
If my cyberdeck is not inside the area of effect of your jammer then my cyberdeck is not affected and it is not at risk of being knocked off the matrix due to poor signal strength.
If your drone is at my physical location and not inside the area of effect of your jammer then your drone is also not affected and it is not at risk of being knocked off the matrix due to poor signal strength.
But if your RCC is inside the area of effect of your jammer then your RCC is affected and is at risk of being knocked off the matrix due to poor signal strength.
If I am trying to Data Spike your RCC then my cyberdeck will have a perfectly good signal to the matrix and I will only be affected by noise due to physical distance.
If you are trying to remote control your drone at my physical location your RCC will be affected by the jammer and you will have a poor signal to the matrix and your piloting and engineering tests will be both affected by local noise conditions generated by the jammer as well as noise due to physical distance.
If I am trying to gain User Access on your PAN rather than Data Spiking your RCC specifically then I could instead target your drone. Since your drone is part of your PAN and very close to my physical location I will in this case not even suffer noise due to physical distance (this is one of the drawbacks of having a large PANs that is also spread out over a huge physical area).
If you put your RCC on the jammer's white-list then my cyberdeck will still have a perfectly good signal to the matrix and I will still only be affected by noise due to physical distance when Data Spiking your RCC and I will not be affected by physical distance if I target your drone or your PAN via your drone that is part of your PAN, but in this case your RCC will no longer be affected by noise from the jammer so when remote controlling your drone at my physical location your piloting and engineering tests will only be affected by noise due to physical distance.
I can't see many other ways of resolving this without house ruling that jammers would, in addition to only affecting devices that are physically inside its area of effect, also affect devices outside the area of effect if they are trying to take specific actions on (or against) devices that are physically inside the area of effect.
-
Kind of? The Matrix in Shadowrun is not the internet. Technomancers do not exist in the real world, and we know that the Matrix in 6th Edition is partially based on technomancer research.
A highly contentious issue in and of itself. However, moving on....
Using real world logic to explain the Matrix is like trying to use real-world physics to explain Shadowrun magic. Both the Matrix and magic are fictional game systems, and both are highly abstracted.
In some cases, I think it's better to just let go of trying to compare Shadowrun tech to real world similes and just accept that it's a game; just like with magic, when discussing rules I think it's sometimes easier to just look at the pure mechanical implementation as written. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, this does sometimes cause issues because we just don't have enough setting or rules information.
Problem is, once you pass the hurdle of "something for nothing" Shadowrun magic largely does conform to real-world physics. Magical fire burns things the same way mundane fire does, magical electricity electrocutes things the same way mundane electricity does, and so on. Furthermore, the existence of magic doesn't change how the rest of reality works. The existence of souls and essence doesn't invalidate modern medical technology. Magic is real, but astrology and perpetual motion machines are still bullshit. Likewise, the Matrix may be a bit hocus pocus when technomancers are involved, but there's no reason for it to be hocus pocus as far as mundane users and equipment are concerned.
-
The Jam Signals Matrix Action does not only affect matrix actions conducted on devices that are inside the area of effect (like jammers do). Unlike jammers it explicitly also affect matrix actions that originate from devices outside the area of effect but are targeting devices inside the area of effect:
...well that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
-
The Jam Signals Matrix Action does not only affect matrix actions conducted on devices that are inside the area of effect (like jammers do). Unlike jammers it explicitly also affect matrix actions that originate from devices outside the area of effect but are targeting devices inside the area of effect:
...well that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
So here's what I think is the best practice:
You only tally Noise as following: local Noise rating for the area the acting character is in, the distance to the physical target (note, Hosts don't have a physical location and therefore distance never applies), and the only Noise you include for the target's location is "wireless negation". Things like Anti-wireless paint/wallpaper (which are mentioned in the 6we CRB but not described) would be "wireless negation", but yes given the language used for the Jam Signals action so too would THAT Noise. In the case of a Jammer, it'd apply its Noise to targets that are being jammed, but not to targets that are NOT being Jammed, as I discussed above. (If a device is exempt from the Noise, Noise not affecting that device. Q.E.D.)
-
You only tally Noise as following: local Noise rating for the area the acting character is in, the distance to the physical target (note, Hosts don't have a physical location and therefore distance never applies)
Not always true, right? It wasn’t strictly true in 5e, although IIRC non-Foundation hosts were only mentioned in splatbooks. 6e mentions them in the CRB though I think.
