[Tactical Ops] Actual Play #01 - Just Like in CSI

[Hasimir]

1) w00t first user-post in the forum EVER! :D

2) Hi Ron (and everybody else that for now are just lurking).
I would like to discuss my current game project.
It is called Tactical Ops and it has recentrly gone from Apha to Beta.
I have some AP to share and I'll post them here in the course of the following weeks.
Any comment, critique and suggestion is, of course, very much wellcome.

3) for general info on the game just go on its blog HERE or ask me here in the forums :)
But in a nutshell: it's a high-octane action rpg with no GM and no Prep time that focuses on fictional problem-solving, rewarding smart ideas and creativity.
Playtesters often say it feels a bit like playing something that came out from tee-vee series such as The A-Team or Ghost in the Shell or Firefly.

So... on to the Actual Play!

1) Game Setup
The group was composed by Me, Ivan and Francesca.
They never heard of the SLA Industries setting before, and never played with TOps in their lives.


Character Creation took about 1h total, a time that I've learned is quite standard for this game.
Basically 30-40 minutes go by explaining the basic concepts of the game required to know what the stuff on your CharSheet means, then 15-20 minutes are all that is needed to flesh out all the group Characters.


We were using, in addition to the TOps rulebook, a veeeeery scrawny version of the SLA Industries SiaB document, with just a few templates to represent Races and Trainings, and a few pointers about equipment.


Francesca created a Wraithen with Media training.
Ivan created a Xeno with Scout training.
I produced a Human with Striker package.


After that the game started.


. . .


2) Intel Phase
We went through Intel in a breeze.
Following game procedures our PCs were presented with a White BPN.
It was supposed to be an "easy peasy" investigation regarding a bizzarre murder happened in Suburbia; the only request made by the Department employee was for us to keep a "low profile".


[mechanically it's an Easy mission of Quick length with one Condition attached to it]


. . .


3) Action Phase
Unfortunately we could only play for a brief time ... about 2h total ... so just a bit more than 1h of Action time, if we factor out the CharGen process.
In this time we accrued 2 Victory Points out of the 5 required by the Mission.


Anyway, here's what happened:


- first our PCs got on the crime scene, and the events shaped up like a CLASSIC episode from CSI or some similar tv-show.
We analyzed the corpse, we cross referenced the data at our disposal, we even checked the bank in front of the alley where the crime happened to see if we could get anything from its surveillance cameras.
Turns out that someone moved the body from Downtown to Suburbia, dumping it in the backstreet.


- while investigating we often crashed on a wall of bureaucracy because, strangely enough, we seemed to lack enough SCL to access detailed info on the victim.


- we manage to secure the bank's surveillance video-tape (almost useless in its raw state) and then we decide to split the team...


- I was looking online for info in a SLA traffic database, but my SCL got rejected and my hacking attempt turned out as a D-Notice (then I rushedly cleaned up my traces and disconnected from the web).
So I decided to physically go to the Perimeter Gate closest to the crime scene, to directly access the local surveillance computer, hoping to find some record of the person driving the car used for the body-dump.


- the Xeno went to the Department of Traffic & Viability to also get info on the mistery driver, but squeezing one of his contacts, a human secretary that owed him more than a few favors.


- the Wraithen went home with the bank's video-tape and used her high-tech media equipment to cleanse and magnify both the video and audio tracks.


- shit starts surfacing ... apparently the car was property of the victim, but at the time the car passed the Gate the victim must have been (for our estimated HoD) already dead from more than one hour, possibly crammed into the trunk ... and when we got the driver's face all attempts of identification ended up in SCL blocks.


- it also turns out that our current case bears more than a few elements in common (aka: fucking exact match) with other 4 similar cases ... unresolved ... dating more than 10 years ago.
The squad of Operatives that investigated back then seemed, according to the official records, to not come up with much ... but searching for info on the squad resulted in yet another SLC blockade.


