I'm curious about how it works out for you. It sounds complicated to me, but maybe I'm not looking at right.

Do you describe everything in story terms, or do let the dice rolls speak largely for themselves? Some of what the players are trying to accomplish may be rather abstract. How do you address this?

It’s a puzzle, and like most EP->FATE conversion puzzles it seems to boil down to trying to translate concepts EP cares a lot about into concepts FATE cares little or nothing about.1 The trick is to find concepts both care about and focus there. For FATE, it’s all about the interactive narrative and handing nearly everything as a character interaction. Therefore, the security statuses seem very important, since they lead to narrative consequences (countermeasures) and the FATE point economy. The access privileges and account status by contrast do not seem particularly important [to FATE] and can probably be handled by “being awesome” in your shifts. The other thing it strikes me FATE cares about is whether the system being hacked is Aware or Unaware in terms of the countermeasures the system deploys. So a zone map would include the targeted System as a mobile “character.” Unaware, rather machine-like in the Skills it can deploy; Aware, nimble and able to summon additional resources and perhaps even access the FATE point economy. Rather than concentric circles the zone map might instead be better imagined as like Diaspora’s planetary cluster maps, some nodes with only one potential destination [Outside Firewall/Locked Out <-> Inside Firewall] and others [Admin Status] as hubs to many nodes and destinations (and zone maps). The target “System” is mobile player on the map, perhaps rather mechanical in its aspects and movements and options (countermeasures) unless it is Alerted, at which point it gains aspects and allies and perhaps even a FATE point or three—an active opponent much more difficult to corral on the zone map without taking on consequences. Hardened or ultra-secure systems can be granted an extra point or two rating (as like Armor) to represent their toughness. It’s an interesting thought puzzle, for sure. Fun to think about! [h5]1 See comment threads inre Wealth / Reputation modeling. EP is pretty fiddly on Rep bookkeeping, whereas FATE doesn’t really give a rip how things are acquired, merely that they [u][i]are[/i][/u] acquired.[/h5]

That’s an easier way of conceptualizing it. What do you imagine the hacking team is rolling against? It sounds as if you’re treating the System as passive, but it strikes me the System is going to have its own Infosec as an opposed roll. I’d imagine the default “skill” for most systems would be +3 [ie, mook level NPC] but could even go as high as +6 for a hardened, sophisticated or ultra-secure system. Also, how do you imagine other team members can contribute to the hacking sequence? One of the core ideas of FATE is that others can team their points to make you “awesome.”

Here’s a similar proposal that borrows heavily from Diaspora’s platoon conflict rules, as well as Diaspora’s social conflict rules. I've set it up so that all players can participate while still giving dedicated hackers the spotlight. First off, make sure this is a conflict. If the details of a hack aren’t important enough to the narrative to be a full-blown event, just roll infosec vs. passive resistance and call it good. Otherwise you’ve got a conflict: Use a zone map to model the relevant network architecture. Have a zone for the hacker's access point, a zone or two for notable mesh areas connecting the access point to the target system, and then zones for the target system. Model passive sources of resistance (like firewalls) as pass-values for moving between zones. Use aspects to give zones some character ("public image board", "high-traffic hardline", etc). You can beef up a system’s security by adding aspects that favor the defending agents, or by giving those agents stunts that help them “on their home turf” (ignoring pass-barriers on their home zones comes to mind). Then give each active agent (including opposing sysadmins or monitor AIs) a token on the map, and a "data" stress track tied to the interfacing skill. The location of the agent represents the focus of that agent’s attention within the system. Just like in Diaspora’s platoon conflict rules: the default state for an agent is “stealth” or “undetected’, but you can have “spotting” tokens placed on you by enemy agents. You can only be attacked directly if you have one or more spotting tokens. Regarding objectives: you can give rooms aspects that tie to physical actions, so that being in the “drone control computer” zone lets you control the cargo robots, while being in the “security camera feed” zone lets you see and wipe the camera data, etc. You can use pawns (like in the Diaspora social conflict) to represent data files to be returned to the access point, viruses to be delivered to the target system, and so on. Then, proceed with turns just like in a physical conflict. Each agent gets a turn, and can do one of several things: --Move around by rolling *interfacing* to overcome pass-barriers (like you would athletics in a physical conflict) --Push along a pawn that’s in the same zone by rolling *interfacing* and giving shifts to the pawn to overcome pass barriers (You could also let them roll interfacing once, and split the shifts between these two actions) --Erode pass-barriers (e.g. firewalls) by rolling *infosec* against the barrier value and reducing the barrier by the number of shifts --Attack a spotted agent by using an opposed *infosec* roll: damage shifts go to the data stress track, consequences are available as normal, and being taken-out could mean that you've been locked out and had your entry point traced. --Attempt to spot a hidden agent by rolling opposed *infosec* to add “spotted” tokens --Attempt to hide by rolling passive *infosec* vs the number of spotting tokens and spending shifts to remove spotting tokens -- Boost or establish a firewall by rolling *infosec* vs the existing barrier value and spending shifts to increase the barrier value (this could be used to lock agents IN as well as out!) --Create an advantage on a zone (e.g. “Locked Down!”, “Heightened Security”) or agent (“Tracer bug attached”, “Reading False Data”) using infosec Like I mentioned up top, this allows you to involve all players while still giving the hacker the spotlight. Because the basic move uses interfacing instead of infosec (and everyone and their muse has interfacing) the other players can still move around, push along pawns, and serve as distractions - but you need a hacker to break down firewalls, remain hidden, and attack / defend against hostile agents. The only extra game mechanic is the spotted tokens, which aren’t bad to keep track of at all (use glass beads or poker chips or whatever). What do you think? Oh, on a somewhat related note, I like the idea of combining interfacing, infosec, and programming into just one “interfacing” skill, and using a “hacker” stunt and a “programmer” stunt to allow interfacing to function as those skills do now. Edit: Using infosec to attack should apply spotting tokens to the attacker. Likewise, a dramatic failure on pretty much any action could apply spotting tokens.