Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Automaton on <01-17-13/0538:09>
-
I have a 6 player group, 1 played a hacker but quit playing it to switch to a streetsam, and basically no wants to play a hacker anymore.
This is a bit tough in a world that runs on the matrix which is everywhere.
So now they want a party npc as a hacker, or hire one when neccessary...
I have to say I cant blame them really. I think the only part of the 4e shadowrun system that just plane sucks is the hacking and matrix rules. The rest I love but the hacking bit...
Who came up with that totally unnecessarily over complicated system? I really really hope it will be streamlined and simplified in the 5th edition..
Anyway.. my complains aside, I'm not sure how to handle this situation. In a 6 player group, having to add an npc just because no one wants to play a hacker is a bit silly...
Should I just let them run without one? That will make things waaaay tougher then it has been so far..
-
I have a 6 player group, 1 played a hacker but quit playing it to switch to a streetsam, and basically no wants to play a hacker anymore.
This is a bit tough in a world that runs on the matrix which is everywhere.
So now they want a party npc as a hacker, or hire one when neccessary...
I have to say I cant blame them really. I think the only part of the 4e shadowrun system that just plane sucks is the hacking and matrix rules. The rest I love but the hacking bit...
Who came up with that totally unnecessarily over complicated system? I really really hope it will be streamlined and simplified in the 5th edition..
Anyway.. my complains aside, I'm not sure how to handle this situation. In a 6 player group, having to add an npc just because no one wants to play a hacker is a bit silly...
Should I just let them run without one? That will make things waaaay tougher then it has been so far..
A team without Matrix support will be hired for jobs that don't require Matrix support.
Of course, those don't tend to be good jobs - that's stuff like runs into Chicago, where there isn't a Matrix to support from. For a job not to need Matrix support, odds are the reason for that makes a lot of other things suck.
-
There are some areas in the world that have "Dead Zones" where there is no matrix activity. Perhaps you could send the group there. I don't recall the exact locations but you could put them in more remote places such as some of the lesser developed rain forests or some other less civilized areas. There could easily be reason for people with guns and knives to be there and you wouldn't need a hacker.
But I think it's best to have a hacker. When I GM I tend to keep the hacker's tasks moving at a fast pace and try to make the hacker feel good about what he's doing. I give some nice description of what he sees but I move it along the moment it feels too slow. If a player tends to have success and look cool as a hacker, they might like it more. Not to say there shouldn't be challenges, but there should be times where the hacker just rolls over the system and it's all done within a few minutes of game time.
As for the rules, yes, they're terrible. As a house rule, we let the hacker add his logic to his rolls but the thresholds a bit higher. When we don't know a rule, we just wing it because otherwise you'll be reaching for your book every 10 seconds. Once in a while there will be stiff security and when that time comes I like to be as prepared as possible to keep things moving fast so the players don't get restless. Even if you had a player that dabbled in hacking a little it could still be a huge asset. Anyway, hacking is a lot of fun when it's smooth and fast. Give the new hacker some valuable files to find, put some serious nuyen in his pocket and he'll be itching for the next opportunity. You could even have Mr.Johnson pull someone aside and request them to hack. He would even give a free high end commlink+programs for whatever role playing reason you wish. If it's free, maybe they'll bite.
Tired as hell, just some ideas :P
-
having to add an npc just because no one wants to play a hacker is a bit silly...
Why?
Is it not possible to give them a rough estimate from the NPC on how long a given activity will take, then to throw complications and delays and requests for other team members to do things to help the hacker?
-
having to add an npc just because no one wants to play a hacker is a bit silly...
Why?
Is it not possible to give them a rough estimate from the NPC on how long a given activity will take, then to throw complications and delays and requests for other team members to do things to help the hacker?
For one thing, it basically says "You don't have to worry about team composition; I'll just solve any problems that causes for you". Players need to eat the consequences of their own decisions.
-
No it doesn't.
It says the GM will support player choice and convert issues from a system in which no player wants to take part, to one in which they do.
-
Both valid reasons really...
I mean I want to keep the game fun and flowing for everyone. If no one wants to play a hacker I'll just have to accept that. Forcing someone into the role is not the right way.
How about equipment? We play in Japan. They have robots, I could just load out a robot (drone with limited ai basically) with the tools and software to hack I gues.. They'd have a mobile hacking toolbox.
Or a rigger using that....
I mean I want the group to have fun and be able to take on all the missions I throw at hem, but I dont want to slow things down further for everyone by adding another character to the 6 men group, even if it is an npc.
-
No it doesn't.
It says the GM will support player choice and convert issues from a system in which no player wants to take part, to one in which they do.