And here we had to close the session :x


. . .


4) Post-Game Thoughts
The game run smoothly.
The Automatic Opposition produced unexpected twists and we then built upon them, congecturing and making ourself paranoid.
Without any conscious or planned plotting/directing our "easy peasy" investigation took the dark colours of a conspirancy much bigger than us!  :twisted:


It was surprising!
And everything made perfect sense at every step of the way (this is a result of the game-rules in play).


On a side note I, as a veteran SLA player, think that the game felt "very SLA".
I did almost nothing to stir things this way.
I just explained briefly the WoP and its playable races to the other Players... and when they came up with something I slapped a SLA name on it ... so the "police" became "Shivers", the Xeno's "sniper rifle" became a "FEN 30-30 True Shot", our "access level" became "SCL" and the hacking attempt resulted in a nasty "D-Notice" instead of a more common "Access Denied".


...Fun Fact...
when I was first designing TOps I thought that it would be a good action game, but it would N-E-V-E-R support an investigation.
Turns out that most of my playtests somehow become full-blown investigations, the first of which (the one you just read) had a distinct "CSI" vibe with a heavy conspirancy undertone.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alessandro,

Welcome to Adept! This is a cool moment for me.

I am very, very interested in the unexpected value your design found regarding investigations. I've been frustrated since last year's Ronnies in which I was unable to explain to a fellow named Patrick how his game would benefit from separating the characters' experience of the investigation from the players'.

So please, can you say in very simple and plain language, where does the content of what the characters discover come from? For example, who said that their current case was an exact match to the previous cases, and how did that person acquire that authority, and at what mechanical point during play could that authority be used toward that end?

Best, Ron

[davide.losito]

I will see this game in action in the next EtrusCON, within 2 weeks.
Hope it is enough to have a basic view of the game and talk about it ^^

[Hasimir]

Let's see... it's a bit difficult to distill as a concept because it's the intertwined effect of, well, a lot of elements from the whole game system :P
But I'll try :)
But I won't be brief >_<

The first and most important tenant of TOps is that the game is played strictly from the PC's point of view.
Nothing can be inserted into the fiction unless a PC is directly perceiving it.

A "hidden gun" can only be inserted into the fiction in the moment that a PC spots it -- "Hey, he is hiding a gun!" :P

Second, you never get to harness the full authority that a GM would have.
You never have to think in terms of "plot/story" -- and actually, the aforementioned PoV mechanic prevents you from doing it even if you wanted to.
You are stuck playing your PC from your PC's perspective.

So a Player starts seeing a movie in his head about and NPC the PCs met... imagining that the NPC acted out of guilt for a robbery he made a few months ago.
The game will allow such player to go as far as to say "to me he looks like he's acting as if feeling guilt for something".
But since his PC can't possibly perceive here&now all the NPC's backstory, it can't be added to the fiction.
Such player may take control of the NPC and make him say "I'll help you because I feel guilty for this and that" -- but it's still only and NPC saying stuff to the PCs -- it doesn't have a story value, just a fictional one -- it may later turn out that it was all bullshit!

There are moments when "someone" has to fill in the blanks and answer questions -- but even in such moment the PoV structure means that you are filling just a little tiny hole in the fiction, regarding a very specific element or issue, only here and now IF your PC is in a condition to perceive it.
This further reduces the feeling of playing as a "movie director" or taking the GM-hat even if briefly.

So your PC is investigating a bizarre murder (the body was ritually gutted and layed down as if for display) and you get the idea to check the police data-archives to see if anything like it ever happened in the past.

Assuming your PC's action as you just expressed it gets past Veto and Disagreement (two mechanisms that ensure the fiction always makes sense for everybody) and no-one tags the police database as an Obstacle (which means you have to roll dice to overcome it) your action succeeds -- and -- what do you find out?

