|
Shadowrun was mentioned in the syllabus, and technology is obviously a big part of starfinder, so...
Will these be systems in starfinder? Will players be able to pull off techno-shenanigans in the same way as they do in shadowrun (but maybe simplified a bit)? What will statistics be for computers, and will we be able to tinker with them using magic?
I personally hope that this becomes a system. Cybersecurity is part of any major technological society and should logically be a part here. I envision hacking will be streamlined (maybe as a skill), but I would not be surprised if paizo or some third party gave it a whirl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also shouldn't take too much time away from the other players.
^And whoever specializes in it should still be able to do stuff when not hooked up to a computer . . . .
"the Technomancer (magical hacker blending technology and magic)"
Just going off of this, I'd say they probably will.
I just want to warn you that Pathfinder already has AI, and hacking a smart computer is, um, tricky.
All I can say is I agree with UnArcaneElectiona and Umbral Reaver. In Shadowrun the systems were pretty terrible. Deckers basically couldn't do anything unless they were hooked into a computer, and when it did come time to hack a computer it was a 20 minute foray (if you were lucky) in which the rest of the team did nothing.
So yeah...don't do what Shadowrun did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, a streamlined version of Psychic Duels, allowing anyone that "jacks in" to create a "virtual avatar" (manifestation), but going off of skill ranks in "Computer Operation" (or whatever skill is used) instead of caster level, would probably be sufficient. Add a few bonuses due to class features and/or equipment.
It really doesn't need to be more than that, IMO.
IMO, a streamlined version of Psychic Duels, allowing anyone that "jacks in" to create a "virtual avatar" (manifestation), but going off of skill ranks in "Computer Operation" (or whatever skill is used) instead of caster level, would probably be sufficient. Add a few bonuses due to class features and/or equipment.
It really doesn't need to be more than that, IMO.
I'm really not interested in playig "Starrun". Computers really sholdn't be more of a game time taker than they were in Traveller. Maybe in a supplement for folks who want netrunnr type players taking up all of the game time, but not as a core assumption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah...don't do what Shadowrun did.
Shadowrun, for all of its strengths, almost demanded overspecialization because of the way abilities/skills were allocated. It wasn't just deckers (typical "locks and traps" rogue):
Mages/shamen... couldn't really do anything unless casting spells/summoning spirits/exploring astral space. (typical squishy wizard)
Riggers... couldn't really do anything unless controlling vehicles. (typical cavalier focused on mounted combat)
Street samurai... couldn't really do anything unless shooting guns/fighting hand-to-hand. (typical fighter)
Attempting to create a character that was good at more than one thing was... painful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attitude being system permissions? Indifferent = Guest and Fanatical = SysOp?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is it mandatory for the player to say "i'm in!" when they roll a 20?
|
|
I had another idea the other day regarding how this could work. It involves the rules used in OA and HA regarding rituals.
Essentially, hacking or modding a computer would be a series of skill checks similar to a ritual, with certain backlashes if the character fails and a pronounced effect if the player is able to pass them all. Checks could use everything from knowledge (engineering) to craft to disable device to perhaps even knowledge (arcana or religion) if the machine is magical. Rituals could exist for reprogramming, disabling, or reactivating mechanisms. Maybe it could apply to cybernetics as well, or operation of particularly complex machines.
What do you think?
Sounds great so far.
You could represent a hackable computer interface as a set of connected nodes. It would be hard to draw what I am visualizing so let me describe it in words.
Imagine there are ten nodes: A through H and J. A is the workstation terminal with minimal access. Node J represents administrator-level access to the system. All other nodes represent varying levels of access from supervisor, middle management, executive, etc.
A connects to B, C, and D.
B connects to E and F.
C connects to D, F, and G.
D connects to E, G, and H.
F connects to G and H.
G and H connects to J.
Each node requires a certain skill check with its own DC to defeat. If you succeed you have opened that node and can access any of its permitted data and functions. If you fail by 4 or less you are stalled but can retry. If you fail on a given node by 5 or more, you are 'locked out' of that node and may not retry it.
There are several paths to J and some are longer than others. If you are locked out of a node you might try to bypass it by going down another pathway which may effectively prove more difficult (but is the only alternatively). But in principle there should be many ways to compromise a system, and you can keep doing this provided there are nodes available that let you progress. There will always be a 'best path' or easiest route through the nodes to full access, but depending on available skill set of the hacker, it may not be the same set of nodes for everyone. And if there is a chance you cannot get full access, there may be something to gain by the incomplete access you *can* get.
