TEXT:  
  Hardware that Hums, Software that Sizzles 
  Customizing your GURPS Computer 
  by Michael J. Daumen 
  Computers in GURPS are defined by their Complexity rating, a catch-all number that reflects 
  speed, capacity, size, and TL. The simplicity of Complexity is deceiving; one variable represents a 
  wide variety in both devices and programs. But it is hard to introduce more character-computer 
  interaction into the GURPS system without adding more statistics. With this in mind, here are 
  some ideas for giving computer experts more to do in a campaign than hack-and-backslash. 
  How it all Works 
  The concept that makes it possible to squeeze more into a computer and out of a program is 
  fractional Complexity. Expanding Complexity one decimal place -- 3.1, 4.9, and so on -- gives 
  players the motivation to tinker with computers, and GMs the flexibility to introduce new hardware 
  and software without increasing performance by factors of ten each time. 
  In hardware terms, an extra tenth of Complexity provides room to run one more program of 
  Complexity-1, as per normal GURPS rules. For example, a computer of Complexity 4.1 can run 
  two Complexity 4 and one Complexity 3 programs, or one Complexity 4 and eleven Complexity 3 
  programs. Characters get fractional increases by installing custom hardware into the computers 
  they use. 
  In contrast to computer systems, optimized and custom programs have smaller Complexities, 
  leaving more room in memory for other programs. Running a Complexity 4.9 program instead of a 
  Complexity 5 program saves enough space for one additional Complexity 4 program in memory. 
  Programmers get savings in Complexity by writing new software and modifying existing 
  programs. 
  Despite the modifications made by these rules, computers and programs always operate at their 
  original or "base" Complexity. When determining Complexity-derived effects such as skill levels 
  (anything but the number of programs a computer can store), always round off to the nearest 
  integer. To avoid confusion, the greatest improvement possible to either computers or programs is 
  0.4 -- preventing arguments about whether a Complexity of 4.5 should be treated as 4 or 5! 
  A Complexity increase/decrease of 0.1 is a Simple invention; a 0.2 increase is Average; 0.3 is 
  Complex; and 0.4 Amazing (using the terms as they appear in the Gadgeteering rules in CII123). 
  The difficulty of making these changes are represented by skill roll modifiers of 0, -2, -6 and -10 
  respectively. 
  Aaron flipped the case over with twitching fingers, trying hard to ignore how desperate 
  he'd become. The last of his money and favors were sunk into this box; it, and the hope 
  for one more score, were all he had now. Carefully, he opened the static-free cover, 
  blowing gently to remove any dust. The chip gleamed beneath the overhead lights. 
  Wired in his deck, it was the key which could set him free -- or seal his fate. 
  
