My firewall team keeps failing, advice?

Thu, 2013-10-10 12:22

#2

lets adapt lets adapt's picture

I'd introduce an NPC that

I'd introduce an NPC that provides a bit of mentoring and hand-holding. Their proxy would probably be a good starting point.

Thu, 2013-10-10 12:26

#3

Nebelwerfer41 Nebelwerfer41's picture

If you take the setting to

If you take the setting to its logical end, almost any plot can be completely hidden from prying eyes and even the best set of agents can be thwarted by the enemies. Can you give specific examples of errors that they made? How should they have approached the problem? From a player side, almost anything they do can be countered by the right security measures, so they may be overthinking things.

Thu, 2013-10-10 13:11

#4

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

With your only one example I

With your only one example I'd say make the infosec guy an NPC. Let that guy micromanage the PCs when it comes to computer networks. That being said I think the whole Firewall thing is pretty lame so I don't use it. You'd be amazed at how much irrelevant espionage there is in EP simply because the PCs are in Firewall.

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Thu, 2013-10-10 15:03

#5

nerdnumber1 nerdnumber1's picture

There is the setup where the

There is the setup where the enemies are exsurgents that fall into specific instincts that hinder their logic, like the ones from Glory who are too busy mating to monitor their sensors (unless the GM ups the ante). But that setup wears out quickly. I would probably allocate Firewall resources to shore up the places the the players find difficult or boring like infosec and the like.

Fri, 2013-10-11 07:02

#6

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

Ok some specific examples...

Walking right into an enemy controlled hab (a smidgen of research would have given them many easy hints) When they walk into the Martian hab filled with rustlers nomads and cheap clankers, they don't try and disguise themselves at all (bunch of uplifts, rare n expensive morphs wild fashions etc) like yelling "hi, we're clearly not a part of things and were here to mess your ops up" Then there was the character that while following a back story lead discovered a cultist building being guarded 24/7 by bad ass looking guys, and tried to infiltrate it without back up, a hacker, or letting any other team members know what was happening (led to capture+very bad) The team in trying to rescue that character allowed the cultists to set a bomb (characters had a lot of time to disarm it or take out the dude with the detonator but didnt act on it) nearly killed all of em, set fire to half the hab, and got them arrested (one character just kept spending moxie and running no matter how many security guys showed up and after everyone else had been arrested) I mean it's like they snowball, they way over estimate their abilities, way under estimate their enemies, do hardly any research into where their going or who their dealing with, disregard big glowing "dont mess with this without lots of planning" warning signs I give them, screw up a little bit, then over react in disasterous ways.

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Fri, 2013-10-11 08:29

#7

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

A big thing in how I would

A big thing in how I would react to this is in how the players reacted to failure. If they realise they are making mistakes, take it in good humour, laugh at how you’re a killer GM, and are still having fun you don’t have a big problem. Drop a few more hints they will learn. If they are complaining about how everything is impossible, cursing you as a killer GM and when you they discover the right way saying “well how the hell was I supposed to know that” you have a big problem. In this case as with any big problem talk to your players. You may be facing critical gaming style conflicts I don’t think you have the obvious solution problem, where you think of a clever but obvious solution and refuse to accept any other (eg the PCs could have entered the habitat claiming to be tourists, obviously outsiders but harmless, if you expected disguise as locals and give them an auto fail you have this problem, not other strategies may make things harder but never impossible). Your 3 examples included 2 PCs failing to address a problem and 1 PC going too far out on a limb, and a failing to do basic research. But do think about it. It is probably the single most common mistake GMs make in investigative games.

Fri, 2013-10-11 09:35

#8

hhexo

A useful thing...

I find that a well-placed "Are you sure?" question every now and then keep the players (or at least my players) on their toes and makes them stop a moment and think. It could be that my players know me, and they know that when I say "are you sure" I mean "you're clearly overlooking something important here", but sometimes I drop the question anyway even in normal circumstances to counter that effect. As for the specific examples, it seems to me that your players may not have a clear idea of the setting and of all the social/technological themes at work there. The morph thing - maybe they just think people wear the morph they like and nobody cares too much, but instead there's all sorts of social stigmas and tensions associated with which morph you wear in different environments. [Edit: compare morphs to D&D races, if they come from that genre of games. D&D races are not just a cosmetic detail - Elves and Dwarves don't really get along well, and an Elf would have trouble infiltrating an Orc camp.] And underestimating consequences - maybe they think that everybody has limited resources and they expect that even guarded locations can be infiltrated, but hypercorps and the like can spend sh*tloads of money to get proper security. Recommend them to do some research on the setting. Even then, though, players will tell you "oh yeah I've read the rulebook and the setting" but they've probably just skimmed through it and read the parts that they think are most interesting, so they will need some guidance every now and then. NPCs can provide explicit hints, if you work them well in the dialogue, e.g. making them spit political opinions. Something like "oh yeah, and those bloody Barsoomian rednecks are worse than the commies of old, if you don't look poor and miserable in your Ruster or Case, they'll assume you're a filthy capitalist and probably kick you out. Crazy anarchists, that bunch." Hope this helps.

Fri, 2013-10-11 12:47

#9

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

I'm facing sort of same thing

I'm facing sort of same thing, gonna try solving it by Matrix style VR lessons before the game starts. I've invested time into reading Core, Panopticon and Transhuman to get the basics of the setting, and just have to try and pass most of it in a controlled scenario. Fun fact, Shipjacking is actually the art of using Infiltration to cross the urban environment without being recorded too much while not looking obviously suspicous, a really nice trick for stealthier characters to do stakeouts, find out where all the cameras are, map out the dead spots. It sounds like your characters are playing Dark Heresy, shoot first, ask later, maybe. Any given enemy has access to bots and AI's. If an enemy isn't surrounding his base of operations with spy cams and the fly sized robots with camera's, you're doing something wrong.