Every time a Player (as himself or as his PC) asks questions about the fiction (what does my data-search reveals?) what would normally be the GM's answer is emulated by the roll of 1d6.
1 - 2 = bad outcome
3 - 4 = neutral/unrelated outcome
5 - 6 = positive outcome

Before rolling the die all the Players collectively come up with the specific contents of such numerical outcomes -- with Veto and Disagreement always at hand to stop any kind of dragged discussion.

In this specific case we decided that:
1 - 2 = police archives have nothing like this on record
3 - 4 = you find info, there HAS been something like this, but you can't access it for SCL (Security Clearance Level) reasons
5 - 6 = you find stuff, it has happened before and it is on record
In this game the player rolled the Neutral result.
So we decided to dig further, even using hacking and other illicit methods, and when we finally dug up something we used the same process for EACH question the players had.

You see, each question is by itself a hint about what could be answered.
And while YOU alone may not have the faintest idea how to answer something, as a GROUP ideas bounce around very easily.
One of us asked "how many times did it happen?" -- we got neutral again -- turns out there is nothing exaaaactly like our case, but multiple unsolved cases hit quite a few markers on the similitude radar.
One asked "how long ago did they happen?" -- don't remember the details, but the final result was that the oldest case dated back more than 10 years ago.
Etc.

Players also have the option to not roll a die, but give a straight answer to the question -- paying points if it's positive, or earning points if its negative.

So you play your PC and then you have a question, you want to know something -- your contribution is limited to a very brief, very specific suggestion of a possible answer -- and only IF you have ideas AND want to participate -- otherwise you can rely on the other Players to do the work for you, never breaking the "I play my PC" paradigm not even for a second.

This way you, as a Player, never have to bother about "steering the plot" or stuff like that.
Instead you are given fictional info -- and you start speculating, puzzling, asking more questions, having your PC do stuff in order to be able to ask even more questions.
You don't know the answer, no one else does, and yet everything that gets on the table makes perfect sense -- even if you don't always have an explanation for it.
This is as close as a "genuine" investigation I have ever played in my gaming life.

There are also some effects that mechanically add twists and pitfalls to the emerging plot --
And the Mission structure grants that at some point there WILL be an end to the PC's struggles ...

One amazing thing I've noticed that in TOps players tend to genuinely "plan" and speculate ... and that ideas that seem to make sense tend to become self-susteining and viral.

In this Mission the first time we hit a Neutral roll to find info the most banal and obvious idea was to hit some kind of "Access Denied" block.
This became, unexpectedly, the origin of a high-level conspirancy ... as we started hitting more and more "Access Denied" signs ... being Federal-level operatives we speculated that someone up-high the corporate chain had to be involved ... and it made us damn paranoid!
And the more we played, the more everyone contributions seemed to add up to what we all feared/expected/assumed.

In another playtest there was this conversation between players:
a - so I'll do this and then we can try that
b - don't think so, we're running out of time
a - why?
b - because we are disguised as delivery-boys and we delivered the goods and now everybody would be expecting us to fuck-off
a - it makes sense ... ... ... FUCK we're never gonna be able to complete the run this way? we have no time!
b - guess our plan wasn't so bright after all, we'll have to get out of here and come back, but now they'll know our faces
a - damn! I guess we'll have to attempt the ninja-style infiltration after all

Player-b simply stated what was obvious to her, explained why... and I (Player-a) found it reasonable and all of a sudden I was feeling the pressure of not having enough time, and had to cope with it.

Same as the "Access Denied" thing ... I threw on the table what seemed obvious to me, and the others picked it up so much that it became what looked like a big damn corporate cospirancy.

[Hasimir]

[NOTE]
This is another Actual Play of a Tactical Ops game set in SLA Industries universe.
This playtest happened quite some time ago, with a less refined ruleset than the current one ... still the game was 90% the same, although the most recent changes make it sooo much more solid, dynamic and fun.
For this reason some numerical values will be edited or omitted in respect of the original Italian document (they are simply not relevant/actual anymore).
[/NOTE]

...

