Difference between revisions of "Hacking"

From AIFWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[category:Technobabble]]
 
[[category:Technobabble]]
 
<pre>This rule is provisional, and very very optional.</pre>
 
<pre>This rule is provisional, and very very optional.</pre>
Hacking is the interfacing with logic, data, and controls to manipulate them.  The attempt is:  
+
Hacking is the interfacing with logic, data, and controls to manipulate them.  It is the data version of tampering.<br>
 +
The attempt is:  
  
<big><b>1D6 * (stage of [[scientist|mathematician]]) + [[intelligence]]</b></big>
+
<big><b>1D6(for being sentient) + 1D6 * (stage of [[scientist|mathematician]]) + [[intelligence]]</b></big>
 +
 
 +
Seasoned beings (5<sup>th</sup> stage) get 1 extra D6.<br>
 +
Legendary beings (10<sup>th</sup> stage) get another extra D6.
  
 
This can be attempted in a combat round, assuming that a being is able to spend at least one die from their dice pool.
 
This can be attempted in a combat round, assuming that a being is able to spend at least one die from their dice pool.
Line 12: Line 16:
 
* Alter election results.
 
* Alter election results.
  
Generally speaking, things are "hackable" to the degree that they are made to resist hacking.  So, by extrapolation, most basic systems are created by 1-stage mathematicians - so will tend to have a "hack" rating of 6-9.  To make something more secure, hiring a 2-stage mathematician will tend to bump that up to 10-13.
+
Generally speaking, things are "hackable" to the degree that they are made to resist hacking.  So, by extrapolation, most basic systems are created by 1-stage mathematicians - so will tend to have a "hack" rating of 6-14.  To make something more secure, hiring a 2-stage mathematician will tend to bump that up to 10-17.
 +
 
 +
Controls that are built more crudely - without a mathematician - depend more heavily on the intelligence of the builder.
 +
 
 +
Ties are a "partial success", usually leaking some information or half-completing a command - whichever makes more sense to the referee.
  
Controls that are built even more crudely - without a mathematician - are simply at the intelligence of the builder.
+
Success hacking creates a single action that the system will perform.  Future actions require more hacking.
  
 
If something non-sentient is "hacked" by 5 or more, it is "PWNED" - giving the hacker persistent and complete access and control.  This is most cameras, communications rigs, door controls, and vending machines.
 
If something non-sentient is "hacked" by 5 or more, it is "PWNED" - giving the hacker persistent and complete access and control.  This is most cameras, communications rigs, door controls, and vending machines.
Line 21: Line 29:
  
 
To PWN something with parallel intelligence (main brain/processor + nanoscopic robots) such as most independent beings and ships, they mush be "hacked" by 20 or more.  And they retain the ability to turn reboot themselves to resist the control - though that usually has other dire consequences.
 
To PWN something with parallel intelligence (main brain/processor + nanoscopic robots) such as most independent beings and ships, they mush be "hacked" by 20 or more.  And they retain the ability to turn reboot themselves to resist the control - though that usually has other dire consequences.
 +
 +
Hacking failures of 5 or more generally set off alarms or engage more-difficult security protocols.

Revision as of 19:38, 30 June 2020

This rule is provisional, and very very optional.

Hacking is the interfacing with logic, data, and controls to manipulate them. It is the data version of tampering.
The attempt is:

1D6(for being sentient) + 1D6 * (stage of mathematician) + intelligence

Seasoned beings (5th stage) get 1 extra D6.
Legendary beings (10th stage) get another extra D6.

This can be attempted in a combat round, assuming that a being is able to spend at least one die from their dice pool.

The effects are to do things like:

  • Gain access to information feeds.
  • Send new instructions to a machine.
  • Alter election results.

Generally speaking, things are "hackable" to the degree that they are made to resist hacking. So, by extrapolation, most basic systems are created by 1-stage mathematicians - so will tend to have a "hack" rating of 6-14. To make something more secure, hiring a 2-stage mathematician will tend to bump that up to 10-17.

Controls that are built more crudely - without a mathematician - depend more heavily on the intelligence of the builder.

Ties are a "partial success", usually leaking some information or half-completing a command - whichever makes more sense to the referee.

Success hacking creates a single action that the system will perform. Future actions require more hacking.

If something non-sentient is "hacked" by 5 or more, it is "PWNED" - giving the hacker persistent and complete access and control. This is most cameras, communications rigs, door controls, and vending machines.

If something sentient is "hacked" by 10 or more, it is "PWNED". This is AI's, simple robots, and some vehicles.

To PWN something with parallel intelligence (main brain/processor + nanoscopic robots) such as most independent beings and ships, they mush be "hacked" by 20 or more. And they retain the ability to turn reboot themselves to resist the control - though that usually has other dire consequences.

Hacking failures of 5 or more generally set off alarms or engage more-difficult security protocols.