From:	Paul Gettle RunnerPaul@*****.com
Subject:	Security Riggers [was: Note to Mongoose]
Date:	Fri, 05 Mar 1999 13:14:18 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:34 PM 3/4/99 -0600, dghost@****.com wrote:
>Before Corp Security Handbook, deckers could also hack
>a site to screw with security (they still can but they are at a
serious
>disadvantage in what should be their home turf...).

*sigh*

I see this sort of comment repeatedly on the list, and it just irks me
sometimes.

First of all, the concept of a Rigged building has been around _much_
longer than the Corporate Security Handbook. The idea behind Security
Riggers was mentioned _way_ back in the first core rulebook. Listed
under "Remote Control Device", on p. 134 of SR1, was this text:

"Variant decks allow the control of building systems and other
devices. Such systems are often hardwired, rather than broadcast."

On top of this, a Rigged building is described in the first trilogy of
Shadowrun Novels, the second book, if I remember correctly.

The point I'm trying to make, is that security riggers have been a
part of Shadowrun since the very begining. They might have gone
un-noticed because of their only brief mention in the rulebook, or GMs
may have chosen to disregard/downplay their importance, because of a
lack of hard rules for them at first, but that doesn't mean that they
didn't exist for the first 6 years of Shadowrun.

Secondly, even if a GM hadn't considered the use of security riggers
until Corporate Security or even Rigger 2 came out, there is nothing
that says that their use is manditory once either of those sourcebooks
came out. In fact, to suddenly introduce security riggers into every
single building, after years of GMing every building as having Matrix
security, is a glaring slip of game setting continuity (and possibly
game balance).

If your decker characters suddenly dropped in power/usefulness after
Corporate Security or Rigger 2 came out, then it's the fault of the GM
for not considering security riggers beforehand. A security rigger is
a quite powerful tool for building security, and by all rights, they
should have been used for the most secure facilities even before the
Corporate Security Handbook came out.

If your GM wasn't using security riggers, and was letting the decker
get away with miracles, then don't blame FASA, and don't blame the
Corporate Security Handbook. If you _are_ the GM and you feel that
building security should be a "[decker's] home turf", then the
solution is simple. Don't use security riggers in your games.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it's quite feasable to integrate
different levels of security into even a single building. Matrix
security can be used for overall building security. Higher levels of
security would involve an off-line private host. Security riggers
could be reserved for the highest levels of security, for the
ultra-sensitive areas (such as an R&D wing) that a corporation doesn't
trust to turn over to the automation of a matrix computer.

This is an a very easy way to slowly introduce the concept of security
riggers to the GM, if the concept hasn't been used previously. An
important fact to remember about security riggers is that while they
provide stunning amounts of security, there is an assocated cost
because of the intensive use of manpower. Matrix systems can run
themselves, but a rigged building requires a rigger in the tank 24/7.

There doesn't seem to be a limit to the size of buidling that a single
rigger can control, but given that a security rigger can "jump into" a
room, up to 100 square meters large, as if it were a drone, as a
houserule, I limit the number of rooms that can be covered to twice
the rating of the remote control deck, which requires several riggers
for larger buildings, or that a single rigger only cover the most
important parts of a building, with matrix security covering the rest.

Just because there are hard & fast rules for security riggers now,
that does not mean that there aren't buildings that still have most or
all of their security on the matrix. As long as the GM reserves
security riggers for the most secure stuff, deckers can still have
their fun.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNuAetaPbvUVI86rNAQEluQP/bAZ+YpY9UxMfdw4eh2CEWMkJPAYjBxpX
uPC8ZF/iqAbYqElA6Zl9yNeqj6IlVtJmMfWBCnz/BKrtqrCIqTw3Ew57i3eHUSOQ
KXrDN12Trqq32cnn1g2hDZgjSoNO+MyF40ARqCDjR3n3QX9HzvII+S/eE9FGSlMm
9D9O5SBXlGY=xMU6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344