Fri, 2013-10-11 12:47

#10

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

I once had a long story arc

I once had a long story arc DnD campaign with established players up to their neck in intrigue and involved plot threads - and then they invited a new player who tended to be easily bored. He decides to make a halfling thief. Fine. I took him aside before we even started playing and told him that his character was well known to the players from way back, they all trusted each other with their lives, and the players had confided every (potentially world shaking in some instances) secrets in him when they reconnected, and that he should take their considerable emotional investment in their characters and story arc into consideration with any of his character's actions. He then proceeded to to try to pickpocket the (very powerful) crown prince during a private meeting who at that time was an ally of the players, but also a notorious psychopath. I simply didn't let him and ejected him from that game session. We eventually settled on him rotating between several different characters (usually a different one every 2-3 sessions) when we played to keep him happy which worked out in the long run. Where am I going with this? Seems you could have seen this coming. I realize this is presumptuous as I don't know the particulars, so take this criticism with as many grains of salt as needed. The half-cocked going in alone player sounds like the DnD ADHD/bored player acting impulsively. You should have shut him down right there. "Your character is an experienced espionage agent that actually values his reputation and desires mission success, so he doesn't do that". Simple if a bit heavy handed. There was my question/comment in this thread which I assume was about this adventure: http://eclipsephase.com/damaged-goods-adventure-lead "Why wouldn't they egocast ahead of the container? Seems like a weak link in the plot." The characters go through a ridiculous (in my opinion) amount of trouble to smuggle in the morphs they painstakingly kitted out and paid for in character generation....and then you don't expect them to use them after all that trouble? This is basic human nature. Also, a plot hole in and of itself. A player could be left with the impression that your game is weakly plotted when you put things like this in it - but then it turns out that your game was *extremely* tightly plotted (but with holes). Also, nobody in the espionage genre of cinema *ever* does basic research or sets up their covers. That's all done at HQ. This can affect new player's expectations of whats involved in their missions. Its also kind of common sense - its ridiculous to have players doing the espionage equivalent of their own secretarial work. Why isn't the nerd at HQ with a research of 70 not simply updating the PCs? Try putting yourself in your player's shoes ahead of time and you might be able to head these sorts of issues off at the pass in the future (or nip it in the bud if you prefer that saying). Good luck!

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Sat, 2013-10-12 03:25

#11

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

To address

Zombekat- no I'm not a killer GM, but I also believe if you have NPCs doing everything for the players the game is not much fun, it turns into "lets follow around the GMs über DMPCs and roll dice" I hate that as a player (I'd rather just fail on my own than watch mr über steal every scene) and no I expected them to either disguise as locals, or set up a feasible story, or join up with the rangers in the hab, or call in some rep for a corp cover, or do any one of 1000 things that would have worked, what I didn't expect was what they did (make no plan and walk right into the dragons mouth, assuming they can deal with any situation that should arise on the fly) Hhexo- I give out a lot of pointers, generally linked to random seeming skill rolls, but I won't directly dictate their actions, as in "you don't think it would be a good idea to try and sneak into that expertly guarded, fortified, building" I think that puts them on the railroad a bit too much, if I've described just how dangerous or risky an action could be, and they still want to go through with it, I won't say "well your character is smarter than you are and doing what your suggesting is incredibly stupid" Wyvernjack- I did 3 sessions of VR scenarios, unfortunately the hacker PC didnt come in to the game till all that was over, and yeah I've never played dark heresy but they are defiantly of the mind set of "any problem can be dealt with by getting moar guns and moar explosives" but I'm trying to ween them off that. Newton- wasn't like the thief example, was more like the player really loved their character and thought they were Rambo in a world full of half blind VCs and quickly discovered the error in that line of thinking. As to directing the players decisions see above. As to the container, I need to read that thread again... But... they had to be with it the whole time for plot reasons, and they didn't have to get different morphs but if they wanted to keep theirs they needed a better cover story, the problem was they didn't realize this because they did 0 investigation. And I disagree with the "investigator is back at HQ" fix, they have a super skilled hacker in the group, and many of the characters have hacking, research, and investigation skills. If I was a player who built a non-combat orientated hacker character, I'd feel like the NPCs were upstaging me if they were doing all the stuff I had dedicated the majority of my points to doing, it's exactly like having a 8th level D&D party, where the DM shoves in a 15th level DMPC thief... Soon that theif player is going to feel pathetic and useless. And yeah if there's any big error I made, it was in trying to put my self in the mind of the players and assuming they would at least do basic research. Clearly that was an assumption I shouldn't have made. I think I've come up with a solution though, will start another thread about it...

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Sat, 2013-10-12 06:15

#12

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Did the players die in those

Did the players die in those situations? I would have thought so in most of them. If so you’re a killer GM. This is of cause not necessarily a bad thing. Especially in eclipse phase that has a more reliable revolving door afterlife than marvel comics. Many RPGs don’t even have research as a thing. And some games have the world defaulting to being so cosmopolitan that when strange razes walk down the street it is not remarkable. Sometimes it is worth admitting that your PCs have experience in the setting, and know how things work, but your players do not. While I would never tell a player “you can’t have your character do that” unless he was so disruptive I was also going to say “you are out of my game” questions like “would you like to do some research first?”, “what cover will you be using?”, and “that will almost certainly get you captured by your enemies, do you wish to proceed?” can help a lot to bridge the difference in understanding of the setting by the players and the knowledge implied by the skills on the character sheet. And most players do not consider this kind of action to be railroading. As to the investigator back at HQ. t can be useful but it should never give all the information, just a starting point. for example if firewall sends you to investigate activity around the titan quarantine zone (TQZ) the proxy would just say, “go investigate” but if you ask for a copy of firewalls file on the TQZ the prozy will hand it over (or authorise you to access it on the mesh) then you have a lot of genral information with no role needed. You will probably want to do some more specific research yourself. On the subject of using VR sim as a low risk introduction what premise do you use for getting the PCs into the program.

