Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stevebugge Jul 8 2010, 11:27 PM

Following the "how to mess with Riggers/Hackers" Thread got me curious about how the GM's out there go about designing site security. I currently favor the try to design towards the company needs and modify a bit for balance if needed approach, but I've certainly gone through the ultra paranoid phase and the tailor to mess with my players phase in the past.

Posted by: MortVent Jul 8 2010, 11:30 PM

I am firmly in the camp that designs site security around what the site needs, nothing more.

If the team needs a npc or two to round out the group an handle the site so be it... many runner teams have those that they call in as needed (mostly have a stable of characters to pull from when I was a GM, would let some handle them or I would handle the rp)

Posted by: Falanin Jul 9 2010, 12:33 AM

For runs that the team is specifically chosen for, I choose a target tailored to the team's capabilities, with flex for how tough their fixer thinks it is... because their fixer wouldn't (barring betrayal, bad intel, etc.) recommend the team for a target they couldn't handle or doesn't require their skills.

If the target is only PART of a larger op the team is running, or if the team isn't going through their fixer, I'm way more likely to design the target without thinking about the team at all.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 9 2010, 12:43 AM

This is exactly my thinking as well...

Security is designed for the Site... A team that is hired to hit that site should have the capabilities of penetrating the site, regardless of that site's specifics for security. A good fixer knows his teams... you hire what is required to handle the opposition... If you continuously hire a team that is incapable of handling the targets, one of two things is going to happen...

Darwinism eventually eliminates the Team or
Darwinism eventually eliminates the Fixer...

Either the Team is incompetent or the Fixer is, there really are no other choices in the matter...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Saint Sithney Jul 9 2010, 01:14 AM

If a site is too heavy for the Runners to hit on their own, the pre-run intel phase should let them know that they're going to have to either
a) look harder for a weakness in the chain.
b) hire on some outside help or, and this is crucial...
c) disappoint their fixer and pass on the run, unless he ups the pay and/or initial resources.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jul 9 2010, 01:18 AM

Indeed... all viable options...

Keep the Faith

Posted by: Saint Sithney Jul 9 2010, 02:59 AM

"His brawn, your sword and my brain against 50 men? Impossible.
If only we had a wheelbarrow! Then we'd have a chance..." - option c

Posted by: Summerstorm Jul 9 2010, 08:29 AM

Ah, didn't think i would be in the largest group. But yeah: Security will be balanced with budget in respect to what they guard and what they should expect. I don't adjust for the team. The world isn't about the players. (The FOCUS is about them, sure. But this is dystopian cyber/biopunk with cruel and hard rules. It is about survival)

I trust in my people to know when they say "No". I also play with hard consequences, and WILL use snipers or poison, but i NEVER just say: "Umm, they found you... because... i would like them to find you?" I always have an eye about how much motivation foes have, how much ressources they have (and want to spend) and on exactly what kind of evidence they have.

Posted by: Grinder Jul 9 2010, 09:38 AM

Doing it in any other way sucks.

Posted by: imperialus Jul 9 2010, 04:20 PM

I'll generally go with what suits the facility with a nod to game balance. For example, the guy playing our mage is inexperienced in Shadowrun and he's playing a straight up combat mage. Ergo I don't typically do anything too fancy with the Astral aspect of security. I try to just let him throw fireballs at the physical security until he passes out from the drain. He's happy doing that, and over time I'll ramp up the complexity of the astral stuff he needs to deal with but no point in driving off a player.

Posted by: DireRadiant Jul 9 2010, 04:24 PM

I tailor the characters to the site. It's what Mind Control is for.

Posted by: Caadium Jul 9 2010, 04:30 PM

Then I guess my friends and I suck! Too bad my players and I always have fun, so I'll stick with my usual approach:

Assess site needs and adjust for game balance

I see a number of posts above talking about this approach as a dumb down to some groups, well, it can be the opposite. A site that has standard security with 1 or 2 improved little surprises. As was mentioned before, why hire people that are incompetent to the job? Similarly, why pay top dollar for top dollar talent when lower level talent is cheaper and gets the job done just the same?

