Shell Corps
How would you handle several layers of shell corporations?
The session where I was going to run the Tannhäuser Job got pushed back. Which is good, as I’m still doing prep work. This is only our second mission, and will be the first where the employer is unknown to the players/characters. The Corp that has hired the team is a conglomerate, a collection of numerous smaller corps that all act somewhat independently, but who’s upper management all coordinate through a board of directors to avoid harming each other’s interests.
So what I’m wondering here is how to handle shell corporations. There are several layers of smaller corps between the characters and the Corp listed on the sheet. If the players want to dig into who’s really hired them how would they go about doing that?
I figure the PCs could go poking around the Database systems of the company the target owned (whom they’ve been hired to assassinate) or the first company that hires them (if they find that out). That could lead them to discover who owns each company in the chain, all the way up to the top. Of course each level up they go is going to be better defended.
How many layers is too many though? Too many shell corps to wade through and the players get bored. Too few and it seems like something anyone could have found.
Thoughts?
Is the point of the mission to find out which corp is employing them? Usually that would be a side issue and I would tell them with a good roll or two (depending on clues), usually using the phrase “a series of shell corporations”.
As to how they would do it, that’s for the players to work out! Digging in a database sounds good. Finding a corporate lawyer and intimidating them could also work. Infiltrating one of the shell corps offices, digging through new stories, asking other shadow operatives, etc etc.
Don’t worry about placing a “realistic” number of layers or obstacles in the way. How would this investigation be handled in a book or movie? Maybe a couple of scenes and a montage at most? Probably just a montage and a scene where they get the info. The operatives are professionals who do meticulous work, but you don’t need to play through all of that on screen. Chasing down loose ends and filtering data is the research equivalent to the Killer cleaning her gun. It happens, but focus on the part where she points it someone.
Oh no. The mission is wetwork, plain and simple. I just figure the PCs will do some digging into who their target is, why they’re being eliminated, and who hired them.
I think I’m getting hung up on the fact this stuff is not necessary to complete the mission. The PCs don’t need to discover anything about the target or their employer to finish things successfully. If this were a necessary clue, I’d give them the info after a scene or two.
If you want to make it into an extended thing, I would consider making a clock for it and playing with the idea of a mysterious employer over multiple sessions, like a Reporter’s story.
If it’s just corporate colour, it only needs time in the game in proportion to player interest.
If you really want to go through the investigation process, I would make it the focus of its own mission rather than have it distract from the wetwork mission you’re planning.
Duh. I could totally make this a custom move that fills in segments of a clock. Once it fills up, they’ve followed the chain of shell corps, subsidiaries, and holding companies all the way to the top.
I’m about to go to bed, but I’ll think about it some more in my futon. 😉
This is a timely thread for me as it feels connected to the overall spirit of the one I most recently made about intrigue in a game and how to go about handling it. The conclusion I came to from the advice provided was not to worry about the shell corp (in this case) unless that’s the point of the mission because your players are probably not going to spend any time trying to figure out who is employing them unless you make it crystal clear that this knowledge is part of your mission directives, or at the very least, something that would help them complete the wetwork job.
I think it depends on the group Brandon. Some would go down that rabbit hole, but many would ignore it as not relevant to the job., as you say.
Hamish Cameron You’re right. I probably shouldn’t make assumptions or generalizations about Chris’s group. Maybe I’m a little salty about the realization that my own group wasn’t taking the bait I laid out. 😄
The real question is, “Why does it matter that the players don’t know who their employer is”?
Does that lack of information make it harder to complete missions smoothly?
Is there a countdown clock with devastating consequences waiting for the players if they continue to ignore obvious signs of subterfuge?
I wouldn’t get too detailed with the layers, unless it was a very important plot device for the mission. In most cases, making a (successful) effort to find out who the employer is should be enough to warrant the whole litany of shells. (IMHO)
If it’s a major plot device for your whole campaign, I’d spread it out over several missions. “Wait, I know that name! Isn’t that the same company who owned Blackwater-Toyota!?”
As for making them care. Let them not dig into their employer a few times and take jobs against the corporations that own them. They’ll learn to do their due-diligence. 😉
The team knowing their employer isn’t necessary to the mission. All they’ve been hired to do force a target to sign some paperwork, electronic, of course, then eliminate said target in a way that looks accidental.
Behind the scenes, the target is the majority shareholder of a smaller corp, and the paperwork sells off their shares so the team’s employer can force a hostile takeover.
The layers of shell corps and holding companies between the name on the Corporation Sheet and the team’s employer is simply how this particular corp operates: a conglomerate so vast you’re never really sure what it owns.
So the players don’t have to dig into the layers of this corp to complete the mission, and if they don’t care, that’s totally fine. If they do start digging though, I think it would be somewhat unsatisfying to just say “Oh yeah. That’s a subsidiary of the Weyland Consortium (the name on the Corporation Sheet).”
I’d only worry about it if the players chose “Employer is identifiable” as one of their choices from “Get the Job”
If they didn’t pick it, then the Employer has covered his tracks and no amount of snooping will get them the answer.
If they did pick it, then it becomes something they can spend their resources on. If they choose to do the digging, I’d base the number of layers on how badly the employer wants to remain anonymous. So if Johnson really wanted to be anonymous I’d describe it as “More layers than you would expect for a job like this”.
Side note: It hasn’t come up yet, but if my players ever do pick “Employer is Identifiable” I’m adding it as a mission objective.