Sat, 2013-10-12 09:16

#13

Smokeskin

Just like I don't expect

Just like I don't expect players with Academics: Cryptography to actually know the algorithms used, and I don't expect players with Hardware skills to actually know how to carry out repairs, I don't require players to know about tradecraft. I provide short “player handouts” where needed if PCs have appropriate skills to justify it. Just have a post-it with "you will get in trouble if you go on the hab without a cover" and hand it out to the spy PC player and let them handle it from there. I think it’s cool when players can present their PCs specialist knowledge rather than the GM doing it, and of course it lets them run characters that know stuff they don’t. There is plenty of common ground between railroading the players and steering them away from obvious trouble that their PCs would never get into. Knowledge skills should also allow players to ask questions like “what will happen if I do this” or “how will they/it react to this”. This lets players use their knowledge skills to evaluate ideas and "simulate" approaches - it lets the team be creative and brainstorm and get rid off the unworkable ideas on the planning stage. Conversely, I tell players that want to act all tradecrafty to have skills and backgrounds that justify it.

Sat, 2013-10-12 13:41

#14

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

thezombiekat wrote:Did the

thezombiekat wrote:
Did the players die in those situations? I would have thought so in most of them. If so you’re a killer GM. This is of cause not necessarily a bad thing. Especially in eclipse phase that has a more reliable revolving door afterlife than marvel comics.

I don't think the term "killer GM" works here. All the examples he gave are easily dealt with if you come with the right mindset and actually think for a little while. Killer GM is more for a person making it impossible to succeed, something he didn't do. @thezombiekat "On the subject of using VR sim as a low risk introduction what premise do you use for getting the PCs into the program." Simplest is metagaming it and just treating it as a practice for ingame stuff and to try exploring new mechanics or different ways, sort of like Danger Room in X-men. Second option is just as simple, forks do it and then merge with the originals, a requirement given by the Proxy or the Router to calculate their efficiency and strong sides.

Sat, 2013-10-12 16:23

#15

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:...snip..

Baalbamoth wrote:
...snip.. And I disagree with the "investigator is back at HQ" fix, they have a super skilled hacker in the group, and many of the characters have hacking, research, and investigation skills. If I was a player who built a non-combat orientated hacker character, I'd feel like the NPCs were upstaging me if they were doing all the stuff I had dedicated the majority of my points to doing, it's exactly like having a 8th level D&D party, where the DM shoves in a 15th level DMPC thief... Soon that theif player is going to feel pathetic and useless. And yeah if there's any big error I made, it was in trying to put my self in the mind of the players and assuming they would at least do basic research. Clearly that was an assumption I shouldn't have made.

I didn't intend that as a "fix". It was a glaring plot hole you didn't address that I was pointing out. Its cool if you and your players prefer the PCs to be self-sufficient (I have the same preference), it just doesn't make *any* sense is all. If you want to have them be self sufficient the easiest way is to have them not be members of Firewall (if you care about cause and effect in your game universe).

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Sat, 2013-10-12 17:41

#16

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

@NewtonPulsifer

@NewtonPulsifer Why can't a group be self sufficient /and/ work for Firewall? It seems like the Proxy is just the messenger sent by the Router who's working on the scarce info Scanners provide him with. More like Navi in Zelda, going "Hey, listen, look at that hab acting strangely." rather than providing personnel to google things for the PC's. Everyone starts with 30 points in Research(muse) and can also default, adding a teamwork bonus. By going with "Taking Time" rule, you can easily ramp a +30 bonus on the research, easily finding out who runs a habitat. @Baalbamoth It really sounds like they didn't bother reading too much into the setting. Reading your samples of the events, it sounds like someone's msue should have Taken Time to Research the hab, maybe use some Rep for info behind the criminal gangs. The solo guy basically begged to get kidnapped. He didn't take into consideration the panopticon, and the post-scarcity and the a.i mechanics. If you're doing something illegal (like planning to blow up the hab) you bet you will surround your base with cams and layers of security. You should get them to read a little into the Panopticon book and factions, didn't seem like they knew what Martian rednecks can be like, and could have easily solved things by spending one hour in a healing vat and some smart-fabric and a Protocol/research test.

Sat, 2013-10-12 18:00

#17

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

Wyvernjack wrote:

Wyvernjack wrote:
@NewtonPulsifer Why can't a group be self sufficient /and/ work for Firewall? It seems like the Proxy is just the messenger sent by the Router who's working on the scarce info Scanners provide him with. More like Navi in Zelda, going "Hey, listen, look at that hab acting strangely." rather than providing personnel to google things for the PC's. Everyone starts with 30 points in Research(muse) and can also default, adding a teamwork bonus. By going with "Taking Time" rule, you can easily ramp a +30 bonus on the research, easily finding out who runs a habitat.

It doesn't make any sense. If Firewall cares about the success of the mission, why wouldn't they have their best researcher (or even a Promethean AI ) pop into 60x simulspace and do it? Realistically any operation planned in advance via Firewall is going to have had somebody with an enormously awesome Research skill already comb through all obvious and possibly related data on the mesh. Its not like the guy needs to alpha fork and come along - he can do the research from anywhere in the Solar System. You simply hand this data to the PCs in their mission brief. You can do it differently but it doesn't make any sense. Same story with data grabs via remote infosec penetration probes. The most awesome Firewall infosec guy is going to try it first before they ever assemble the PCs.

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Sat, 2013-10-12 18:30

#18

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

NewtonPulsifer wrote

NewtonPulsifer wrote:
Wyvernjack wrote:
@NewtonPulsifer Why can't a group be self sufficient /and/ work for Firewall? It seems like the Proxy is just the messenger sent by the Router who's working on the scarce info Scanners provide him with. More like Navi in Zelda, going "Hey, listen, look at that hab acting strangely." rather than providing personnel to google things for the PC's. Everyone starts with 30 points in Research(muse) and can also default, adding a teamwork bonus. By going with "Taking Time" rule, you can easily ramp a +30 bonus on the research, easily finding out who runs a habitat.
It doesn't make any sense. If Firewall cares about the success of the mission, why wouldn't they have their best researcher (or even a Promethean AI ) pop into 60x simulspace and do it? Realistically any operation planned in advance via Firewall is going to have had somebody with an enormously awesome Research skill already comb through all obvious and possibly related data on the mesh. Its not like the guy needs to alpha fork and come along - he can do the research from anywhere in the Solar System. You simply hand this data to the PCs in their mission brief. You can do it differently but it doesn't make any sense. Same story with data grabs via remote infosec penetration probes. The most awesome Firewall infosec guy is going to try it first before they ever assemble the PCs.

