[Wakshaani]

For a while, there's been a lot of talk around this issue, but I figured it'd be nice to gather it all up, sit down, and chew the fat over a few weeks. Moving away from "Everyone can hack everything" to "Hacking is hard and you really need a Decker around" is a move away from the 4th ed style and more to a 1st-3rd ed style. Obviously, this doesn't sit well with *everyone*, but it's a design decision and one that I, personally, support.

But how much should a deck cost?

Here, we get into both design elements (How much of an 'archetype tax' is there?) and in-world continuity (Do you want to have scrappy teenage streetpunk deckers? Only elite corporate black opps deckers?) Is this something for high schoolers or is this something that requires a BIG investment? Do you want to allw a mid-range decker subtype, like a Face who dabbles in hacking or a 'combat hacker' who mostly shoots but also decks, or do you want to push Deckers only? (We're skipping over Technomancers for now. I'll talk about them at a later date.)

I always liked having an entry-level deck, a mid-range 'This is for most starting deckers', a high-end 'This is for Resource A deckers only", and then a deck or three that were out of reach for a starting character, but, other people have mentioned wanting better toys right out of the gate. Some people don't like teh low-end decks on teh grounds that no one would take them, but others have a problem with any deck being so expensive that it's more profitable to track down deckers and steal their gear than to go on actual missions.

SO, lots of angles here, lots of elements, and plenty of things I want to discuss (After hearing from y'all first, mind!) ... but I want to try and keep focus on, in essence, teh 'entry cost' for Decking, not so much the rules on Decking themselves. Decks, skills, and so on, teh Decker 'elements' as it were. (And, again, try to hold off on Technomancers by and large? That's a whole other topic,)

Try to keep it civil gang, and I'll try to pop in often to chat.

[Jack_Spade]

I liked the pricing of the RCCs. Take those and double them for you decks.

That should be enough to make them still valuable but not so expensive that you have to quit your character once your equipment  has been fried.

[Duellist_D]

I'd take a mechanical approach:

Baseline 1: Decking should be a subset that requires a tradeoff to be good in, like Cybersams, Adepts, Magicians etc.
Baseline 2: Decking can't be TO expensive, else it makes no sense ingame because nobody could afford the shit and we would have no black deckers. (This was a heavy issue until Data Trails)

So, with this set, I'd first take a look at the priorites. You can make a viable streetsam with Priority B and an excellent with Priority A. Same goes for magicians, though they can also be viable-to-very-good with Magic Priority C + the right Race Priority.

Since Cyber could be a bit stronger compared to Magic, it would be advisable to keep its priorities in mind when setting the prices for Decks.

At the moment, you need Priority A to get the Deck with the highes Availability at Chargen. The next to levels below can be afforded with priority B on Nuyen, but leave you with very little Money left.
This is, IMHO a bad design choice, as you have to give up to many Skill and Ability Points for a decent to good deck, while Mages and Sams doing the Same (Chosing A priority) already end up in the "excellent" branch of their respective professions.

Reducing the Prices of Decks by around 20-30 percent (maybe even a wee bit more for the lowest level Decks) should do the trick.
It would make playing a Decker who doesn't go all out for Priority A - Nuyen viable, while allowing those who want to, access to top-level hardware (as long as they invest in restricted gear) at chargen.
This would open up a much broader field of possible levels of expertise for CharGen Deckers, instead of the current one where going anything except Prio A (Money) + Shony CIY is a really bad choice.
At the same time, the prices for Decks would still be high enough to keep it from degrading into something that everybody and his grandmother can afford to do on the side, thus protecting the niche of the archetype.

[Darzil]

Personally I go one lower than Sony anyway, due to how much you can improve dice pools by going for the next tier down and having only slightly lower limits.

I certainly think that it'd make sense to have decks be cheaper, even if other things good for hackers get added and take up the rest of the money. The reason for that is that replacing a deck currently has a huge price, and most people assume it'll be ages before you could buy a better one after CharGen (unless GM is kind), so don't bother trying. It is after all, pay a few hundred thousand nuyen to get +1 to Matrix limits and an extra program, and it is far cheaper to improve other things through 'ware.

The other reason is it means if you throw in a decker as a GM, you have to either make their deck the (rather high) mission reward, or somehow manage to fry it. They are so valuable that it risks "forget the mission objectives, make sure you take the decker down without harming their deck".

[Sendaz]

I think it should be an investment, but not quite the staggering it costs just for even the most basic.

Now in the case of the high schoolers it is often mummy & daddy unwittingly picking up the tab or a street rat have done some scrounging/swapping to get those pieces, but still the overall cost for that rating 1 deck should be around 1/5th if buying off your fixer to maybe even 1/10th of it's current pricing if scrounging parts your self as it is just getting your foot in the proverbial door.

And you can even implement limits on improvised gear so you can't make the equivalent of a Fairlight easily without scrounging from much higher level devices/areas to assemble the knockoff.