-
I don't think 6we has specified that Noise-due-to-distance never applies to Hosts. But unless I'm mistaken: yes that WAS always the case in 5e.
-
I don't think 6we has specified that Noise-due-to-distance never applies to Hosts. But unless I'm mistaken: yes that WAS always the case in 5e.
Its only implied in 6th
p.184 Trace Icon
This doesn’t work on IC or hosts that have no physical location, but it does work on offline hosts with physical hardware (although if you can access one of those to
trace it, you probably know where it is already).
If something has no physical location its either nowhere or everywhere ^^
Logging into a host with Commlinks like MetaLink seem to be the only way to communicate with far away devices for DR<3 Commlink users. 10 km range to call ppl would be a bit small compared to today.
But to access a host you need to be in VR right ?
And to access VR you need a Simrig, but the Simrig is only described on page 268 its missing in the table on the same page. So it might be intended they are obligatory now ...
going to add that last part to Errata Thread.
-
Well, even if a Host is said to have a physical location, it doesn't mean that physical location of the computers "running" the host is inside the building it correlates to. Or even in the same sprawl. Or even on the same continent.
You want to hack the corner Stuffer Shack's host? It's profoundly unlikely they have a server rack running the host on-site. Much more likely to be run out of regional, or even global corporate hq. Or maybe even contracted out to a 3rd party matrix services farm in Singpore, Neo-Tokyo, or Albuquerque.
-
No i dont want to hack it i just want to get a call out.
p.177Noise
Directly connected (any distance) 0
Up to 100 meters 0
100–1,000 meters 1
1,001–10,000 meters (10 km) 3
10,001 meters to 100 km 5
Greater than 100 km 8
With device Rating 1 im in the 100 meters -1000 meters range. So i cant use p.183 Send Message (legal) No test (Minor) Outsider/User/Admin (which is basically making a phone call ) unless there is some grid, host or whatever you call it with no physical location that i can access to get that message out.
Or i would need a Device Rating 3 Commlink with Signal Scrubber Program and a Satellite Link then i could call anyone (in Game terms: use Matrix Action Send Message)
-
You want to hack the corner Stuffer Shack's host? It's profoundly unlikely they have a server rack running the host on-site. Much more likely to be run out of regional, or even global corporate hq. Or maybe even contracted out to a 3rd party matrix services farm in Singpore, Neo-Tokyo, or Albuquerque.
Strongly disagree. If nefarious Shadowrunners cut a Stuffer Shack’s comm lines - physical or wireless - you don’t want all the security to go down because it’s slaved to a remote host half a planet away. You want some stuff local, for resilience.
-
Lately I have been going through all noise related rules in SR6 :)
A few interesting things to note:
1 :: In this edition there are hosts within hosts.
Old school matrix node maps are back, sort of.
https://imgur.com/a/YSGlugO
2 :: In this edition hosts may be hosted by physical servers.
And if you directly connect to physical server that is hosting an inner host in a multi tier host architecture and manage to hack it then you can directly enter into the inner tier host
3 :: In this edition direct connections no longer let you ignore 'master' ratings.
Instead you might gain access directly to an inner tier host if establishing a direct connection to the physical server the inner tier host is hosted on.
4 :: In this edition there is no mentioning about zero distance to virtual hosts.
Maybe there should be? There is also no mentioning about having zero distance (nor direct connection) to devices being part of a wide area network when you are inside the host that the device belong to...
5 :: In this edition there seem to be three sources of noise
- It seem as if you are either affected by noise due to physical distance
- or noise due to local factors (such as static zones, spam zones or jamming devices)
- or noise due to obstructions (such as wireless negating wallpaper, water, foliage, or the jam signals action etc)
(depending on your reading they might or might not be be cumulative).
6 :: In this edition noise greater than device prevent device from accessing the matrix.
It also seem as if noise due to physical distance is not excluded from this rule (but maybe it should?).
7a :: In this edition there seem to be one way to limit noise:
- Satellite Link (noise due to distance limited to 5)
7b :: Three ways of reduce noise in general:
- Signal Scrubber program (or the Emulate Signal Scrubber Complex Form in case of Living Persona)
- RCC (rather than a cyberdeck/cyberjack, commlink or Living Persona)
- Resonance Channel Complex Form (only Living Personas)
7c :: And one way to fully ignore any penalty from noise:
- Signal Scream 2-Edge Matrix Action (require cyberjack)
(depending on reading this might or might not apply to Faraday's cages or when noise is greater than device rating)
-
With device Rating 1 im in the 100 meters -1000 meters range. So i cant use p.183 Send Message (legal) No test (Minor) Outsider/User/Admin (which is basically making a phone call ) unless there is some grid, host or whatever you call it with no physical location that i can access to get that message out.