It sounds like Project Ozma you're talking about, the group that has infinite resources, personnel and enough manpower to hide all their traces. If I recall, each Router is the one pulling the strings on an op, he's also the one who gets the axe when the Sentinels blow up a hab. The router is already very busy maintaining a large network of information while keeping it off the radar from hypercorps and ozma, and on top of that, probably a fake ID or his original, lest he have no social life at all. The more a Router, Proxy and Scanners do, the more likely they are to leave a trace, which in turn might expose them, and the dozens of Sentinels under them. Then again, players I've had and me look at it more as being field investigators rather than spies, which makes base research more sensible, as your actions will be only as good as your prep. Then again, I'm a major sucker for Multi-tasking, so my character is always researching his surroundings real time, and he never leaves anywhere without that Software that allows calculating radio waves (from every spime and device) to get a rough sense of movement in area's he can't see. "The most awesome Firewall infosec guy is going to try it first before they ever assemble the PCs." The shady nature of the ops and recruitment might make personnel hard to come by in some cases. That super hacker is probably busy staying where what passes for HQ is, busy fighting off Ozma sniffers while masking Sentinel movement. Sure they could fork him, but maybe he's against that.

Sat, 2013-10-12 19:50

#19

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

60x simulspace is a 1000

60x simulspace is a 1000 credit/month cost. Not exactly requiring a Project Ozma budget. Your character walking around and multitasking out a research fork could be doing 60x the work in simulspace instead, supporting 60 agents on missions. In the context of the original post, we were talking about prep research as well - this doesn't even need to be concurrent and could probably support a thousand agents. No need to fork anybody. You mention "leaving a trace" - if you're worried about that, it makes even *less* sense to throw the 60 Infosec guy at a remote datagrab when the 90 Infosec guy hasn't taken a crack at it yet. If you're worried about tripping the alarm you assemble the PC team ready to swoop in *and still use the NPC hacker*. Mental contortions not to use NPCs for research, rep favors, and infosec don't make any sense. If you run your setting like that don't expect your players to see it for anything other than what it is - a nonsensical setting conceit that everyone agrees to politely ignore. Some people are just fine with setting conceits, some aren't fine with them (or prefer as few as is necessary). FWIW I like to run things as sensibly as possible and use things like the logical existence of mission briefs as plot hooks (a badly researched mission brief leads PCs to suspect their handler is using them for non-Firewall missions etc.). Your mileage of course may vary.

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Sat, 2013-10-12 20:10

#20

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

NewtonPulsifer wrote:60x

NewtonPulsifer wrote:
60x simulspace is a 1000 credit/month cost. Not exactly requiring a Project Ozma budget. Your character walking around and multitasking out a research fork could be doing 60x the work in simulspace instead, supporting 60 agents on missions. In the context of the original post, we were talking about prep research as well - this doesn't even need to be concurrent and could probably support a thousand agents. No need to fork anybody. You mention "leaving a trace" - if you're worried about that, it makes even *less* sense to throw the 60 Infosec guy at a remote datagrab when the 90 Infosec guy hasn't taken a crack at it yet. If you're worried about tripping the alarm you assemble the PC team ready to swoop in *and still use the NPC hacker*. Mental contortions not to use NPCs for research, rep favors, and infosec don't make any sense. If you run your setting like that don't expect your players to see it for anything other than what it is - a nonsensical setting conceit that everyone agrees to politely ignore. Some people are just fine with setting conceits, some aren't fine with them (or prefer as few as is necessary). FWIW I like to run things as sensibly as possible and use things like the logical existence of mission briefs as plot hooks (a badly researched mission brief leads PCs to suspect their handler is using them for non-Firewall missions etc.). Your mileage of course may vary.

Sensible varies. Having a bunch of Firewall npc's do the brain work for you makes it feel less like a conspiracy cell and more like Men in Black or SHIELD, especially when you get so many points handed out that everyone should be able to fill out a non-combat bunny role. Three Sentinels sitting down and Taking Time to research, program or hack can be quite fun in itself compared to "So, here's everything you need, just do as told. While we're at it, you can go home, we might as well send in teleoperated morphs." angle of having a 90 infosec hacker stored on ice for every mission. Taking forking as a given is less sensible to me. Yes, my hacker has 80 infosec and uses multi-tasking, but there's no way he will let himself, or a fork of him spend a large amount of his life in a 60x simulspace slaving away, not even for the better of transhumanity, he still has personal goals and preferences, and a version of him, doing god knows what out there just isn't working for him. Someone might be okay with it, most I met aren't. If you think they should play as spies/agents with a cast supporting them, maybe Ozma is a better angle than Firewall. One of the fictions in the books is a nice reference at my table. Firewall agents are limited, infact so much, that one of the Proxies personally went to Mars, used his own favours and skills to rescue a Sentinel working for him. That's instead of sending in a squad of sentinels or having the 90 infosec hacker teleoperate a bunch of drones for 60x simulspace. It sure made a better story.

Sat, 2013-10-12 20:39

#21

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

You don't need to slave away

You don't need to slave away for centuries with or without 60x simulspace. How much time do you have your PCs spend on research per mission? An hour? How many Firewall agents total are there for a population of (I don't know - what is it 500 million?) A thousand at most? How many are active field agents? Maybe 500? How often do they do missions? 8 times a year? How large is a mission group? 5? 800 missions a year is 800 hours (16 hours a week with two weeks off). And the researcher could do that *on demand* as real world time would be compressed significantly due to simulspace. Homocide detectives work normal shifts +oncall (murders usually happen 10pm-3am). 60+hours per week *easy*. I think Firewall agents would be similarly motivated.