The high end stuff is not so bad because it is supposed to be the best of the best, but could still do with a bit of price reduction by knocking off a third to maybe even half of the original cost.

Honestly if you are carrying anything on your person that is worth more than a half mil by itself and does not require actual surgery to remove it, that is a reason to get shot in the face by people around you all on its own or make you seriously consider PC suicide if you lose it. 

But it is hard to discuss the 'entry cost' for decks without also discussing maybe some tweaking of decks themselves.
One thing to consider is maybe the decks should all get the ability to carry/use a few more programs actively.
That rating 1 deck can just have 1 program up at a time and you have to constantly swap out.
While that makes some sense as it is a pretty basic device held together with synthgum and electrical tape, it is the equivalent of having a beginning Sammy who can go into a fight with a gun but no body armor, trusting just your own body to soak it up, which can work for trolls but some of the squishy sort not so much.
One thing is all cyberprograms pretty much take up the same slot regardless of actual power, maybe by offering more slots but then have the badder programs take up more than 1 slot to balance it out.
But like you say this is drifting into Decking rules, however it is still something you have to keep in mind while you are discussing pricing as this is part of justification for said costs.

[Hobbes]

One issue with the current Cyberdecks is the device rating sets the limit on the PAN size.  Data Trails gives players a range of options for hacking devices, at a variety of costs and limits.  But Cyberdecks are always the loser on PAN size.  It's just one more reason to not take a Cyberdeck.

Options from Data Trails make it possible to build a bargain basement hacking device out of an RCC or Commlink.  But their are trade offs.  I'd like the Cyberdeck to be the clear choice if you've got the Nuyen. 

As a Decker I shouldn't be comparing a Vulcan Liegelord, a Transys Avalon with a Sleaze Dongle, and a Little Hornet as equal choices for hacking with some secondary trade offs.  The Cyberdeck should just win for a Hackers choice.

Anyway, around a 100k should be the starting point for something that lasts most of a Decker's career.

[tytalan]

One issue with the current Cyberdecks is the device rating sets the limit on the PAN size.  Data Trails gives players a range of options for hacking devices, at a variety of costs and limits.  But Cyberdecks are always the loser on PAN size.  It's just one more reason to not take a Cyberdeck.

Options from Data Trails make it possible to build a bargain basement hacking device out of an RCC or Commlink.  But their are trade offs.  I'd like the Cyberdeck to be the clear choice if you've got the Nuyen. 

As a Decker I shouldn't be comparing a Vulcan Liegelord, a Transys Avalon with a Sleaze Dongle, and a Little Hornet as equal choices for hacking with some secondary trade offs.  The Cyberdeck should just win for a Hackers choice.

Anyway, around a 100k should be the starting point for something that lasts most of a Decker's career.

I think that the problem you have I've never though that my starting Deck would be my ending Deck I feel it is only a starting point I put around 45% to 65% of my income in game to Deck up grade.

[Raven2049]

One issue with the current Cyberdecks is the device rating sets the limit on the PAN size.  Data Trails gives players a range of options for hacking devices, at a variety of costs and limits.  But Cyberdecks are always the loser on PAN size.  It's just one more reason to not take a Cyberdeck.

Options from Data Trails make it possible to build a bargain basement hacking device out of an RCC or Commlink.  But their are trade offs.  I'd like the Cyberdeck to be the clear choice if you've got the Nuyen. 

As a Decker I shouldn't be comparing a Vulcan Liegelord, a Transys Avalon with a Sleaze Dongle, and a Little Hornet as equal choices for hacking with some secondary trade offs.  The Cyberdeck should just win for a Hackers choice.

Anyway, around a 100k should be the starting point for something that lasts most of a Decker's career.

i know this discussion, i had it with one of my GM buddies, i was debating doing this exact thing with my rigger. i ended up getting the hornet (which im still torn on doing) and im still unsure as to why currently (which is probably why im torn on doing it). i guess i could get the same effect out of a commlink with a program carrier mod and a sleaze/attack dongle, but the cost was about the same so why would i do that? and have to flip between dongles. Still unsure but its done.

[CitizenJoe]

The attack and sleaze attributes are just the limits for tests (sleaze has arguably more uses), so it is more an issue of matching your device performance to your own skill.  You could also just use edge to get by the limit issue.  If you were any good as a hacker, you should be able to pull off some stunts with a toaster.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

First and foremost I am not a Decker player, like ever even in SR:R I don't make one. But, the prices of Decks should be lowered. There were some decent percentage amounts suggested by others. But, currently spending majority of you cash on your primary job item (unlike everyone else that has multiple items) that can be easily taken from you or broken is a bad game design. Don't think they should be super cheap, but Decks should always be the best for hacking when comparing to other options of similar price level.