1) Game Setup
This time the Players were:
Me = Advanced Carrien - Tech Support
Lukasz = Wraithen - Investigation & Interrogation
Fabio = Xeno - Kick Murder
Lorenzo = Human - Medical Package

We played for about 4h splitted in two sessions of about 2h each.
In this time we played 8 scenes and confronted 6 Obstacles, albeit only 5 were actually tackled by the PCs.
The other Players never played in the SLA setting, nor used TOps as a game engine.
Setting introduction and CharGen took about 40-45 minutes total.

. . .

2) Intel Phase
Main Objective was to steal a non-descript prototype developed by a Soft Company from one of its orbital stations.
The one extra Condition was to destroy all copies of such item.
Difficulty was set to Easy, and the Length to Quick.

. . .

3) Action Phase
Since there was no "Extra Info" in the Intel phase at the time... we felt we needed to know more about the mission, so the first Scene got framed in a SLA Crib office were a departmental employee was still briefing us on the relevant details.

The bureaucrat turned out to be a racist pro-human-supremacy piece of crap that tried to withhold as much info as possible from us.
This came to pass because, after a bit of free roleplay, someone set her as an Obstacle... details emerged to substantiate this, such as the racist pin not-so-well-disguised in a fold of her dress.
So we resolve to intimidate her into doing her job as she is damn supposed to be ... the Wraithen silently glares at her, while my AdvCarrien barks some calm and cold argumentations, with just a hint of personal threat underneath them.

We cash-in 1 victory point and play the aftermath of the Challenge, gathering some extra info.
Through the rules for answering questions we discover that the orbital station is a sort of science facility, with supposedly low security (civilian level, not military grade).
It seems that no one tried to steal the prototype yet, so the target will be caught unaware.
The item itself was not big and unmovable, but not even small and light -- it was stored into a sealed canister 150cm tall and mildly heavy.
Cut.

Framing of the Scene goes to Fabio and the whole team finds itself crammed into a cargo-container, on a small transport-ship en route for the orbital station.
We discuss a plan to knock-out the ship's crew using narcotic gas from provided by Lorenzo's medic.
We all move out of the container, thus ending the scene.
Cut.

Framing goes to Lukasz.
We are in the ship's control room, taking the place of the original crew.
Since they were all humans we put Lorenzo's medic in the cockpit, in front of the main monitor, to make HIM speak when the time comes.
(we figured out... we are all SLA-exclusive creatures... no way they'll believe us to be "simple" delivery-boys... better stay out of sight and put a human face on the front :P )
We start chatting about what to do when the station's control tower hails us... so I announce that we just got in range of it and it is hailing us... and it's an Obstacle!

Panic!
From the tower comes a request for proper identification and docking procedures (which we know nothing about) and as soon as the video-communication fires up the station's personnel asks where is the usual delivery crew.

I start trying to hack the ship's computer to get the proper docking codes, but I mess up and a digital-intrusion alarm goes off, making the station more suspicious (effect Mess, +1 to overall Mission Difficulty).
At the same time Likas goes through the pockets of the sleeping crew looking for codes or any other useful info, maybe personal effects to sell a better lie to the station's personnel -- this helps, and now Lorenzo has some not-too-bad lines to dish at the control tower... it goes more or less ok, it buys us time, but we still need proper docking codes.

Now I try to stop the alarm (using a Goal to nullify the effect of the previous Mess) deceiving the computer into thinking it was all just some space-interference -- Lukasz helps along inputting fake sensor-reading into a second terminal -- but the computer seems to not budge by much.