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Sat, 2013-10-12 21:44

#22

Wyvernjack Wyvernjack's picture

Servers don't exactly grow on

Servers don't exactly grow on trees, and constantly getting servers in new locations is a possible trail leading to your Mesh or Fake ID, meaning you have to get new ones if you want to stay as safe as possible. If McServer Buyer ID shows up in too many locations with exurgent outbreaks, someone will catch on. Everything this npc does, leaves a trail leaving to him sooner and later, or at least gives him extra work to clean out any tracers of him. Then he needs a small team of constantly making not-noticable ID's he can use to do the work that a two man team of less skilled Sentinels can do with a little effort. Then there's time lag. Let's say the 90 infosec hacker is on Mars, and you're sent to the Rim to investigate a swarm habitat that is suspected to produce weaponized plagues to wipe out those pesky hypercorps. And suddenly there's this really /fun/ lag between every message between the sentinel and the hacker, who's probably busy helping the sentinels around mars as well. Wouldn't that super hacker be put to better use, like focusing on keeping Ozma busy and less likely to find sentinels rather than doing what anyone with half a brain can? Two people with infosec 30. If they don't have it, they buy a skillware and skillsoft, that's 40 infosec. Sentinel B helps Sentinel A, and both their muses helps sentinel A, that's an easy +30. By taking extra time, that's another +30. Now you have a very simple setup to do hacking decently. Same applies to research. If a two people can't sit down and do a quick session together, maybe they shouldn't be trying to save the transhumanity and instead go back to school. In the long run, it's better for everyone but the Sentinel if he's the one caught rather than the Proxy, Scanner or Router.

Sun, 2013-10-13 02:35

#23

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

NewtonPulsifer wrote:

NewtonPulsifer wrote:
Homocide detectives work normal shifts +oncall (murders usually happen 10pm-3am). 60+hours per week *easy*. I think Firewall agents would be similarly motivated.

Homicide detective is a paying job. Firewall sentinel is a part time on call activity where you may or may not even have all your costs covered (a bit like the volunteer fire brigade). Nobody in firewall works a 60 hour week because they all have jobs as well. I think a middle between “all the research is done for them” and “the PCs have to do all their own leg work” is best, and most logical. If firewall noticed something odd going on they have to have a certain amount of information already. You can’t determine that a delivery is odd without knowing what is usually going on in a habitat. And some understanding of a situation would be needed before deciding which sentinels to activate. So a significant amount of research has been done before the decision is made to call the PCs in. it would be foolish for the proxy not to offer this information to the PCs. At the same time firewall’s resources are spread thin. And the NPC hackes don’t know exactly what angles the PCs will pursue. There is no point creating fake IDs for the infiltration team as established tereformers if they are just going to decide to go in as unskilled labourers willing to work from the bottom. And no point in the NPC researching 15 possible infiltration sites when the PCs will choose one they like and research it more fully, ignoring the others unless the research on the first site doesn’t suite this particular team. (no point researching somewhere your not actually going). Then there is the mid adventure research. Infiltrating location one you find out the delivery’s of uranium are being repackaged and sent on to another location. Wich needs to be researched. No hacker could have realised that the second location was relevant so the PCs will need to investigate it mid mission. Now the PCs might ask firewall to do this research for them. But firewall operates on a cell structure for a reason, has limited resources, no official ties to any government or law enforcement body, and many of its operations are illegal. Because of this firewall deliberately fosters a culture of independence and self sufficiency, which is contrary to the idea of having somebody in the office doing all your research. This doesn’t mean the players can’t ask firewall for fake IDs or research on a specific location, but it generally it won’t be offered, they have to ask, and it costs favours and requires appropriate networking tests and I-rep. On a meta-game level this keeps the players in control while allowing them to gain access to resources that would be beyond there skills or tedious to procure for themselves. The favour system also puts practical limits on how much this can be drawn upon keeping the story about the PCs actions, not about there ability to call in huge numbers of contacts.

Sun, 2013-10-13 08:18

#24

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

wow, thread is really spinnin...

ok to address a few... zombiekat- no the team did not get any deaths in those situations, I allowed the team members to travel like light speed to get to the kidnapped member (but she was forked against her will, and now the enemies know all about the firewall team etc) and the other situation the proxy bribed them out of the bust and painted them like people trying to save lives and put out fires etc, but it did still make the papers (something the proxy was very upset about) so no... didnt kill anybody, they just didnt have any success and embarassed themselves... and yeah their having a ton of fun even with the lack of success but I can see failing all the time is weighing on them... Smokeskin, handing out the postits is pretty much exactly what I do, but without the judgement "you know it would be pretty dangerous to return back to the hab in your current ID" but somethings I cant justify like "you think maybe you should check on the financial records of the bar your meeting this guy in to make sure its not a trap" with something like that 1) im giving away that it IS possibly a trap, 2) why would the character suddenly think of going for banking and tax records? vague I think can make some sense but specifics puts you on the railroad again. wyvern- well no, they did read a lot about the setting, the hacker read the core and panopticon, but they havent read much sci-fi, and just because you read a book once does not mean your going to remember a minor fact about grey boxes three weeks later, it also doesnt change the fact the mesh is confusing as hell to a player who hasnt been through a few games with it... as a totally new GM the mesh and hacking are my two hardest rulesets/fluff details to remember... half the time, for small stuff, I just have her make a roll at big negitives to do hacking rather than go through everything (find the system, hack in, take ops, fight the security, etc. just too many rolls if shes just trying to find out if somebody spent a lot of creds in a hab recently etc.) why wouldent firewall send their super AI promethians forked 10,000 times, in 200 spd simspace... because if they could do all that crap, there wouldent need to be a firewall...