Why should we assume that making a phone call depends on the Matrix? I can a man in China right now and my internet connection would have nothing to do with it.
-
I think you'll be fighting the uphill battle to argue that a commcall can be made without Matrix connectivity.
Quotes like this run throughout the corpus of canon of 5e and 6we:
Everyday users access the Matrix for many tasks
in the course of their day, searching for trideos of
cats, answering phone calls, remotely turning on
their car, controlling a logging drone, or monitoring
cameras, among other things.
You're going to have to start finding some quotes that discuss making phone calls WITHOUT going through the Matrix if you're going to propose that's possible. I think you'd also get serious push-back if you were to argue that a commlink jammed off the matrix can still make phone calls.
-
With device Rating 1 im in the 100 meters -1000 meters range. So i cant use p.183 Send Message (legal) No test (Minor) Outsider/User/Admin (which is basically making a phone call ) unless there is some grid, host or whatever you call it with no physical location that i can access to get that message out.
Why should we assume that making a phone call depends on the Matrix? I can a man in China right now and my internet connection would have nothing to do with it.
I try to make it short and not using in game quotes:
do you think its a good idea if you allow regular - and successful withing the Game - use of 1980 tech like analog radio transmitters ("WalkieTalkie"; or 90s tech like early Mobiles) -a Technomancer does "see" those waves and just can crack them like he can crack everything else ? (you can "hack" those easily with modern means, you can even negate waves by emitting contrairy waves)
Those devices were cool when Shadowrun was new, but now they dont make much sense in the setting.
Do you think its a good idea to separate todays Communication into Internet=Matrix and imagine there are still analog Landlines connecting the globe ? i highly doubt there are many landlines connecting China to his neighbor countries even today.
You cant separate "Internet" and "Telefon" especially not when you simplify it down for a game.
But i give it up now if you dont believe me its ok :D
-
do you think its a good idea if you allow regular - and successful withing the Game - use of 1980 tech like analog radio transmitters ("WalkieTalkie"; or 90s tech like early Mobiles) -a Technomancer does "see" those waves and just can crack them like he can crack everything else ? (you can "hack" those easily with modern means, you can even negate waves by emitting contrairy waves)
Those devices were cool when Shadowrun was new, but now they dont make much sense in the setting.
But those exist? That's more or less what micro-transceivers are, as discussed in this thread already.
-
If no-one has any noise when inside a Host, why can't I (a) slave my drones to a Host (b) log into the Host and (c) rig my drones noise-free from anywhere in the world?
-
Since nothing else is written in the rules a Micro Transceiver can withstand Noise with his Device rating. Its being used for the Matrix Action send message. translating sound waves to electric waves and back. It has no firewall or data proxessing listed. So without being slaved in a network it has 0 defense.
Might have been different in other editions but thats what the rules give you. simple and it makes Micro transceivers only good when you fight critters or magic enemies
-
Since nothing else is written in the rules a Micro Transceiver can withstand Noise with his Device rating. Its being used for the Matrix Action send message. translating sound waves to electric waves and back. It has no firewall or data proxessing listed. So without being slaved in a network it has 0 defense.
If a micro-transceiver is a normal Matrix device, why does it have a maximum range of a kilometre? What makes it different to a commlink?
-
if you cant hack it, its magic.(or rather a supernatural device tgats neither Resonance nor Magic) I did not write the rules i can just read them.
-
I did not write the rules i can just read them.
I can read them just fine. But when they make no sense, that's where my objections start. And I won't fall back to "this is what the rules say so that's just how it is" when they make no sense. I'd rather agitate for better rules and/or brainstorm houserules.
-
If no-one has any noise when inside a Host, why can't I (a) slave my drones to a Host (b) log into the Host and (c) rig my drones noise-free from anywhere in the world?
Corps CAN do all those things. YOU cannot, however, as there are no rules for Shadowrunners owning/operating hosts.
-
Corps CAN do all those things. YOU cannot, however, as there are no rules for Shadowrunners owning/operating hosts.
There are "millions" of hosts. Even Foundation hosts are common and cheap enough that the local Stuffer Shack has one, and Kill Code mentions outdated and rogue hosts that are cheaper still. Why shouldn't Shadowrunners have them? What's more cyberpunk than hidden, illicit servers?