I try again to achieve my Goal, this time with more aggressive measures, so I describe a DDoS attack.
Luckas stops me -- VETO!
In his view there is no way the computer of a small ship can be strong enough to DDoS a whole space station.
So I narrate instead a virus attack -- but he VETOes me again -- he works in IT and my descriptions simply make no sense to him -- I ask if there is any way in this specific situation in which my computer action/attack could be described in a satisfying way, and he says probably no... this means we are out of VETO rules and he has to use Disagreement if he wants to stop me.
We start bidding Influence points, and in the end I come out victorious, spending 3 points against his 2 (he thinks the matter is not important enough to spend 4 points on it).
So I describe an appropriate techno-bubble action and finally get the damn digital-alarm to stop.

At this point Fabio decides to "help" by going to the ships systems and messing with them to "fake" a life-support failure, to press the station in accepting us without too much ceremonies.
He fails, ACTUALLY crippling out life-support systems >_<
(MESS, the just decreased Difficulty goes back up one knotch)

Finally Lukasz thinks to use his persuasive skills speaking from off-screen, faking to be a very pissed-off crew member that just wants to get his job done and not die in the process thanks to a stupid system failure.
He succeeds and the ship is admitted into the station.

. . .

At this point the session ended.
When we resumed the week later Lorenzo was unable to join us, so we made do without his PC.

. . .

The first scene was framed by Lukasz into the ship's control room, just moments after we got the OK to dock and the computer started the automatic procedures.
We discussed "what the hell are we going to do now???" and came up with a plan to infiltrate the docking hangar by dodging the station's personnel that would be waiting for us, and the emergency personnel that would be come onboard looking for ill people (remember our Life Support was failing).
Cut.

Next scene sees our PCs already hidden somewhere in the docking hangar behind some pile of crates, while the station's personnel helps the unconscious crew of the ship.
While we discuss our next move to find the prototype, a janitor almost blows our cover, but the Wraithen blinding speed stops him before he could do anything.
Captured, the janitor gets brutally interrogated and reveals our target's location -- then we kill him and hide the corpse.
Cut.

We find ourself in front of the door of the lab were the prototype is supposedly located.
Obstacle!
The door is locked, armored and highly technological, protected by 3 identification systems (retinal scanner, palm scanner and num-pad).
I start tampering with the security systems of the door, but it's a complicated affair...
Meanwhile the Wraithen finds a ventilation grid nearby, opens it, jams the spinning fan and starts climbing into it, trying to circumvent the offensive door.
Fabio's Xeno uses his inhuman agility to climb after the Wraithen, surpass it and finding a way into the lab (overcoming the Obstacle).
To earn some extra Influence I use my end-of-turn action to keep hacking the door's security -- luckily I succede -- basically almost get to open the door when, just before the last push, the Xeno opens it from inside.
Hilarity ensues :P
Cut.

During all of this someone fucked up a roll and an "Intruder Alert" went off in the lab-area... with sirens and flashing light and all.
(again a Mess, another +1 to the Mission's Difficulty rating)

We are once more hidden behind crates in the hangar, dragging with us the canister containing the prototype.
The only parked ship is our own, which we judge useless due to the broken Life Support system.
Also, we see members of the crew that, now awake, are telling the security about our hijacking.
While we ponder what to do we get surprised by the appearance of a military grade team of guards (Obstacle!) warning the hangar-personnel about the prototype theft.
Surprised by such an unexpected encounter (security was supposed to be civilian-level!) we decide to avoid direct confrontation and sneak our way out the station using its escape pods.
Cut.

We are now in a room were two pods are sitting -- but one is spread open for maintenence and repairs.
Examining the good pod we realize that all three of us plus the prototype will never fit into it; also the pod has a fixed pre-programmed destination and doesn't have any hands-on commands.
We decide to launch the pod with only the prototype inside, hacking the programmed destination to one of our liking, to later go and fetch it.
Obstacle! ...the POD!
Me and Lukasz start putting our hands and computers at work on the pod navigational systems, while Fabio's Xeno keeps guard at the room's entrance, rifle ready, firing stance, eyes wide open.
The hacking is difficult and goes on for a couple of rounds before (Obstacle 2!) a group of guards appears down the corridor...
The Xeno sniper acts fast from his already prepped position, doing what he was trained to do: Fabio rolls a bucket of dice and singlehandedly overcomes the Obstacle -- describing how his PC coldly fires single headshots at the incoming guards, relentlessly turning them from soldiers into gory wall-decorations.
This allows me and Lukasz to concentrate on the pod, and by the next round we manage to finish our job, overcoming that Obstacle too.
Cut.

