Security Software change in CSC 2023

[Azal]

Hey,

we just found that the Intrusion Difficulty for Security Software (page 71) has been lowered by 2 points (f.e. TL 10 - Security/1 used to be 12+ is now only 10+) compared to the original CSC. We (as our group) are thinking about using the new rules or house-ruling that it stays with the old rules (which worked quite ok for us).

Does anybody have an idea as to why Mongoose choose to lower the Intrusion Difficulty?
What do you think about the change?
How will you handle the change in your game? (will you use the new or the old difficulty?)

 

[Geir]

I can provide some background and a suggested resolution:

When I was writing this, I was giving a Word document for the pervious version, and that starts Intrusion at Average (9)+ Difficulty For Security/0 software (TL8). Between that Word doc and the PDF (and hardcopy) print of the first version it must have become Difficult (10)+ Difficulty at TL8, (hard to type that on broken sleep). Anyway, I went off the text file, not the book, so it's the way it was written for the first book. But not the way it was published. If you follow. I don't know what happened during some subsequent edit/review of the previous CSC to make it one level more difficult.
But: Old Core book, 8+ for Security/0
New Core book: also 8+ for Security/0

I must assume that the printed (PDF or otherwise) old CSC, being the odd one out, is incorrect (or at least divergent).

 

[Surge]

Oh look. More evidence that Mongoose needs to drastically improve their Information Management.

Not having a dig at you Geir, but the continuing amateur nature of how Mongoose manage and track their products through their lifetime. Which is pretty scary considering they are a publisher of written products!

And call me a broken record, but the issues keep materialising.

 

[Geir]

Without an unlimited budget, you can't get perfection. We can only work towards it, but its Zeno's paradox before we get to the finish line. There's still an editing mistake in the Lord of the Rings where Frodo is referred to as Bilbo (or was it the other way around? but it was jarring to me at least), and how many years and publications has that been?

Anyway, the question of which difficulty is 'better' got me to wondering if it needs to be modeled. Assume Security has no Traveller-related DMs; it's just dumb software. Assume Intrusion gets Traveller or Agent or DMs. Compare software costs, legality, skill DMs and probability and see what looks 'reasonable'. I leave it as an exercise for the reader...

 

[Surge]

It's not just the frequency of errors, but the magnitude. Where previously corrected errors can make their way back into a newer product - at least one error fixed in updates of the Core Rulebook somehow, inexplicitly, made its way into back into the Core Rulebook 2022 Update. A new product, years later.

That shouldn't be possible.

 

[nats]

It wouldnt take much time or cost for a decent editor to read through the new book blueprint, checking it against the original book (with corrected errata) spotting mistakes and raising queries. They had a complete book to go off. All they had to do was recreate it. How difficult could that be?

 

[Sigtrygg]

The more rules and task libraries spread out throughout the books makes this almost impossible without a comprehensive knowledge of every published work.

I used to love the DGP task system, but the move to MegaTraveller and the ridiculous number of tasks defined made me eventually move back to the much more freeform way CT handles situation saving throws - no need for a comprehensive task library.

 

[Azal]

thanx @Geir for the background-info and how it came to be.
this helps when deciding how we are going to handle it in our campaign.
I am a bit loath to give too low a difficulty to hacking as very many aspects in future techs are (IMO) computer-controlled which does make hacking quite powerful. On the other hand this intrusion seems to only be a basic level access to be able to ready / copy / manipulate non-critical data... to take (even partial) control, access critical data or install a back-door i'd raise the difficutly considerably and/or make the aggressover do several checks.

anyway I will discuss it with my group and we will find a reasonable way to handle it

thanks for the input

Az

P.S.: Yes, I sometimes do think one could make more efford when proofreading the products - but, knowing that everyone is on a tough budget and you never get enough time to do it (near) 100%, I am happy that someone does the job and no damage ist done
finally, here comes my personal favorite from CSC2023 that slipped the proof-reading ;-)

 

[Spenser TR]

While the conversation about proofreading and continually evolving quality is (IMHO) a worthy one... I definitely support just about any effort to better model, modernize, or make more enjoyable the ideas of hacking and system manipulation in Traveller. The existing mechanics are in need of serious revamping. Kudos to anyone trying to improve, or just calling out inconsistencies.