Which is why you give them the jobs that a team of that structure would get, Figure out missions where hacking isn't needed.
-
That's one solution. It's not the only available solution that fits those two points.
The drone option is a decent one. It doesn't need to be humanoid or human sized - the micro-tapper bug from Unwired is able to attach itself directly to fibreoptic cables, and makes a very mobile hacker after some upgrades.
-
Players need to eat the consequences of their own decisions.
It says the GM will support player choice and convert issues from a system in which no player wants to take part, to one in which they do.
It would be silly to punish them for not wanting to bog down the game, but I think you can have a little of both of the above elements. Let them contract out the Hacking, but have it cut into their profits. Not necessarily an equal player-share amount, but enough to cut out 10% of each of their share or something. And make it bigger than just some dude they phone in. Have him help them, but then he get's in trouble for it, and they either have to help him out or have their Rep burned. Make the NPC a part of the group, not only will it let them do the kind of Runs you want them to do (and that they probably want to do), but an NPC hacker - who you don't have to roll for - is a indispensable plot device. "Nope, sorry guys, can't open that door, you'll have to find another way in.", "Sorry, guys, they're on to me. You're on your own from here on out." Don't make it a 100% burden or a 100% boon, make it a dynamic part of the story.
-
Agreed with emsquared, it is a great plot device. My group runs with an NPC technomancer (named Prodigy...) and I use her in much the same way emsquared just described. She is definitely seen as part of the group. Heck, the merc of the group should probably take the Dependent negative quality the way he practically bodyguards her during runs.
-
You could make her someone like /dev/grll. :)
On a personal note I've played a couple of hackers already and I find the matrix not all that difficult. Matrix combat for instance is just the same as regular combat, but with other skills. But the system is actually exactly the same (attack roll vs. defence, see how much damage you do, roll for soak). But that's probably a discussion for another tread.
-
Why not have someone shell out for the pocket hacker?
-
That pocket hacker is only good for low security systems. But not a bad idea if that is all you face. And my hackers rarely actually get into cybercombat. You get overwhelmed with black IC if you try the brute force approach in my experience. Just think from a company standpoint. I have this R&D lab that makes million dollar high tech widgets. I invest 50k on IC. That gets me at least two bad a$$ ICs. Even a good hacker just tries to slip by. Better than getting your brain fried.
Again, that's in my experience, both as a GM and as a player.
-
If you go with an NPC hacker you could make it an NPC AI that has taken up residence in one of the teams comlinks. With it being an AI it leaves your options open as to what it would want for compensation for individual runs. Maybe the AI just likes a certain player or the group as a whole and just tries to help them (group edge bought with karma?).
-
If you go with an NPC hacker you could make it an NPC AI that has taken up residence in one of the teams comlinks. With it being an AI it leaves your options open as to what it would want for compensation for individual runs. Maybe the AI just likes a certain player or the group as a whole and just tries to help them (group edge bought with karma?).
They could free the AI from whatever corp and it might be paying them back for its freedom at first, only starrting to ask favours of them later...
-
Is it not possible to give them a rough estimate from the NPC on how long a given activity will take, then to throw complications and delays and requests for other team members to do things to help the hacker?
This is what I like doing. Takes less time than trying to look up and run the Matrix while the rest of the team is waiting for the hacker to open the door.
I mean I want to keep the game fun and flowing for everyone. If no one wants to play a hacker I'll just have to accept that. Forcing someone into the role is not the right way. I mean I want the group to have fun and be able to take on all the missions I throw at hem, but I dont want to slow things down further for everyone by adding another character to the 6 men group, even if it is an npc.
I think it can be done with some preparation and practice winging it - by the sound of it, you've already got a good grasp of what makes a fun time for your table anyway, so it's doubtful that either option will be disastrous.
The key - and everybody in the thread already seems to see this - is that you don't want to punish the players for liking the play style they've set up. It's after they start making stupid decisions (in character) that you punish them - if they're trying to play a different game than you want to GM, then it's time for a sit-down out-of-character.
Otherwise, I think that the NPC hacker as a plot device is a great way to handle it - you don't have to make it too easy or hard, and you can have plenty of surprises come up at your whim without necessarily slamming the team.
-
AIs need a lifestyle cost, which is equivalent to the device rating of their home node. IE keeping that commlink still functioning with that AI inside is going to cost ALLOT more than hiring that NPC hacker, I'd go the NPC hacker route and say that depending on the difficulty of the hack it'd take 15-300 seconds to hack something. Easily allowing you to regulate engagement times if the group starts getting shooty.
