Computers Skill in SC3

[Crafty_Alex]

Computer coding? Make it a Language interest.
Utilising computer hardware? Study interest.
Creating computer/electronic hardware? Crafting focus.

There are people out there who want to play "the computer expert." Generally, that's going to mean an Interest won't make them enough of an expert. The new Analyst class in playtest actually can show true expertise in that fashion in a way other classes thus far have not, but still. The language focus would most certainly make people confused.

While I largely with agree with you all that computers are a tool rather than an activity, and that "good computer use" spans multiple activities, our time in the wild with SC2.0 has taught us people did not understand the application of that game's Computer skill without the abilty to use computers for research. The main issue I personally took away was that people did not understand why a "social" skill like Investigation also covered computer research, when Computers didn't.

Now in Mastercraft we redefined skills as activities and actions, rather than mediums, taking what we had with Mechanics, Electronics, and Science and largely lumping them into Crafting. This makes Crafting as it stands more and more of a power skill, but maybe the changes to foci being required to make a trained skill check is enough to put a cap on it. Catadon fairly notes that computers will also be used for high level Crafting activities as well, which encourages the position to divorce computers from skill checks altogether, and just make them another tool like a hammer. However, to do so may in fact blow up in our face the first time someone goes up to a computer and then expects to have a particular skill to hack, research, or operate it...another common problem I saw in 2.0 demos.

In the end, all that matters is not teaching people the "right way" to play their game, it's to create a split (or lack thereof) that people inherently get and can get behind. That's what reall matters for the product's success...not my presuppositions of what is correct.

[Golden Dragon]

In the end, all that matters is not teaching people the "right way" to play their game, it's to create a split (or lack thereof) that people inherently get and can get behind. That's what reall matters for the product's success...not my presuppositions of what is correct.

Wow. Either Alex is a very humble man, or he's learned a very hard lesson. 

On the serious side, Alex has come to a wise conclusion that looks like it comes from much hard experience.

[Mister Andersen]

There are people out there who want to play "the computer expert." Generally, that's going to mean an Interest won't make them enough of an expert. The new Analyst class in playtest actually can show true expertise in that fashion in a way other classes thus far have not, but still. The language focus would most certainly make people confused.

[...]

Catadon fairly notes that computers will also be used for high level Crafting activities as well, which encourages the position to divorce computers from skill checks altogether, and just make them another tool like a hammer. However, to do so may in fact blow up in our face the first time someone goes up to a computer and then expects to have a particular skill to hack, research, or operate it...another common problem I saw in 2.0 demos.
 

Hmm.

Computers are essentially just kits like a mage pouch. Using a "public terminal" would then become the equivalent of making a skill check without the requisite kit -- i.e., untrained.

Thus computer experts will get to invest in a kit -- PDA, laptop, desktop, mainframe -- that their team mates likely won't have, and those that choose their specialty and/or class appropriately can pick up the "always have a kit" ability which means that their use of a computer even if naked in the heart of enemy territory is never capped.

And as with fake IDs or codes in Cloak & Dagger, they can buy things like backdoors and viruses and dataminers et al as consumable items.

[mathey]

Ah, Hackers. With their hacking. At the risk of being tangential...

Speaking as a GM who ran an investigation-heavy SpyCraft 2.0 game or two, a system savvy player could easily get the most bang for his or her buck by playing a Hacker (especially if they sucker the GM into letting them get some levels of Scientist, too, but that particular can of Cheez Whiz has already been discussed into the ground). They not only got a massive Computer skill bonus which could overcome even the most talented TL-scaled NPC opposition in a Hacking conflict, they got a miniature super-computer, could crack codes far better than our resident "code expert" AND they could also Falsify like a master. Since Falsify covered disguise, concealing evidence, and forgery of any stripe, they could breeze in and out of almost any secure installation virtually or in person.

The degree to which the system seemed to lie down at the Hacker's feet was kind of embarrassing, really. Especially when considered relative to his less maximized Snoop, Sleuth, and Fixer buddies. Given the tone and focus of the game, the disparity in bonuses and versatility between the Hacker and the others was a bit staggering. I even tried to limit the tech level of given scenarios to try and let more "analog" PCs get some spotlight time, but in the end it was an uphill battle against the forces of modern networking.

So, while I'll grant you that Computers (and whatever skills they end up under in 3.0) are absolutely a vital and relevant component of modern adventure settings, I want to be sure that Computer Expert Types don't end up being the One True Way to solving every mystery, infiltration, or bit of intrigue I may throw my group's way. Let them be awesome at research and tweaking security systems, but leave some room for others to show off regardless of access to gizmos.

[Crafty_Alex]

Ah, Hackers. With their hacking. At the risk of being tangential...

Speaking as a GM who ran an investigation-heavy SpyCraft 2.0 game or two, a system savvy player could easily get the most bang for his or her buck by playing a Hacker (especially if they sucker the GM into letting them get some levels of Scientist, too, but that particular can of Cheez Whiz has already been discussed into the ground). They not only got a massive Computer skill bonus which could overcome even the most talented TL-scaled NPC opposition in a Hacking conflict, they got a miniature super-computer, could crack codes far better than our resident "code expert" AND they could also Falsify like a master. Since Falsify covered disguise, concealing evidence, and forgery of any stripe, they could breeze in and out of almost any secure installation virtually or in person.

But the problem for the Hacker I ran in my game for years was he wasn't nearly as good as finding stuff using a computer (Investigate)...something pretty much every hacker-type character not only wants, but reasonably expects IMEX. Sure, the Hacker could crush on Hacking conflicts, but we ran maybe...2 in the course of 3 years of play? Him being better at disguise and forgery didn't really jive with the player's expectations either. Granted, a lot of this was from the Hacker class, but it was still a fact that the hacker reasonably expected to get information using Computers skill...which didn't actually work that way.