  Hardware Upgrades 
  Computer users planning an upgrade must first select the amount of Complexity to replace and the 
  amount of fractional Complexity they are seeking. The former can be a number up to the 
  computer's Complexity minus 1. For example, up to 6 points of Complexity can be modified for a 
  Complexity 7 system. The benefit to be obtained from an upgrade can vary from 0.1 to 0.4. 
  Of course, before a new part is installed, it must be available. It's possible to find the desired 
  components for sale in the right market, or to requisition them from a supplier. Rummaging 
  through unused or forgotten hardware is also possible -- in a cyberpunk environment this skill is a 
  fine art! Characters with Scrounging can make a roll, subtracting the Complexity and TL of the 
  desired component. Success means a part is available; whether the owner objects to its use is 
  another matter. 
  Better hardware is designed using the GURPS rules for inventions (B186). Make the concept roll 
  against the designer's Electronics (Computers)-3 or Engineering (Electrical Work)-6. The extra 
  difficulty represents the fact that off-the-shelf components would have the latest refinements; if a 
  modification were obvious someone would have already done it! Instead of the -15 penalty to the 
  concept roll, subtract the operating TL, base Complexity, and the gadgeteering penalty for the 
  amount of the improvement. A critical success does not count this modification towards the four 
  maximum (see below); a critical failure means that the hardware in question is so integral to the 
  computer that its Complexity cannot be modified in subsequent attempts. 
  Example: Aaron's fixer knows a student who thinks he has come up with a breakthrough in 
  microchip architecture. He thinks he can build a chip which will replace 1 point of Complexity 
  with 1.3. His Electronics roll is a 17, and Aaron finds out that his motherboard is so strangely 
  configured that it cannot be removed without scrapping the whole deck. Because of this, the total 
  amount of Complexity available for future attempts is reduced by 1 to 2 (of the possible 3 for a 
  deck of Complexity 4). 
  For the assembly roll, subtract TL, gadgeteering penalty, and twice the replaced Complexity. A 
  critical success allows the replaced Complexity to be used in subsequent attempts (while retaining 
  the fractional bonus). Critical failure means that the faulty component looks fine, and can be 
  installed without problems -- but it may eventually cause internal damage or system failure at the 
  worst possible time . . . . 
  Example: Aaron asks a chipmaker to burn a faster coprocessor for his cyberdeck. After haggling 
  the specs and cost, they decide that the component they need is Complexity 2 (of 4 total) and will 
  increase his deck's Complexity by 0.1. The penalty to the conception roll is -3 (starting penalty), -8 
  (TL), and -4 (base Complexity), or -15. The penalty on the manufacturing roll is -3, -8, and -4 
  (twice the replaced Complexity), also -15. There is no gadgeteering penalty for the 0.1 increase 
  since this is a Simple improvement. The engineer makes both rolls and delivers the merchandise 
  into Aaron's greedy fingers. 
  Setting up the new hardware requires two rolls: an Electronics (Computers)/Engineering (Electrical 
  Work)-3 roll (for the physical installation) and a Computer Programming roll (to resolve any 
  compatibility problems between the new component and existing software). Subtract the working 
  TL, the system's base Complexity, and the gadgeteering penalty, but add the amount of the 
  Complexity which is being replaced. Both attempts require the use of a suitable tool kit or lab. 
  While a critical success on an assembly roll makes a task shorter (see below), critical failures on 
  these rolls can cause physical damage or data loss. 
  Example: Aaron wishes to rewire his cyberdeck with the new chip. To successfully upgrade his 
  deck, he needs to make Electronics and Computer Programming rolls with a total penalty of -8 
  (TL), -4 (base Complexity), +2 (the Complexity replaced) -10 for each. His modified rolls are 6 
  
  and 13 -- although he installed the new component correctly, it creates a software glitch that must 
  be resolved in another attempt. 
  A computer can be modified more than once, provided that at least 2 points of the system's original 
  Complexity remain, and that critical failures have not made available points off-limits. Since the 
  maximum amount of increase is 0.4, a system can only be modified no more than four times. This 
  limit includes failed attempts and attempts by more than one engineer. 
  Example: Aaron has tried to modify his Complexity 4 cyberdeck twice. His first attempt involving 
  1 point of Complexity failed critically, while the second replaced 2 points with 2.1. He has 2 points 
  of original Complexity remaining. But since one must never be replaced (by definition), and the 
  other cannot be replaced (because of the critical failure), there's nothing left to customize. Had his 
  first try not ended so badly, he would still have 1 point available for one more upgrade. He's left 
  with a deck of Complexity 4.1 that cannot be improved. Now it's time to look at his software . . . . 
  The cost and time to required to make upgrades can vary greatly. One rule of thumb is to have the 
  base price equal to the replaced Complexity squared in thousands of dollars, subject to whatever 
  other modifiers the GM thinks apply. Each action governed by a die roll takes (TL x Base 
  Complexity x replaced Complexity x 60) minutes to resolve, divided by how much the roll 
  succeeded -- so if Aaron succeeds by five on one roll, that step takes (8x4x2x60)/5 = 320 minutes. 
  A critical success on the assembly rolls halves the time to perform each job. 
  Optimized Programs 
  Programmers can try to write new software with lower Complexity, or improve existing programs. 
  The former requires more knowledge and time, since the program may delve into other fields of 
  study; the latter may involve cryptanalysis and bypassing security routines just to examine the 
  code! Customizing programs is cheaper than installing new hardware -- the cost is the purchase 
  price of the program to edit, or the freelancer's fee. 
  New Software 
  Writing an optimized program from scratch uses the inventing rules at B186. A programmer can 
  attempt to write entirely new software, or custom versions of existing programs. In addition to the 
  concept and assembly ("compiling") rolls, the programmer (or his assistants with the relevant 
  skills) must make success rolls for any other skills appropriate when creating a specialized program 
  (a Personality Simulation requires the assistance of someone with Psychology skill, an Expert 
  System requires an expert in the underlying knowledge skill, etc.). 
  Each roll is at -3, with the following modifiers: twice the program's base Complexity; and the 
  penalty for the gadgeteering improvement (Simple to Amazing). As with hardware, a critical 
  failure in the design stage means the programmer thinks the software he examined cannot be 
  optimized; similar misfortune in the compiling stage means that he thinks the program is 
  functional, when in reality it will eventually crash. 
  Example: After encountering polymorphic ice on a harrowing run, Aaron thinks he can incorporate 
  some of its features into a Webster program (base Complexity 2), which should result in an 
  improved Complexity of 1.7. This 0.3 improvement is Complex, carrying a -6 penalty. The GM 
  mercifully decides that his familiarity with the Net is sufficient to not require any other skill rolls, 
  but since he has no access to Webster software he needs to write one off the top of his head. The 
  penalties to his rolls are -3 (the normal penalty), -4 (twice the base Complexity of a Webster 
  program), and -6 (Complex task) or -13 total. 
  Version 2.0 
  