-
Corps CAN do all those things. YOU cannot, however, as there are no rules for Shadowrunners owning/operating hosts.
There are "millions" of hosts. Even Foundation hosts are common and cheap enough that the local Stuffer Shack has one, and Kill Code mentions outdated and rogue hosts that are cheaper still. Why shouldn't Shadowrunners have them? What's more cyberpunk than hidden, illicit servers?
I'm not commenting on the should's and could's... just pointing out that 6we gives no allowances for a PC to own or run a host. All you can do with a Host is hack someone else's.
-
I did not write the rules i can just read them.
I can read them just fine. But when they make no sense, that's where my objections start. And I won't fall back to "this is what the rules say so that's just how it is" when they make no sense. I'd rather agitate for better rules and/or brainstorm houserules.
My intention was not to question your - or anyones elses - ability to read. The intention is "sigh" why are such basic rules not described in examples ... 4 extra pages in the Matrix Chapter would help a giga ton.
If you do it like this no house rules necessary:
- Group of people decides they use an anachronistic analog Walkie Talkies without any Software, a pure Hardware device "Network".
Now a Technomancer could simply take control of that network using vastly superior devices with 100+ years advantage to mimic all the anachronistic devices in the network.
So he would use "the internet of things" using microwaves, trid-vision and so on to mimic every device in the network, and with {Resonance} he disables the electronic waves originating from the network and sends his own electric waves in.
In Game terms he just hacked the Network using the normal rules for hacking. And a Hacker Decker could do just the same since the 6th Matrix is described as using {Resonance} powers as well.
That could be beautifully described in fluff that the Technomancer is surprised by the old tech and the Hacker Decker has to browse a short moment for such an old hack.
-
Corps CAN do all those things. YOU cannot, however, as there are no rules for Shadowrunners owning/operating hosts.
There are "millions" of hosts. Even Foundation hosts are common and cheap enough that the local Stuffer Shack has one, and Kill Code mentions outdated and rogue hosts that are cheaper still. Why shouldn't Shadowrunners have them? What's more cyberpunk than hidden, illicit servers?
I'm not commenting on the should's and could's... just pointing out that 6we gives no allowances for a PC to own or run a host. All you can do with a Host is hack someone else's.
OK. If corps and nation-states can proxy all Matrix traffic via a host to do no-noise-at-any-distance comms then
a) why do corps ever have deckers/spiders on-site? They could be defending any corp property from anywhere in the world.
b) why are military riggers present in the craft they pilot? Training is expensive. They could be chilling at Fort Bragg in perfect safety.
c) I'm sure there's plenty more in this vein but I'm too depressed to keep going.
All I want is a ruleset that doesn't fall apart the second my players start poking at it. And I don't want to have to ban my players from poking at rules, because I don't like forbidding cleverness.
-
My intention was not to question your - or anyones elses - ability to read. The intention is "sigh" why are such basic rules not described in examples ... 4 extra pages in the Matrix Chapter would help a giga ton.
Fair enough. Also: yeah, I feel those feels.
Group of people decides they use an anachronistic analog Walkie Talkies without any Software, a pure Hardware device "Network".
I can't argue that the rules don't allow this reading. But this reading also makes the device so trivially defeatable as to render it completely pointless, which feels unsatisfactory -- why even include it in the book?
-
Corps CAN do all those things. YOU cannot, however, as there are no rules for Shadowrunners owning/operating hosts.
There are "millions" of hosts. Even Foundation hosts are common and cheap enough that the local Stuffer Shack has one, and Kill Code mentions outdated and rogue hosts that are cheaper still. Why shouldn't Shadowrunners have them? What's more cyberpunk than hidden, illicit servers?
I'm not commenting on the should's and could's... just pointing out that 6we gives no allowances for a PC to own or run a host. All you can do with a Host is hack someone else's.
OK. If corps and nation-states can proxy all Matrix traffic via a host to do no-noise-at-any-distance comms then
a) why do corps ever have deckers/spiders on-site? They could be defending any corp property from anywhere in the world.
b) why are military riggers present in the craft they pilot? Training is expensive. They could be chilling at Fort Bragg in perfect safety.
c) I'm sure there's plenty more in this vein but I'm too depressed to keep going.
All I want is a ruleset that doesn't fall apart the second my players start poking at it. And I don't want to have to ban my players from poking at rules, because I don't like forbidding cleverness.