The degree to which the system seemed to lie down at the Hacker's feet was kind of embarrassing, really. Especially when considered relative to his less maximized Snoop, Sleuth, and Fixer buddies. Given the tone and focus of the game, the disparity in bonuses and versatility between the Hacker and the others was a bit staggering. I even tried to limit the tech level of given scenarios to try and let more "analog" PCs get some spotlight time, but in the end it was an uphill battle against the forces of modern networking.

The hyper-specialization of the Hacker as a base class is another reason why it's on the chopping block. I know what the class is good at and what it isn't - the problem comes from the concept as a base class itself.

So, while I'll grant you that Computers (and whatever skills they end up under in 3.0) are absolutely a vital and relevant component of modern adventure settings, I want to be sure that Computer Expert Types don't end up being the One True Way to solving every mystery, infiltration, or bit of intrigue I may throw my group's way. Let them be awesome at research and tweaking security systems, but leave some room for others to show off regardless of access to gizmos.

And there's the trick. Computers are simply a different way of researching in a lot of ways, just like card catalogs were when I was a kid, and microfiche was for my dad. I don't want to move the Research check under Computers, but I also don't want to make any hypothetical hacker-style class a master of Investigate, because he's good at a specific type of investigation. I want the player of a computer-researcher-type to have a natural place to go to, and to have him be good at it. If that skill is Computers or Investigate, I don't entirely know.

[aegis]

I like the "sound" of the Analyst class. It certainly can make me think of the classic analyst from spy movies, or a hacker (a la Leverage), or a collaborating scientist (a la Fringe), or even a journalist caught in a spy game despite his best efforts -- the most likely kind of non-spy drawn in the great game because of his activities. Glad you're reworking -- but somehow keeping -- the hacker, glad you're expanding his abilities, and don't care how you handle computer science as long as it flows nicely.

[Fastidious Monk]

That's why this isn't fully sorted. Technology has a very different role in modern day than it does in Fantasy - this is the place I anticipate most changes in skills will happen (nothing solid yet).

What about a Technology Skill with different foci for it like with Crafting?  For computers, programs could have complexities associated with them and a modified Technology table modeled after the Crafting table 2.9 (pg 73 FC) would let you know how well you did.

That kind of thing.

[Crafty_Alex]

Glad you're reworking -- but somehow keeping -- the hacker, glad you're expanding his abilities, and don't care how you handle computer science as long as it flows nicely.

To be clear, I never said we're keeping the Hacker. We're certainly not keeping it as a base class, but I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work. That said, the hacker is a distinct archetype of modern espionage so it will get strong consideration - but that decision will be dictated by how the systems around such a class come together.

[Crafty_Alex]

That's why this isn't fully sorted. Technology has a very different role in modern day than it does in Fantasy - this is the place I anticipate most changes in skills will happen (nothing solid yet).

What about a Technology Skill with different foci for it like with Crafting?  For computers, programs could have complexities associated with them and a modified Technology table modeled after the Crafting table 2.9 (pg 73 FC) would let you know how well you did.

That kind of thing.

My attitude on this one is if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, we'll call it Crafting. If it's different, however, we'll look into other skills.

[Nepenthe]

Glad you're reworking -- but somehow keeping -- the hacker, glad you're expanding his abilities, and don't care how you handle computer science as long as it flows nicely.

To be clear, I never said we're keeping the Hacker. We're certainly not keeping it as a base class, but I'm not sure exactly how it's going to work. That said, the hacker is a distinct archetype of modern espionage so it will get strong consideration - but that decision will be dictated by how the systems around such a class come together.

Specialty. Moving on...

[Fastidious Monk]

That's why this isn't fully sorted. Technology has a very different role in modern day than it does in Fantasy - this is the place I anticipate most changes in skills will happen (nothing solid yet).

What about a Technology Skill with different foci for it like with Crafting?  For computers, programs could have complexities associated with them and a modified Technology table modeled after the Crafting table 2.9 (pg 73 FC) would let you know how well you did.

That kind of thing.

My attitude on this one is if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, we'll call it Crafting. If it's different, however, we'll look into other skills.

I did not mean to imply for it to be a carbon copy of Crafting; but where Crafting is for making things a Technology skill is for using things.  I just used the Complexities mechanic as an example.

[Sletchman]

I did not mean to imply for it to be a carbon copy of Crafting; but where Crafting is for making things a Technology skill is for using things.  I just used the Complexities mechanic as an example.

I think the idea has some merit, but there's a fine line between what would be Craft and what would be Technology with such a system.  Is creating a genesoldier a Craft, or a Technology?  The bulk of the work would be done using very powerful computers and robotics, but you are still making something.  That might be less espionage and more scifi, but there are other modern examples of making things using technology - hydrolathes for example.

[Agent 333]

Remind me when I have some time to write out that "Computers in RPGs" essay I've been meaning to write.

[Catodon]

Remind me when I have some time to write out that "Computers in RPGs" essay I've been meaning to write.

If you do let me know I know a guy who runs a rpg fanzine who'd snap it up. Readership is a couple of thousand.

[aegis]

To be clear, I never said we're keeping the Hacker. We're certainly not keeping it as a base class,

Indeed, I'm happy you don't keep it as a base class. Though quite useful, the concept was very narrow in my opinion.

That said, the hacker is a distinct archetype of modern espionage so it will get strong consideration

That's what I was talking about. Specialty, yes. Feats, certainly a chain or two. But before anything, strong rules for computer accessing/searching/programming/cracking and of course ... dramatic conflicts!