  Instead of writing new software, Characters with Computer Programming skill can try to improve 
  existing programs. Getting to the actual code can be difficult; erstwhile pirates will first need to 
  detect and bypass security measures. A Computer Hacking roll, minus the program's base 
  Complexity, reveals any such safeguards. A second roll, either Computer Hacking or Cryptanalysis 
  (if the program is encrypted) at the same penalty will circumvent the protection -- unless the GM 
  uses more sophisticated rules for this type of activity. 
  The penalties for writing from scratch apply as well to optimization. Programs can only be 
  modified once, unless someone achieved a critical success during a previous edit. In either case, 
  the gadgeteering penalty is based on the reduction in the program's original Complexity, as 
  opposed to its current Complexity. For example, improving a program from 4.7 to 4.6 is just as 
  difficult as going from 5 to 4.6, since the designer probably used his best tricks in a previous 
  rewrite. 
  Example: Looking to free up some disk space, Aaron prints out his deck's Success program and 
  pores over it for extraneous bytes. Its current Complexity is 2.9, the result of a lucky all-nighter a 
  few months back. After several pots of coffee, Aaron bets he can shave another tenth off to a new 
  size of 2.8. The penalties to his roll are -3 (the usual penalty), -6 (twice the base Complexity of 3) 
  and -2 (from 3 to 2.8 is a 0.2 improvement, an Average task) for a total of -11. On a critical success 
  he may make yet another attempt in the future. 
  Other Applications? 
  These rules were intended as incentive to seek advantages over opposing hackers, by using 
  computer-related skills as opposed to combat. However, they can easily cover repairing damaged 
  hardware or corrupt files. If the amount of physical destruction can be expressed as an amount of 
  Complexity, and the extent of rebuilding as a gadgeteering task, the hardware customization rules 
  can be applied verbatim. 
  Example: Aaron's deck is damaged by gunfire, after narrowly escaping from goons in an internet 
  cafe. Campaign house rules state that 10 points of damage destroys 1 point of Complexity. His 
  deck took 34 points of damage, so he needs to replace 3.4 points of Complexity. Some of it is 
  garden-variety circuitboard, wires and plastic casing, which the GM decides is easy to find and 
  replace -- 1.3 points of Complexity and a Simple task. The remaining 2.1 points was his new chip. 
  Aaron sighs, and ducks out his back door to see his fixer once more. 
  Complexity may also describe components or systems in other fields, allowing players to improve 
  and repair them in the same fashion. Automotive parts in an Autoduel setting, jump drives in 
  GURPS Traveller, and security systems in an espionage campaign are three obvious candidates for 
  this treatment (although at higher TLs the GM way wish to remove the -3 penalty to every roll). 
  GMs must decide what bonuses fractional Complexity provides, and assign Complexity ratings to 
  whole systems and component parts. Then mechanics and hackers alike will have more things to 
  do during the down time between adventures. 
   
  Article publication date: June 7, 2002 
  159 Pyramid subscribers rated this article 3.25 on a scale of 1 to 5. Visit the ratings page for more 
  info. 
  Copyright © 2002 by Steve Jackson Games. All rights reserved. Pyramid subscribers are permitted to read this article 
  online, or download it and print out a single hardcopy for personal use. Copying this text to any other online system or 
  BBS, or making more than one hardcopy, is strictly prohibited. So please don't. And if you encounter copies of this 
  article elsewhere on the web, please report it to webmaster@sjgames.com.  
  
   
  Home - Subscribe! - Current Issue - Playtesting - Chat - - - Feedback  
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/GURPS [multi]/3rd Party [Non-Steve Jackson Games]/GURPS - Hardware that Hums, Software that Sizzles .pdf