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Sun, 2013-10-13 19:33

#25

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:ok to

Baalbamoth wrote:
ok to address a few... zombiekat- no the team did not get any deaths in those situations, I allowed the team members to travel like light speed to get to the kidnapped member (but she was forked against her will, and now the enemies know all about the firewall team etc) and the other situation the proxy bribed them out of the bust and painted them like people trying to save lives and put out fires etc, but it did still make the papers (something the proxy was very upset about) so no... didnt kill anybody, they just didnt have any success and embarassed themselves... and yeah their having a ton of fun even with the lack of success but I can see failing all the time is weighing on them...

wow. i would have killed them at least once in all that. have the proxy arrange for there stacks to be bribed out of storage

Quote:
Smokeskin, handing out the postits is pretty much exactly what I do, but without the judgement "you know it would be pretty dangerous to return back to the hab in your current ID" but somethings I cant justify like "you think maybe you should check on the financial records of the bar your meeting this guy in to make sure its not a trap" with something like that 1) im giving away that it IS possibly a trap, 2) why would the character suddenly think of going for banking and tax records? vague I think can make some sense but specifics puts you on the railroad again.

there are 2 things you need to do to remove the railroad tracks from the bar trap. first don't tell them what to look for "maybe you should investigate the bar to see if it is a trap" they may choose to investigate ownership, regular customer affiliations or where spime data is being sent. any of these are as likely to expose the trap as the financial records (at least from the point of view of somebody looking from the outside) the second thing to do is to make similar suggestions when it would be a good idea to check but as GM you know there is no danger. also a critical failure on these checks can be funny as they determine there is a trap.

Mon, 2013-10-14 03:37

#26

Smokeskin

NewtonPulsifer wrote

NewtonPulsifer wrote:
Wyvernjack wrote:
@NewtonPulsifer Why can't a group be self sufficient /and/ work for Firewall? It seems like the Proxy is just the messenger sent by the Router who's working on the scarce info Scanners provide him with. More like Navi in Zelda, going "Hey, listen, look at that hab acting strangely." rather than providing personnel to google things for the PC's. Everyone starts with 30 points in Research(muse) and can also default, adding a teamwork bonus. By going with "Taking Time" rule, you can easily ramp a +30 bonus on the research, easily finding out who runs a habitat.
It doesn't make any sense. If Firewall cares about the success of the mission, why wouldn't they have their best researcher (or even a Promethean AI ) pop into 60x simulspace and do it? Realistically any operation planned in advance via Firewall is going to have had somebody with an enormously awesome Research skill already comb through all obvious and possibly related data on the mesh. Its not like the guy needs to alpha fork and come along - he can do the research from anywhere in the Solar System. You simply hand this data to the PCs in their mission brief. You can do it differently but it doesn't make any sense. Same story with data grabs via remote infosec penetration probes. The most awesome Firewall infosec guy is going to try it first before they ever assemble the PCs.

I'm playing in a game right now where we're boarding a space freighter trying to stop a 100 tons of the Jovian's antimatter from falling into some pirate's hands that supposedly intend to create hab smashers with it, and if we can't secure the cargo but go to the backup plan of destroying it, the Jovians and Planetary Consortium could end up going to war. You think it is unrealistic that it isn't a special forces team sent on something like that? Really? ;)

Mon, 2013-10-14 04:03

#27

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:

Baalbamoth wrote:
Smokeskin, handing out the postits is pretty much exactly what I do, but without the judgement "you know it would be pretty dangerous to return back to the hab in your current ID" but somethings I cant justify like "you think maybe you should check on the financial records of the bar your meeting this guy in to make sure its not a trap" with something like that 1) im giving away that it IS possibly a trap, 2) why would the character suddenly think of going for banking and tax records? vague I think can make some sense but specifics puts you on the railroad again.

If the character wouldn't think to check banking and tax reports on the bar they're meeting a guy in, then you've created a situation where you don't expect the team to see the trap in advance. If you need them to see the trap, then that is a failure in adventure creation because you will have to railroad them. I stand by the idea that tradecraft is a skill and you need to treat it as such. If a PC who knew what they were doing set out to arc weld and the player forgot to say "I ground myself" and you kill the PC from electrocution, that's dickish. Letting spies make equally trivial mistakes in their area of expertise is equally dickish imo. What is wrong with you telling the spy player how his char would normally prepare, or the spy asking "How would I normally prepare for such a meeting?" and you telling him? And if he finds some dodgy financial records that the player can't figure out what means, is there anything wrong with him asking "what does that mean?" and you tell him that it means the bar they're meeting is being paid, probably for something nefarious? Sure, you're letting them discover some stuff through their knowledge skills, but a) that's what they're there for and the player chose them because that's the stuff he wants his char to know about and do and b) if they have any interest in actually playing the game they'll rather figure it out for themselves - if/when they learn to do that, they will try to figure it out for themselves instead of asking you. It won't solve all problems (I've had plenty of issues with non-tradecrafty characters that did impulsive and stupid stuff, which is why I pretty much disallow characters with such disruptive personalities from mirror shade and trenchcoat games), but it will go a long way.

Mon, 2013-10-14 04:08

#28

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

no,

but the assets you describled (teams of super hackers forked forever in a super sped up simulspace) wouldent need a special forces team, they'd just find a way to turn the ship around, or better yet, never have it leave the hab, then find out who the pirate is and have hacked Jovian and PC interstellar near FTL nukes launched at his no longer secrete hideout, all of this a few seconds after hearing about the pirates plans... seriously the mesh firepower your talking about goes way way beyond what a special forces team would have access to and actually leaves no reason to have a special forces team (why would you need ground pounders if your using the datawar equivlilant of a multiwarhead titan missle? there wouldent be anything left for em to shoot at.)