This way we achieve enough Victory Points (5) to have the Mission finish.
The Action phase ends and the FollowUp phase kicks in.
This means we should narrate a brief wrap-up of how we go back home and then do stuff specific to this new phase -- but Fabio and Lukasz are so engaged in the current events that they decide to use the "Continuous" option.
How the hell are we going to get out from the orbital station?
Will we be able to retrieve the prototype from the wastelands we made it land into? (by accident!)
Will we survive the trip back to civilization and out of the wastelands?
We also forgot all about the "destroy all copies" part of the mission... so, more work to do before we can actually escape!

All this would have been the base material for our next Intel phase.

[Ron Edwards]

This is a useful opportunity.

The techniques in your game are very close to those in the game InSpectres. In that game, however, there is a certain race between how many clues and eventually facts accumulate, vs. how much Stress the group members are receiving. Sometimes they solve a mystery easily and fact - meaning, they get enough good rolls to narrate enough content in the situation - and sometimes they never quite solve it, or barely do, because they are getting so wiped out and neurotic.

In your example, constraints like time apparently come into play as ad-libbed features mentioned by players. Whereas in InSpectres there are concrete, sometimes overwhelming mechanisms. But in both games the actual content (the "secret," the "case," the "conspiracy," whatever it is) is invented primarily through players making use through the system. Do I understand this correctly about your game? Is there any actual time or resource contraint involved?

Tell me more about how player-characters are or are not different from one another. To what extent are they simply a team, and to what extent are they individuals who may differ in meaningful ways? InSpectres puts this issue into play through several mechanisms, one of which is a shared set of resource dice representing the business the player-characters all belong to.

Finally, do you think of your game in terms of atmosphere or meaningful color? When I see "tactical ops," the image I get is partly serious and partly melodramatic. For example, in InSpectres, the text and illustrations are carefully chosen to provide an atmosphere and an attitude toward play - and especially what to create into play. What do you want to exemplify and reinforce in your text, in these terms?

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Alessandro, if you're going to fill up the forum with Tactical Ops threads, then you need to be a good leader and let us know what they're for. What do you want to talk about, regarding this session? What did you learn, why is it important for anyone else to read who is not you? What would be useful to consider for someone else who's working on a game of their own?

If you can't provide such a reason in your reply to this post, I'll have to remove this thread.

Best, Ron

[Hasimir]

I'm sorry, I think I got carried away by the enthusiasm of posting mOAr game materials.
I'm used to forums that are much more crowded and as a result even multiple threads often get  drowned by the general noise, and then the comments I get are mostly casual and unfocused.
I'm seeing how this forum is the exact opposite, which for me makes it officially AMAZING.
So, again, sorry for having been a bit spammy -- I'll stop immediately.

On the other hand I do have things to say about this one Actual Play.
I hope they'll be discussion-worthy, and if they're not, feel free to trash this whole thread :-)


1)
thanks to this specific AP I perfected a lot the Veto and Disagreement rules.
Up to that moment they were a bit fuzzy and somewhat overlapping.
Then we hit a problem twice...

First time, during my hacking from the ship against the station -- Lukasz thought there was no way any such action could possibly succeed, it didn't make sense to him.
But he didn't realize it until I offered a couple of alternative options to make the action "look" better in the fiction.