 

[NOLATrav]

Seems like a perfect candidate for one of Traveller’s mini-game systems. Maybe something flowchart/decision tree based?

For some reason I’m thinking of the old Gamma World game and the flowchart used to figure out advanced technology

 

[Spenser TR]

this is longer than I'd planned


Setting up a computer system could definitely be as built-out as some of the other minigames Traveller has - creating worlds or planetary systems, characters, robots, doing trade, creating a weapon, animal, vehicle and so on. I'm not sure I'd partake in that myself, but I like the idea of it.
My own vision of redoing how (computer) systems are approached in this scifi game would include:

- revamping the clunky economy of bandwidth, except when dealing with higher TLs or certain types of programs (more plot-based exceptions than common expressions). This is for both personal/item-sized systems and ship/facility systems. The present system doesn't make much sense given what we know today, and the dichotomy between personal devices and those for larger systems seems done in a way that hasn't aged well. Along with this, I'd tune up charge times/durations, access, and related matters.

- revamping of how interfaces and interface programs, again for modern sensibilities, efficiency, and inclusion in a more enjoyable kind of play.

- same with AIs, digital friends, agents, etc... "personas," if you will.

- streamlining of the process or tasks related to hacking/intrusion, and related software.

- development of a specific career and shipboard crewmember dedicated to system management. The inevitable "hacker" of the group who'd also update the party's and ship's systems during downtime, as well as develop exploits to engage the systems of "the opposition," whoever they are.

- a framework to understand comp systems - of a weapon or device, starship or starport, or planetside facility or agency so such a thing could be included in a Traveller game. Along with what you'd need to know about worldnets and mobile comms.

We already have such rules for trade, for personal combat and ship combat, to call out a few. These have simple applications that make combat or trade situations simple and straightforward for the Ref and table that don't want to spend a lot of time in the details, but are robust enough to support campaigns devoted to them if you and your table are into the minutiae, and everything in between. Wanna build a sweet gun or robot from the ground up? You can totally do that. Want to get very much in the weeds with this new rifle for your merc company? You can do that too. Let's get the same done for systems, operators, and hackers.

Thank you for attending my TED talk

 

[Geir]

thanx @Geir for the background-info and how it came to be.
this helps when deciding how we are going to handle it in our campaign.
I am a bit loath to give too low a difficulty to hacking as very many aspects in future techs are (IMO) computer-controlled which does make hacking quite powerful. On the other hand this intrusion seems to only be a basic level access to be able to ready / copy / manipulate non-critical data... to take (even partial) control, access critical data or install a back-door i'd raise the difficutly considerably and/or make the aggressover do several checks.

anyway I will discuss it with my group and we will find a reasonable way to handle it

thanks for the input

Az

P.S.: Yes, I sometimes do think one could make more efford when proofreading the products - but, knowing that everyone is on a tough budget and you never get enough time to do it (near) 100%, I am happy that someone does the job and no damage ist done
finally, here comes my personal favorite from CSC2023 that slipped the proof-reading ;-)

View attachment 981

Okay, I get it, but to be fair, the two halves of the above image are not on the same page, just two things, eight pages apart, pasted together (actually, looking closely, I imagine the bottom half took four images to stitch together, though from the same table). I thought it would be obvious that you cut your hand off (or worse) if you flubbed the roll.

Rather than inventing another trait special just for that weapon, I used Dangerous (yes, I 'overloaded the variable'. Sorry). If you want the garotte to explode after severing the user's hand, that's an optional Referee add-on effect. The weapon would at least be rendered inoperable to the offending operator, unless they wanted to hold the other end in their mouth (assuming a two-armed humanoid, of course), which would likely result in even worse outcomes on a future Effect -5.