Fixer's don't survive long if they use a spray-and-pray approach to getting jobs done. They won't be contracted to find runners if they build a rep of not getting the job done. They also will have to get the runners so desperate, and inept, they'll do courier runs for a couple hundred (a la the start of the Sega Genesis SR game). I run a 400 BP group; they are not inept, but they are not top dogs so they are generally hired based on their rep and abilities.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Jul 9 2010, 05:38 PM

* What would allow suspension of disbelief without too much effort?
* What would be fun, novel obstacles/twists?

As you can guess, I voted to make a plausible site, then adjust for game balance. It takes a bit of both; my group isn't jaded nor are they experienced tacticians. Things will become harder as their repertoire of tactics grows.

Posted by: Doc Chase Jul 9 2010, 05:41 PM

I design site security on needs of the project - the building itself has standard security, yes, but additional security is budgeted to the specific project its guarding. It allows me to get really icky depending on the run - bypass the standard set and get inside the project floor, and find out it's almost like they've been invited in...as test subjects.

Posted by: Ryu Jul 9 2010, 05:59 PM

I also prefer running (in) a consistent world, where only the site needs determine security. There is little point in getting better if everything is adjusted to your power level.

Posted by: Caadium Jul 9 2010, 06:14 PM

I don't see it as everything gets better, but you tackle harder jobs as you get better. Perhaps a site you hit once will have patched whatever exploit you used if you go back, but for me increase in difficulty is based on increase in job status.

Posted by: stevebugge Jul 9 2010, 06:17 PM

Somewhat of a tangent, but does anyone ever modify the site based on results of in-game wrong party tests while the team does legwork? For example they start asking around about something and one of the companies informants gets wind of it and reports back (Between player mistakes and lucky rolls by GM Characters this can easily happen) to some corporatre handler. DO you have a few extra uprises on hand as a resulty of a memo sent to a site manager based on an informant report?

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Jul 9 2010, 06:20 PM

Somtimes yes I do.

TJ basically said a lot of things I would say. Site security is designed around the sites needs but a group of smash and grab trolls is not often sent to infiltrate a highly secured electronic surveillance hub and install taps on the system.

Posted by: Caadium Jul 9 2010, 06:23 PM

I have also modified security (both up and down) based on legwork creativity and results.

Posted by: Nifft Jul 9 2010, 06:27 PM

The cost to circumvent the security system (using all obvious means) should depend on the value of what's behind the security system.

However, security systems take a long time to build, relative to the movement of valuable goods. So the security at any given location is based on what the builders expected to have at that location. The fast-pace of modern security being what it is, though, means that sometimes very valuable things are put in places which weren't built for high security. At that point, the relevant party will apply a temporary layer of "security spackle" over the site's (insufficient) security system.

Security spackle includes:
- Wagemage + some patrol Spirits
- Spider + his favorite Drone
- A small unit of special ops guys staking out the site
- Satellite surveillance
- Contract with a Prime Runner

So runners on these kind of theft missions generally face low-to-middling permanent security features, plus one overwhelmingly strong "spackle" factor, which is what prevents normal criminals from having a hope in hell.

Posted by: stevebugge Jul 9 2010, 07:37 PM

I usually handle good reselut by the players with extra clues about how to beat what's known to be there. For the opposition I figure any team, even a good one will have an identified Mode of Operation that a manager may take precautions against based on a wrong party tip.

Posted by: CanRay Jul 9 2010, 07:49 PM

It all depends on the site. What's in it, what it's worth, how much the company can afford on security, how much the company SPENDS on security, how much the security skims off the top...

That said, things can get interesting when sites do their own security. I had one site where the construction force slept on-site. A bunch of pissed off construction workers with their equipment can be rather interesting. All they'd have to do is ignore all those safety regulations and they have some lethal implements!

Of course, that was the place where the Shadowrunners were hired to defend against an attack. In the end, I threw a stolen dumptruck at them and it all went downhill from there. (Literally. The Dumptruck had a full load and was on the top of a hill.).

Posted by: Ryu Jul 10 2010, 08:08 AM

That can happen. What I don´t like is games that grant syndicate support to every weak gang the runners fight, and on the other hand have top-notch security make beginner mistakes in order to give the runners a chance. There should be something of a food chain in the shadows, and the runners should move up during the campaign. You might actually run it that way, and I wouldn´t care if you don´t.