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Mon, 2013-10-14 04:19

#29

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

smokeskin-

simple question here, at what point is the player running the character, and at what point is the tradecraft skill running it? "oh your going to a bar to grab the data of a mercenary hacker when he meets with his corp fixer... ok roll that percentage, ahh you made a great random roll, here let me give you a 30 point checklist of exactly what you think you should do..." I just dont see any fun in that. I tell the players what their characters hear and see and feel, occasionally if they make the right rolls I give them pointers ("you think doing this could really backfire" or "you think you need to do a bit more research on the meeting location") what I dont do is outline exactly what the characters feel they should do when going into a situation, if I do that I'm really playing their character after all what is the player going to do say "uh na, I'd rather not follow the expert advice of the EP game god and instead do something really stupid that will ruin the game"

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Mon, 2013-10-14 04:44

#30

Smokeskin

Baalbamoth wrote:simple

Baalbamoth wrote:
simple question here, at what point is the player running the character, and at what point is the tradecraft skill running it? "oh your going to a bar to grab the data of a mercenary hacker when he meets with his corp fixer... ok roll that percentage, ahh you made a great random roll, here let me give you a 30 point checklist of exactly what you think you should do..." I just dont see any fun in that. I tell the players what their characters hear and see and feel, occasionally if they make the right rolls I give them pointers ("you think doing this could really backfire" or "you think you need to do a bit more research on the meeting location") what I dont do is outline exactly what the characters feel they should do when going into a situation, if I do that I'm really playing their character after all what is the player going to do say "uh na, I'd rather not follow the expert advice of the EP game god and instead do something really stupid that will ruin the game"

Then you need to work it out at character creation. Tell players they can't use their PC's Knowledge skills and they should only choose Profession and Academic skills that they have a good grasp of.

Mon, 2013-10-14 07:02

#31

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Baalbamoth wrote:simple

Baalbamoth wrote:
simple question here, at what point is the player running the character, and at what point is the tradecraft skill running it? "oh your going to a bar to grab the data of a mercenary hacker when he meets with his corp fixer... ok roll that percentage, ahh you made a great random roll, here let me give you a 30 point checklist of exactly what you think you should do..." I just dont see any fun in that. I tell the players what their characters hear and see and feel, occasionally if they make the right rolls I give them pointers ("you think doing this could really backfire" or "you think you need to do a bit more research on the meeting location") what I dont do is outline exactly what the characters feel they should do when going into a situation, if I do that I'm really playing their character after all what is the player going to do say "uh na, I'd rather not follow the expert advice of the EP game god and instead do something really stupid that will ruin the game"

There is a middle ground in this. If you just hand the players everything it is boring and unfun. But as you clearly realised when you started this thread, it is also frustrating and unfun when you always fail. Consider this dungeon description, “this large open hall is 60’*120’, a deep chasm crosses the hall and you can smell sulphur from its depths, there is an alter to Grumsh at the far end, the body upon it thickly oozes blood. an ornate door 12’ high stands behind the alter and a smaller wooden door to the left” A player responds “I search the ornate door for traps” Do you respond A: “you will need to use some rope and a grappling hook to catch the alter so you can climb over the crevice” B: “there is a crevice between you and that door” C: “you fall into the crevice and take 5D6 falling damage landing on a ledge 50’ down” D: “you **** idiot I **** told you there was a crevice. **** pay attention or **** get out of my **** game” To draw a parallel based on the description of your game. “after acquiring the shipping invoice you find the container that contains the uranium you are tracking was delivered to a small back country Terraforming hab on mars.” The octomorf PC “well we know where to go next, I stock up on synthetic octopus legs and we head on over” Do you respond, A: “you will need a solid disguise, I sujest jacking some cheep cases to sleave in so you fit in. unfortunately if you want to stay in your octo morf you will need to stay out of site” B: “you will stand out like sore thumbs in that town, they tend to be populated by rusters and cheep sinths and are not usually quick to trust outsiders.” C: “well you just walked into town and you already have 3 tails. One looks like the local law, one has a triad tat and the last is carrying an obvious camera, your muse informs you he has 16 points of F-rep all from uploading footage of street fights, none of them appear to like you, trust you, or care if you lie bleeding in a pool of your own vomit by morning” D: “**** you. **** listen when I speak. It’s a **** isolated country **** town you know you can’t just **** walk in looking out of town. **** pay attention or **** leave” And I do see the 2 situations as comparable. In the description you give enough information that the players could notice the problem. The problem should be obvious to the PC but the player misses it, it happens all the time and how you deal with it important. A: is what you seem to think we are suggesting you should do, hand the player the solution to the problem he missed, this is railroadie and cuts the player out of the action, just as you said it would. B: is what I would do. Remind the player of the problem his character should see, and permit the player to come up with a solution, the successfulness of the solution will depend on how reasonable it is and the PCs skills and roles C: is what it sounds like you would do (maybe slightly dramatised, and could be miss-interpreted). Let the player wear the consequences of their oversight but apply those penalties at less than the harshest possible way. Hey that crevice leads all the way to hell, at least the ledge means he can climb out D: is an abusive GM I played half a session with once. Don’t do that. The final thing you can learn from this post is that I have too much time on my hands