Low security systems may not require it, but hardened systems may require you to hack every node all over again if you fail any given one (i.e. forced logoff on a failed hack). Potentially you may get locked out of the whole system in such cases if the workstation/node A gets shut down or disabled if a possible UNAX (unauthorized access) attempt has been detected.
Another aspect you could introduce is the time cost. Perhaps each node requires a certain number of rounds per attempt. Some nodes may be easy to hack but take longer than others. Each attempt may require the same amount of time regardless of success, or maybe it is 1/2 cost in time to fail (each time) versus cost in time to succeed. If the PCs are in a rush or if there are consequences for taking too long to gain the access level they need, they may want to try the harder nodes and make the gamble.
Purely for visualization purposes look up "critical path method" on Google Images.
|
|
You could represent a hackable computer interface as a set of connected nodes. It would be hard to draw what I am visualizing so let me describe it in words....
Each node requires a certain skill check with its own DC to defeat. If you succeed you have opened that node and can access any of its permitted data and functions. If you fail by 4 or less you are stalled but can retry. If you fail on a given node by 5 or more, you are 'locked out' of that node and may not retry it.
There are several paths to J and some are longer than others. If you are locked out of a node you might try to bypass it by going down another pathway which may effectively prove more difficult (but is the only alternatively). But in principle there should be many ways to compromise a system, and you can keep doing this provided there are nodes available that let you progress. There will always be a 'best path' or easiest route through the nodes to full access, but depending on available skill set of the hacker, it may not be the same set of nodes for everyone. And if there is a chance you cannot get full access, there may be something to gain by the incomplete access you *can* get.
That's actually a really good idea, and I think it would be an easy way to visualize and keep track of how it works. I threw together a concept sketch on google illustrator to demonstrate. Is this akin to what you are envisioning?
Yes definitely a good example. That might be a minor corporate mainframe or a university server. More complex systems such as government or military or major corporate networks could have a bunch more nodes than this.
Other ideas:
What we see (or the GM see) on the node diagram may not be all that's immediately visible to the hacker. In fact it should be very rare to have the entire topology (layout) at hand, except maybe for standardized, mass-produced systems that haven't been modified. By default a hacker should only be able to see the nodes that connect to the ones already open to him (and possibly not even that, if his software is primitive). Some kind of advance research or data theft may help a hacker get intel on the layout of a network, and maybe figure out the path of least resistance...
Extremely secure systems will likely have "dummy nodes", deadends that don't do anything but waste the hacker's time and increase the chance of the defensive AI to detect the rogue connection. Advanced software or raw talent may give the hacker a chance to recognize a dummy node, but once one has been accessed without prior notification, detection of UNAX is all but certain.
Other super-secure systems will have "trap nodes", a more dangerous version of dummy nodes which can send a malware payload back to the 'A' node and lock it down or even trigger a self-destruct device at the physical location of the workstation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds great so far.
You could represent a hackable computer interface as a set of connected nodes. It would be hard to draw what I am visualizing so let me describe it in words.
This sounds similar to the chase system in the Game Mastery Guide.
|
|
This sounds similar to the chase system in the Game Mastery Guide.That actually seems like a great way to run a chase. I'll have to keep that in mind.
But yes, it does resemble our hacking concept a fair amount. I envision that computer systems would have a bit more visual flair and nonlinearity to them, as Matthew Shelton has proposed.
I'm a big fan of being able to hack stuff, but I don't want it to be an entire subsystem like in Shadowrun. While I wouldn't find any of the proposed methods onerous, I wonder how feasible it would be to run it kind of like KOTOR: you make a check to hack a particular result. "I want to shut down the security cameras here" "okay make a roll", that kind of thing.
I'd like the hacking system to be flexible enough for GMs to adjust the difficulty of things according to what is needed while keeping it simple enough so that it doesn't take up too much table time, so for me the best system would simply be a series of checks (one check to "get in", and an additional check for each thing you want to do once in).
I propose an example system below (spoilered for length) that allows for level scaling (low level characters have no hope of accomplishing things that high level characters can, both because they lack skill points but also because high level characters have access to better gear that makes hacking significantly easier -- in other words hacking the best stuff requires both being skilled as well as investing in resources to hack better). It's reminiscent of the Disable Device scaling for locks, albeit more dynamic to allow GMs to adjudicate difficulty of things for all sorts of different skill levels.
Security Level - Security bonus*
None (0) - +0
Simple (1) - +5
Average (2) - +20
Good (3) - +45
Superior (4) - +80
Legendary (5) - +125
* If you attempt to leave behind no trace of your break-in, increase the base DC of the check by 10. As this isn't increasing the security bonus, splices may not be used to reduce it.
