Has anyone used the Dynamic hacking rules sub system yet?

[TRDG]

If so, how did it go?

This sounds like a fun thing to add into a game, be it an official one (thats mostly me) or in homebrew story lines (most def not me, LOL)

The computer sub skill systems seems like it would work quite well for that extra special Shadowrun type vibe.

Digital Persona sounds fun!!

Hacking actions looks well thought out

Looking to add this into my Vast game sooner or later, just like mechs as well so does this work well or needs some tweeks for those who might have run this?

Thanks

Tom

[Dargoth876]

I tried it in Puppet Without Strings (tTC module 6), when my team went reomte hacking KSN Interstellar.

It made a nice change of pace. The hacking options are simple and usable. Still, when someone max out their computer skill, dealing with the 3 subskills does not add a lot to the experience, unless your making a hard hacking encounter.

Be sure to put some specific things for your support (non-lead) hackers, unless it becomes tiresome for them.

[Yakman]

I was planning to use it in THREEFOLD, but honestly, I couldn't make heads or tales out of the text.

[Claxon]

I don't plan to use it ever and don't think it's generally a worthwhile addition to the game.

To expand on my statement, the reasoning is that it shifts the focus to 1 player while they hack and doesn't give the rest of the party much to do unless your whole party is hackers (in which case this a great systems).

And I think trying to run this system while running something else would be too difficult for your average GM.

In general, it's simply a bad idea IMO.

Edit: It definitely has the Shadowrun hacking vibe to it, which I also feel is generally bad. Again, not (necessarily) because the system itself is bad because it's splits the party into those who are hacking, and those who have no business hacking.

I remember playing through the Shadow Run video game and thinking (FYI I've never played table top Shadowrun) this is fun, but it would suck if I had to wait for someone else to do this. Or that it would suck for a GM to try to run this and a combat.

[Cellion]

I do like that Paizo took a stab at further fleshing out the hacking rules. These rules definitely head in a direction I like, but I think they do it in an overcomplicated way that threatens to bog down action at a table. I haven't had a chance to use them and I think it's unlikely that I will use them over making my own rules.

The core of why hacking isn't currently interesting for me in Starfinder is:

The way adventures are written, hacking doesn't have interesting consequences. Things you *need* to hack for plot continuation reasons usually have no time pressure or permanent lockouts, and often you have the possibility of NPC aid. Things you *don't need* to hack have very binary results (hack it and get a prize, if you fail there's no consequence). Unlike combat or social rolls, there isn't a sense of risk or drama.

Hacking has no decision making. Of course there have to be consequences first, but once there are meaningful consequences, you then need to allow hackers to make decisions that affect the outcome. Even if you create an encounter with interesting and graduated consequences, if the hacker just "piles all their bonuses together" and rolls Computers, you don't have much of an encounter.

The Dynamic Hacking rules:

Add a bunch of bookkeeping (assigning points to the three subskills every hacking encounter, tracking persona health and the staged penalties to performance, progress on different obstacles, countdowns, etc.)

Make encounters more complicated without inherently making them more interesting. Is it more fun to open a basic node with two Computers checks (one to hack and one to process) rather than just one? I'd argue that's just roll bloat. The rules suggest a medium hacking encounter requires 10 successful checks. That's a not-insignificant amount of table time, so the encounter better be interesting!

Fail to add rules or structure around how you might go about hacking through the infosphere, hacking comms devices, hacking worn technology from a distance, and many other things that players ask about, but there aren't solid rules for (usually individual classes get to do very specific hacky things, but there aren't universal rules for those activities - like how mechanics can disable tech at range with overload, or people with amplified glitch can make tech noisy and distracting).

Do add one element I like: Counterhackers! Although much of what counterhackers can do just extends the length of the encounter (you can heal the CP damage from a counterhacker, or you might have to re-do an obstacle they repair) the possibility of them tracing the hacker's location provides an evocative consequence that immediately asks you to reassess your party's position and situation.

So overall, I'm looking for simple to run, with basic but meaningful decisions and consequences. This isn't it.

[Summaryn]

The Dynamic hacking rules subsystem sounds like a cool addition for adding depth to gameplay, whether it's in an official game or a custom homebrew setup. I can see how it would give that Shadowrun-esque cyberpunk vibe—a digital persona aspect could really spice things up!

Speaking of hacking dynamics, have you checked out https://guidedhacking.com/threads/tryhackme-internal-walkthrough.17654/ ? They offer great insights into cybersecurity challenges—I remember reading one that gave me a clever idea for enhancing game mechanics. Exploring these resources can really inspire creative tweaks for your Vast game.

[Perpdepog]

Claxon wrote:

Edit: It definitely has the Shadowrun hacking vibe to it, which I also feel is generally bad. Again, not (necessarily) because the system itself is bad because it's splits the party into those who are hacking, and those who have no business hacking.

I remember playing through the Shadow Run video game and thinking (FYI I've never played table top Shadowrun) this is fun, but it would suck if I had to wait for someone else to do this. Or that it would suck for a GM to try to run this and a combat.

You're not wrong there. It can really slow down play, and it is lots of extra bookkeeping for the GM to do.

It's also not even close to just how wonky SR can get with extra, bespoke modes of play that split the party. Imagine the scenario where you've got a decker/techno, your street sam, a mage, and a rigger all on the same team; you're having to juggle the Matrix rules, the normal meatspace combat rules with all their extra rolls for calculating damage and armor soak and such, the rules for exploring the Astral, and the different rules for running vehicles and drones, all at the same time.

And woe betide you if someone throws a grenade and you have to calculate those explosion radius and damage rules, too.

[Dragonchess Player]

Personally, I would prefer a "more complex" hacking to use the PF1 research mechanics (which are probably closer to actual hacking than the dynamic hacking sub-system).

The whole "digital persona" thing is more complicated than it needs to be. Similar to PF1 psychic duels.

Also, as mentioned, it more or less becomes a long-running solo activity where the rest of the group sits around waiting.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I think hacking would be more interesting if it functioned like Starship Combat or Narrative Starship combat with PCs working in-concert to try and hack the system.