Tue, 2013-10-15 18:48

#32

UnitOmega

Personally, I've always

Personally, I've always started with the "are you sure?" methodology when players are making questionable decisions. Followed by a "to confirm, you want to do action X in place Y, for reason Z" if they're doing something their character would probably find risky or stupid, and usually load the emphasis to try and let them know it's not a good idea. For EP specifically, I believe it mentions in Transhuman that knowledge skills can substitute for a COG or INT x3 check to get an idea or draw conclusions. I often jot notes concerning clues or new information as to what Knowledge skills would be appropriate to draw conclusions from or gain additional information, and have people reflexively roll it. Or, if they don't know enough about the setting, they can (and should) ask how to accomplish something, roll an appropriate skill, and you can provide ideas. You don't have to hand feed them things, just tell them what their characters might know or realize (that obviously, the players [i]can't[/i] know or realize, since they are not the same people.), and qualify it with stuff like "to the best of your knowledge". If the PCs don't have appropriate skills to come up with solutions or interpret data you provide, then either you did not clearly enough inform them some skills would be necessary to some degree, or they failed to listen to you. If they need to recall earlier information, allow them COGx3 to recall, or just tell them if they have Eidetic Memory or Mnemonic Augmentation. On the NPC front, not necessarily provide a DMPC, but if players consistently fail, and Firewall knows it, have them bring in someone to help teach/refresh sentinels on what actions would be appropriate. Teach them some lessons about tradecraft and espionage in the context of their failures. If they continue to ignore them or fail to take lessons to heart, have Firewall threaten to scrub the sentinels (They're shady people, Firewall). If they persist, have the org burn them/slap them into cold storage w/e. You can either make that the campaign, or (probably for the better) tell them to roll new characters to represent who Firewall sends in next. Games require some level of working together. If players can't work in the direction of the game, force them to alter behavior. If they don't enjoy doing things that way, then you're playing the wrong game, scrap it. Also, utilize the Muse. Muses are NPCs and some-what autonomous. Just have them roll (or better yet, have them succeed on vital stuff instantly) and then as the Muse, inform or remind players. It's what they're for. And, at some point, you may just have to sit down with your players and tell them to read the bloody book. Or at least, sections appropriate to what they are doing. Transhuman has whole sections for players for this reason. You can exposit all you like, but ultimately, players need to learn for themselves. I mean, feel free to infodump about concepts/places/tech when you introduce it. But if you and they don't enjoy it, you might have to put a foot down.

—

H-Rep: An EP Homebrew Blog http://ephrep.blogspot.com/

Tue, 2013-10-15 20:12

#33

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

UnitOmega wrote: if players

UnitOmega wrote:
if players consistently fail, and Firewall knows it, have them bring in someone to help teach/refresh sentinels on what actions would be appropriate. Teach them some lessons about tradecraft and espionage in the context of their failures. If they continue to ignore them or fail to take lessons to heart, have Firewall threaten to scrub the sentinels (They're shady people, Firewall). If they persist, have the org burn them/slap them into cold storage w/e.

this is a problem you will come up against soon. proxies don't activate sentinels with a reputation for failure. fail enough and you ether get shut out of the active organization, or restored from a pre introduction backup (you don't know about firewall any more). they would not likely kill operatives without restoring. the fact that they reliably reinstate there operatives is a major part of how they maintain the loyalty of sentinels, and there willingness to engage in borderline suicide missions (and sometimes suicide missions where your survival is not permitted). the time will come where it becomes unbelievable that your PCs hold any position in firewall.

Wed, 2013-10-16 06:26

#34

Baalbamoth Baalbamoth's picture

Well tonight was the next section...

The team went into the Portmanteau ranger station where Ozma was running smugling operation for a titan remnant research station in the zone. a cogniweapon making people happy and oblivious (http://www.aleph.se/EclipsePhase/Cognoweapons.pdf) was being used to keep speculation down and an async with charasma and suggestion was used to corrupt almost every ranger on the station into taking bribes, doing their bidding, etc. I sat the hacker down, told her what I felt she should be doing more of (info gathering and survaliance) and ran the whole first hour of nothing but her looking into the station and it's residents. There was a house and bar that went under unlicensed construction and was loosing tens of thousands of creds to gambling every month, (which was paying off the rangers) she found the corrupt ranger captain and his minions, and found that the owner of the house was the same suspected Ozma async agent they were sent to interrogate... On entering the bar they saw quickly something was wrong, people were way way too happy, and having almost "too" good of a time, and the firewall team's asyncs powers wernt working in the bar. Two of the characters blew will rolls and didnt want to leave... So what do you think the other characters did? Nope, They left em there in the den of evil and went out to dinner.... Of course they got the teams tac net hacked, programmed AR was sent saying "we're having a great time and we won thousands of creds!" After a few hours the other characters figured out something was wrong and armed up to save their friends when they got a vid feed of the two drunk and happy team members in the clutches of their Ozma enemy, partially spilling their guts about the mission, people they killed, secretes, etc saying "maybe you should come here and have a sit down" In the combat that followed one character died, one got some incredibly lucky rolls and the team managed to take out 10 skill 80 furies (Titan buster rangers armed with agonizers) (the ultimate was praising his full auto spd 4 rolls) BUT the enemy ducked out, alerted the rangers, and next week the team will have to fight their way out of the hab with slim or little chance of completing their mission (they'll be very lucky just to survive) Hindsight is 20/20 but how would you have done things differently?

—

"what do I want? The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, complete dominion over the known worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."

Wed, 2013-10-16 08:27

#35

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Sounds like it was fairly

Sounds like it was fairly obvious that those that stayed had been mind controlled, but sometimes players assume something like that would not be easy to recognise. Before they left I would say “You can tell your friends minds have been affected by something, are you going to leave them in this bar, owned by your target?” The idea is to make it explicit that they have and can use this information in character. Doesn’t hurt to let your shock and surprise show a bit (if they have a plan they will enjoy seeing it, if not they may react to it) If they still chose to leave them there for more than a couple of minutes then the rest of your scenario is about right, I might leave a short window to get out of the hab before security can be tightened. Curious as to how you would have gone if they dragged their friends out. That dose scream “we know you have mind mojo in here” and half blow there cover. My preferred solution would be to have one PC leave and transmit an “under attack, need urgent assistance” message to all those that stayed in the bar, about 30 seconds later. Having the PCs walk into that situation is a pretty tough setup. Some bad rolls and all the PCs could have been mind controlled with no mistakes on the players part (I didn’t see any before they walked in). I don’t even know what could achieve the so it is really hard to react too.

Wed, 2013-10-16 08:29

#36

V_Lhhw

Re: Next Section

Rule 0 for a player is "Never Split the Party". Across systems and across genres, it's pretty constant that if you hand your enemies an opportunity for divide-and-conquer tactics, they will use it to crush you. Maybe remind your players of this, since they don't seem to be learning from experience?