Example: Breaking into an Average security system would have a DC of 35 (15 + 20).
Getting in always takes 1d4 rounds, although this can be improved via feats and/or class features. Failing by 4 or less has no effect, and you can try again. Failing by 5 or more results in your hacking attempt being detected. The exact implications of this are up to the GM, but at the least it means that you cannot try again from that particular terminal for 1 day. After you get in, the DC to do any particular task in the system is 10 plus a security bonus of 5 * [Security Level] plus a category bonus found in the Task Category chart below. Task categories are in the table below, showing what DC they correspond to as well as how long it takes to perform that task.
Task Category - Time taken - Category Bonus* - Examples
Simple - 1 round - +5 - View a security camera feed or a map of the building
Tricky - 1d4 rounds - +10 - Turn off a security camera, sound the fire alarm, open or close a normal door
Difficult - 2d4 rounds - +15 - Open or close a high-security door, initiate a building lockdown, dispatch a security drone to an area
Extreme - 2d4 rounds - +20 - Open or close every door (including high-security doors), end a building lockdown, override a security drone's programming, replay security camera recording over live feed
Almost impossible - 4d4 rounds - +30 - Gain full access to the system (future actions on this system do not require a Hacking check until your access is removed). This action always leaves behind a trace of your break-in.
* If you attempt to leave behind no trace of your break-in, increase the base DC of the check by 5. As this isn't increasing the security bonus, splices may not be used to reduce it.
Example: Opening a normal (low-security) door on an Average system (2) would be DC 10 + [5 * 2] + 10 = 30
While you can hack with just access to a keypad or terminal of some sort without penalty, having tools makes life easier. A set of normal hacking tools (50gp) gives a +2 bonus to all Hacking checks, a set of masterwork hacking tools (300gp) gives a +4 bonus, and a set of exquisite hacking tools (1000gp) gives a +8 bonus. If hacking tools are not used, splices may not be used either. While hacking tools are not illegal, using them on a system without authorization is illegal. As such, hacking tools and their expansion modules (covered below) are available in normal markets.
Splices are one-time-use consumable items, and each one you use on a check reduces the DC of the security level by 5 (to a minimum of +0). At most 5 splices may be spent on a single check. Splices are highly illegal, and can only be obtained on the black market for 20gp each.
Example: Normally it is DC 30 to open a normal door on an Average system. Being Average security is contributing +10 to that DC, so we can use 2 splices to reduce the security bonus to +0, making the overall DC 20 instead.
Example: When breaking into a Good system, it is normally DC 60 (15 + 45). We can use 5 splices to reduce the security bonus from +45 to +20, reducing the overall DC to 35.
Hacking tools have expansion slots, where you can plug in hacking modules. These modules make hacking in general easier, or make certain tasks easier. Their bonuses are priced like magic items, so higher bonuses have exponentially increasing costs. Unlike splices, modules are not consumed on use. It is a standard action to insert or remove a module from hacking tools. Normal hacking tools do not come with expansion slots, masterwork hacking tools come with 1 slot, and exquisite hacking tools come with 3 slots. Example modules are below:
Tunneler - Makes getting into systems easier - Reduces the security level of a system by 1 (1000gp), 2 (8000gp), or 3 (27000gp). This applies to all checks, including checks to get in the system. When using the Tunneler module, splices may not be used on checks.
Log Wiper - Scans logs for signs of your activity and replaces those events with innocuous things - Reduces the DC to leave behind no trace of your break-in by 1 (100gp), 2 (400gp), 3 (900gp), 4 (1600gp), or 5 (2500gp).
On a minor bunny trail, I've been thinking that I would like the players to have access to handheld tech devices (smart phones). It would change the traditional fantasy rpg communications dynamic and might give the game a completely different feel (or possibly break it entirely). Imagine if the rogue who was scouting ahead through a dungeon could text the rest of the party that there are goblins planning an ambush ahead. Imagine if the goblins could instantly message for reinforcements without having to bang the ubiquitous gong!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is it mandatory for the player to say "i'm in!" when they roll a 20?
Absolutely. You fail it otherwise.
Imagine receiving a message just as you're sneaking past a guard, and realising you've not put your phone on silent :-)
This would actually be hilarious to see happen at the table.
If you have a microphone hookup on the PS4, you can enable an option in Alien: Isolation to have mic noise levels possibly alert the Alien to your presence/location.