A) exactly. there's no need for, nor should there be any expectation of, a Spider being physically on-site.
B) basically, they're not? Even commercial airliners are rigged anymore. This goes back to the 1st ed Rigger Black Book set in the in-game year of 2050...
C) what's so upsetting about any of this? If a player goes "I want to bypass the rules put in place to limit how I use drones and set up a host!" all you have to do is say "No." But if you're not comfortable just saying "No", then say "Ok. Look up how much it costs to buy/set up a Host. I'll get back to you when you find it."
It's actually not that hard... there are rules that apply to the PCs, and the NPCs don't necessarily have to abide by them. A military rigger absolutely CAN pilot a drone on the far side of the world without noise penalty because his Air Force Base has a Host that has much more powerful capabilities than your Rigger's RCC.
-
C) what's so upsetting about any of this? If a player goes "I want to bypass the rules put in place to limit how I use drones and set up a host!" all you have to do is say "No." But if you're not comfortable just saying "No", then say "Ok. Look up how much it costs to buy/set up a Host. I'll get back to you when you find it."
I think we have a deeply fundamental disagreement here on how RPGs work. Is this always your response when players want to do something that's not in the rules?
In a recent session, a player wanted to smash out of a first floor window and do a diving melee attack onto an opponent below. I don't think there are any specific rules for that. Should I have said "show me where in the book it says you can do that"?
Surely this sort of thing -- players wanting to do things or having to operate in circumstances that aren't in the rules -- happens all the time? Do you always say no? Do you play RPGs like board games, then -- there's a list of actions one specifically can do, and players pick between the items on that list?
At my table, it's different. We put the narrative first. "You are in this situation," I say, as GM. "Then I will take this action," replies the player. Then -- and only then -- do we figure out the rules that cover the action. And when there are no rules, we improvise something based on what rules we have.
-
C) what's so upsetting about any of this? If a player goes "I want to bypass the rules put in place to limit how I use drones and set up a host!" all you have to do is say "No." But if you're not comfortable just saying "No", then say "Ok. Look up how much it costs to buy/set up a Host. I'll get back to you when you find it."
I think we have a deeply fundamental disagreement here on how RPGs work. Is this always your response when players want to do something that's not in the rules?
In a recent session, a player wanted to smash out of a first floor window and do a diving melee attack onto an opponent below. I don't think there are any specific rules for that. Should I have said "show me where in the book it says you can do that"?
Surely this sort of thing -- players wanting to do things or having to operate in circumstances that aren't in the rules -- happens all the time? Do you always say no? Do you play RPGs like board games, then -- there's a list of actions one specifically can do, and players pick between the items on that list?
At my table, it's different. We put the narrative first. "You are in this situation," I say, as GM. "Then I will take this action," replies the player. Then -- and only then -- do we figure out the rules that cover the action. And when there are no rules, we improvise something based on what rules we have.
There's absolutely a time and place for incorporating players' ideas into the game when the rules don't cover them. What we're disagreeing on, apparently, is whether there are limits to how far that adaptability should go.
For example, let's say a player doesn't want to play a Shadowrunner, but instead wants to play a Mr. Johnson. It's totally an appropriate in-universe archetype, right? Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for players to play. At least, not in a standard Shadowrun campaign. You can be a FORMER Mr. Johnson, sure. Or a runner who hopes to sell out and become a FUTURE Mr. Johnson, sure. But things a Mr. Johnson does is solidly in the realm of "NPC" rather than "PC". Assuming, of course, you're running a "standard" campaign where the players are playing Shadowrunners. A campaign where everyone plays corp movers and shakers could indeed be a neat thing to behold, hiring shadowrunners as your own pawns to sniff out and foil each other's plots and plans... but that's hardly the default kind of campaign.
So just like Mr. Js are perfectly appropriate to the setting, so too are illegal/underground Hosts. Afterall every mob in the Sprawl surely has many of them, right? Again it doesn't mean Shadowrunners make personal use of them. If you want to allow it, fine! No sarcasm. It's just that you'll have to invent a whole bunch of rules since the game by default sets up Hosts as being a kind of NPC-only thing. And if you're going to make up a bunch of rules for PC-run Hosts, well there's not much the rest of us can do other than kibitz. Because: in the rules PCs aren't assumed to control Hosts. Me, I'd rather just save myself and the player heartache by just nipping any desire to shortcut Noise rules by setting up a personal Host in the bud by flatly disallowing it. Unless/until such time there are rules for PC-run Hosts! (How much does it cost to set up? How much does it cost per month to run? How do you figure the ASDF values, given as-is they're "whatever the frag you want them to be"- that's not conducive to good play balance in player hands! How do you keep GOD from shutting it down- Overwatch Score only applies to hacking tests... etc etc. )
-
In a recent session, a player wanted to smash out of a first floor window and do a diving melee attack onto an opponent below. I don't think there are any specific rules for that. Should I have said "show me where in the book it says you can do that"?