-
AIs need a lifestyle cost, which is equivalent to the device rating of their home node. IE keeping that commlink still functioning with that AI inside is going to cost ALLOT more than hiring that NPC hacker, I'd go the NPC hacker route and say that depending on the difficulty of the hack it'd take 15-300 seconds to hack something. Easily allowing you to regulate engagement times if the group starts getting shooty.
Except at that point, they'd be treating the AI more or less as part of the team. So, instead of costing them money, it's costing the Johnson money.
In other words, if going the AI route have it get a cut of the profits, but have the team be paid more because they're in essence one member larger.
-
If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.
-
If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.
You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules. They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them. And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.
-
If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.
You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules. They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them. And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.
They only get a number of inherent programs equal to their rating. And that rating is an average of their mental attributes. Now tell me how many hackers only have 4-6 programs on their commlink.
-
If you want to pay the 5'000-10'000 a month + the 30'000 or so in ¥ for its programs and other doodads go ahead. I'd just rather have a flesh and blood hacker that already owns his own link and programs who won't go floating off on one of his program quirks that I can personally talk to, and have explain the situation to the group.
You miiiiiiiight want to look up the AI rules. They get inherent programs that are actually a part of them. And other than the lifestyle cost for the home node, that leaves not much to worry about by way of things to spend money on.
They only get a number of inherent programs equal to their rating. And that rating is an average of their mental attributes. Now tell me how many hackers only have 4-6 programs on their commlink.
Which you use for the most expensive programs, saving serious money. He's radically overestimating the cost, is my point.
-
Your average PC-level AI is usually quite suited to finding open source or pirated software in a matter of days (for the pirate network) and seconds. (for the programs)
That's a complete non-issue, as far as I see it, while lifestyle costs can be spoofed. Again, though, wishing difficulties away shouldn't be the aim, so much as shifting their location. (possibly putting them on a backburner)
-
I'll admit that the nain reasons that I like the AI angle are that it actually adds to the group (as opposed to hiring a minion), and gives the GM great new levers to pull. Plus, since the idea is for it to be one they've freed, it let's them feel like they've earned it, fueling a sense of achievement and agency that boosts player satisfaction/fun.
-
You say that like quirky hackers aren't people too... *Sniff....
-
Having an NPC in the party to fill a role the players don't want to handle is a time-honored tradition at many tables.
I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party. You can work it out ahead of time or...*GASP!*...fudge it as necessary to progress the story.
In a cyberpunk setting, having an NPC firmly imbedded in a critical role within the party for a future betrayal? Priceless.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.
If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".
-
I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.
If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".
No, you don't HAVE to - but if no one is interested in that aspect of the game, then you're not dedicating cycles to resolving Matrix-related activity in realtime with the rest of the group.
It can be very bare bones, because no player is involved directly in those actions.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
-
I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.
If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".
No, you don't HAVE to - but if no one is interested in that aspect of the game, then you're not dedicating cycles to resolving Matrix-related activity in realtime with the rest of the group.
It can be very bare bones, because no player is involved directly in those actions.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
I was merely objecting to the implication that doing things that way was required to avoid splitting things off.
-
I, personally, have used it to great effect in many campaigns - specifically with Matrix stuff, because you're not splitting the party.
If your hacker isn't part of the same general timeline as everyone else, you're making a mistake - nor do you need to split the party for Matrix stuff, between AR hacking and being "virtually there".
No, you don't HAVE to - but if no one is interested in that aspect of the game, then you're not dedicating cycles to resolving Matrix-related activity in realtime with the rest of the group.
It can be very bare bones, because no player is involved directly in those actions.
-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
I was merely objecting to the implication that doing things that way was required to avoid splitting things off.
Agreed - it has come a long way in that regard.
-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate
-
honestly the current rules are not that bad, especially when compaired to what they used to be in earlier editions, its one of the few things i like about the current edition.
as for how to handle it, so far i've read a lot of good ideas and of them, i would have to say that NPC hacker would probably be your best route, it keeps things flowing and allows you to wave teh group past problem spots that would have eaten up a lot of game time.
that said i really think that having a PC hacker is the best, and thats coming from someone who used to play a gunslinger adept and was stuck with a technomancer for his current game, i'm actually starting to like it
-
Well, I have had to make a choice and went for the Npc hacker.
I added a young teen elf who is a serious rooky at the whole running business but an excellent hacker and an okay medic. She has taken a firm spot within the party and the group does their best protecting and training her (she's got no combat skills whatsoever) while she does her part in missions and I can use her for some nice role playing and throwing hints or clues at the party through an in game proxy.
-
Good choice.when I GM (frequently) I use an NPC techno like 90% of the time. Don't even roll for them, just make up what happens. As someone said earlier, that NPC is a plot element just like all other NPCs.