[Whiskeyjack]

Personally, I think decks should be an important investment, as they're the analogue to all the sam's expensive ware and the mage's high priority Magic and/or getting a power focus.

They're probably too-expensive as-is, but the very existence of dongles as "things that let you deck decently well, without a deck," continues to boggle me as the 5e design perspective is "bring back decks, no more commlink hacking," except they then made commlink hacking better than deck hacking...

I think that something decently expensive, but with a LOT of modification and upgrade options, is the way to go. Like, it's the difference between ware being relatively low-mod, but being able to buy a ton of different kinds. You only really want one deck at a time, but it should have a whole lot of good customization options.

[Senko]

I don't play deckers either but I agree the prices seem excessive especially compared to other gear I mean for the price of a mid range deck your well on your way to buying a permanent medium lifestyle. RCCs, comlinks even most cyberware is cheaper. Gearing wise you can probably fully equip a basic Sam or make for the same price as the cheapest deck. A deck with very low stat's at that and then it effectively doubles in price to the next step up.

I can see the top end ones maybe being their price if your paying for brand name as much as function but I think most of them could easily be reduced by 25-50 percent. and still protect the decker role while not being either the automatic target of any runs or a reason to retire if you loose it.

[Whiskeyjack]

Gearing wise you can probably fully equip a basic Sam

Not remotely competitively.

[All4BigGuns]

Gearing wise you can probably fully equip a basic Sam

Not remotely competitively.

A competitive Street Sam can make do with Resources C or D, whereas the Decker requires Resources A or B to have a decent deck to use his skills with. Sure, the Street Sam would have higher initiative dice with A or B, but he doesn't NEED them to 'be competitive'. The Decker, conversely, does need a good deck, which a good one is equivalently priced to more expensive than Rating 2 Synaptic Booster.

[Tecumseh]

If I were Wakshaani, I would want some hard numbers. Here's a draft I came up with for discussion.

Full disclosure: I don't have Data Trails and don't know all the ins and outs of dongles. I also don't play deckers, but I do GM them regularly, including both Street Scum and Prime Runner campaigns.

With that said, here's my table:

Device Rating	Current Cost	Proposed Cost	Reasoning / Parallel	¥ Difference	% Difference
1	¥48,500	¥10,000	Boosted Reflexes	-38,500	-79%
1.1	¥58,000	¥12,000	+20%	-46,000	-79%
2	¥110,250	¥39,000	Wired I	-71,250	-65%
2.2	¥123,000	¥43,500	+12%	-79,500	-65%
3	¥205,750	¥95,000	Synaptic I	-110,750	-54%
3.3	¥214,125	¥104,500	+10%	-109,625	-51%
4	¥345,000	¥228,000	Synaptic II, Alphaware	-117,000	-34%
5	¥549,375	¥427,500	Synaptic III, Betaware	-121,875	-22%
6	¥823,250	¥675,000	50% more than Resources A	-148,250	-18%

I decided to use initiative boosters for comparison, as they are the defining trait of a samurai as surely as a deck is for a decker. (For discussion of this topic, in case the point is contentious, see Wak's Street Samurai Survey thread here.) Obviously the parallel is imperfect since cyberware and bioware have an Essence component in addition to nuyen costs, but it's a start.

As a GM, I want there to be a street-level deck option so that there can be street scum hackers that aren't technomancers. This is more for gameplay rather than fluff reasons. Boosted Reflexes (¥10,000) seemed like a good parallel for something an ambitious ganger might be able to scrape together. Costs could be even lower if the GM allows a deck to be bought used.

The differences between the devices within the same device rating (e.g. 1 vs. 1.1 in my table) are based on the price differences between those same steps in the current pricing scheme.

At the high end, I like that the Fairlight Excalibur is more than a runner can afford out of the gate. In previous editions it's always been an aspirational piece of tech, so I went with the same price increase over Resources A that we had in 3E (where the Excalibur was ¥1,500,000 vs. ¥1,000,000 for Resources A). With that in mind, here's a table with the proposed prices as a percentage of the various Resource priorities:

Device Rating	% of Resources A	% of Resources B	% of Resources C	% of Resources D
1	2%	4%	7%	20%
1.1	3%	4%	9%	24%
2	9%	14%	28%	78%
2.2	10%	16%	31%	87%
3	21%	35%	68%	190%
3.3	23%	38%	75%	209%
4	51%	83%	163%	456%
5	95%	155%	305%	855%
6	150%	245%	482%	1350%

Here we can see that a Resources A decker could afford a DR4 device with funds left over, or a DR5 device if they really broke the piggy bank. The Resources B decker could swing a DR3 deck without much issue but a DR4 only with severe restrictions elsewhere. Resources C would probably be looking at DR3 and Resources D (likely a street scum campaign) at DR1. To me, this feels like a good balance between runners coming out of chargen with good equipment but also having some new toys to shoot for, pun intended.