Thats one Major Action bashing the window in (Structure Rating in the Book is 2 and goes up to 11) so he needs 1 DV to smash the window. Str 1 can be enough. Or he jumps trough thats Multi Attack Major Action combined with Minor Action. Next in any RPG that would be a charge type attack in Shadowrun 6th since there is no melee charge specified (i think yes?) it would give him 1 or 2 Edge depending on the Situation.
(So one Major Action, 1 Minor Action, get max Edge)
edit: well something like that. One GM will let him use more Minor Actions, one will add DV ... Vehicle Ramming gives DV for speed, could use those rules thats closest to a melee charge in 6th as far as i remember what i read in the book.
edit: regarding odd Gear in the book. Look at all the stuff like AR Gloves, Subvocal Microphone, Micro Transceiver (we talked about that).
Who would need such things when a DNI (trodes) costs 70Y. I think thats a big change blindness people cant wrap their mind around non-magic telepathy and controling devices by thinking which DNI provides
-
I think you'll be fighting the uphill battle to argue that a commcall can be made without Matrix connectivity.
I can do it now. In fact, I could've done it the 1980s if I had been alive then, so if you're telling me I can't do it in 2080 then the engineers and designers of commlinks either:
- are a bunch of chimpanzees with Downs Syndrome
- have set out to fuck over their own customer base in a way that makes Apple and their shitty overpriced iPhones look pro-consumer by comparison
Now, Shadowrun is a cyberpunk dystopia, so I would easily accept the second explanation, but you have to spell that out in the books.
-
@GhostRigger
ever seen the Movie Independance Day 1 ? do you think your Phone is actually calling there in China ? or is it rather a satellite or a long line of relays thats forwarding the call ?
maybe talk in real with some engineer you trust in ... :)
-
Yes, yes, I'm aware that modern communications depend on satellites. My point still stands, and you still need to find a better ESL teacher.
-
Yes, yes, I'm aware that modern communications depend on satellites. My point still stands, and you still need to find a better ESL teacher.
But ... since you aware of that i dont get the problem. Your calls gets forwarded to a Satellite
So when you use an iphone of today in SR 2080 the call gets forwarded to a relay and/ or a Satellite. And there the hacker gets you spoofing the Matrix Action "send message". In game terms it doesnt matter how your phone works ...
(in the case of Shadowrun a Transys Avalon Commlink with DR 6 and 2 noise reduction is actually able to send his waves/whatever trough planet Earth since if it is able to
withstand the 8 Noise for greatest distance).
edit: what is that ESL comment supposed to mean ? i speak 4 languages how many do you speak ? if i am using a wrong term you could have just told me, but when i was talking to USA Engineers they usually understood me, so maybe its not me ...
-
Except I'm not talking about iphones. I'm talking about big, chunky cellphones from the 1980s that, with modern infrastructure, can get crystal clear reception in the middle of the Nevada desert or the wildest northern tundra of Canada. If a Metalink can't do that, or make a call to China from North America, then it's worse than technology from literally a hundred years ago. Either phone calls don't depend on Matrix connectivity, or communications technology took a huge leap backwards in the 21st century.
(in the case of Shadowrun a Transys Avalon Commlink with DR 6 and 2 noise reduction is actually able to send his waves/whatever trough planet Earth since if it is able to withstand the 8 Noise for greatest distance).
That is absurd, given the noise penalties for even a few meters of earth. A satellite link would bypass those penalties and limit noise from distance, but for some reason those aren't standard on commlinks.
-
you cant use a wave to call in china since the Earth is round. There are tricks to use the atmosphere to let the wave "bounce" between earth and upper atmosphere. But no you cannot call in china with your big chunky mobile from the 80s. But i have enough of that flatearther shit now. I am out 👍
-
Ah yes, the classic tactic of calling your opponent a flat earther, instead of addressing their argument which didn't actually imply or rely on the existence of a flat earth. Stay mad, dumbass.
-
Looks like we need to separate to respective corners and take a break. This thread will reopen in a day.