Second time, when the team was back in the hangar watching our damaged ship ... Fabio introduced the guards in the scene, and I added to it describing them a numerous group of very military looking soldiers.
Lukasz was displeased with this, reasoning that the Mission specs clearly stated "civilian level" security.

To solve this clashes we had to talk and discuss, spending time debating instead of playing.
The rules were not clear and strict enough to solve the problem for us.

As a consequence I found myself dissecting the issues I encountered.
In the end I made VETO a tool to establish a minimum common denominator for Fiction aesthetics -- a bit like the "Eyebrow Rule" in DitV.
And then DISAGREEMENT became a more costly but more powerful tool, when the point is not how something looks like, but the fact that it IS and you think it should NOT.

With the proper clarifications I tested that more or less no discussions about "how things should be" ever happen anymore.


2)
Being Hell For Leather (by Sebastian Hickey) my main inspiration for the basic structure of the missions I just assumed as a given that, just like in that game, once the group obtained enough Victory Points to end the Mission the fiction will just end, with a bit of wrap-up, but end.
An example would be: the Mission asks you to save the princess, you spend all the game-time killing goblins in a swamp, the mission ends -- players are supposed to wrap up.
So maybe after defeating the goblins there were no more obstacles to save the princess.
Or something like that.

In HfL it never is a problem when a Checkpoint ends before the actual Objective gets fictionally tackled -- it is assumed that the action just focused somewhere interesting, skipping the boring parts.
For some reason (maybe players perceive HfL as a low commitment thing) this never felt as a problem.

In this AP (and in others later on) it happened the contrary.
When the Mission ended mechanically, everybody was so involved by the fiction that they wanted to continue it further.
I suspect this is because they perceive the game (or project on it their Traditional game-expectations) as more serious and commitment-worthy than HfL.

That's how the rules to make a new Mission be di direct sequel of the previous Mission came to be.

[Hasimir]

I knew InSpectres by reputation, but never got around to play or even read it.
So now I went to its website and downloaded the free basic version :)

In your example, constraints like time apparently come into play as ad-libbed features mentioned by players. Whereas in InSpectres there are concrete, sometimes overwhelming mechanisms. But in both games the actual content (the "secret," the "case," the "conspiracy," whatever it is) is invented primarily through players making use through the system. Do I understand this correctly about your game? Is there any actual time or resource contraint involved?

In TOps any action that a PC attempts is automatically succesfull.
The only exception is when you interact in any way with an Obstacle; this is when you need to roll dice to see what happens.

Anyone can tag a piece of Fiction as being an Obstacle... both because you get a reward for doing so, and because the only way to gain Victory Points (thus getting to the end of the Mission) is to overcome such Obstacles.

Depending on the nature and details of the situation and your PC's actions you roll a pool of dice (d6) and have to produce more HITs than the Obstacle's Difficulty rating.
This will produce a mix of Influence points that you immediately cash in (they work as both experience, money and story-points) and Opposition points.
This Opposition points are common for all the team, and once they hit 10 they produce an Opposition effect (randomly drawn from a deck of cards) ... like damaging a PC, introducing a Nemesis, rising the overall mission Difficulty or Length, adding plot twists, etc.
You have to draw such an effect also when you roll zero HITs on a roll.

In the latest revision there are also "soft" Opposition effects, inspired to the Apocalipse World MC moves ... to push the fiction forward even when no major result (positive or negative) has been produced.

From what I've seen so far the main fun and challange comes from tackling the fiction and the situations it presents, with all its twists and pitfalls and puzzles, rather than surviving accumulated "damage".
(wich IS an option... PCs only have 3 "hit points" and NO way to heal them in mid-mission)

Tell me more about how player-characters are or are not different from one another. To what extent are they simply a team, and to what extent are they individuals who may differ in meaningful ways? InSpectres puts this issue into play through several mechanisms, one of which is a shared set of resource dice representing the business the player-characters all belong to.

The game clearly states that you will play as a TEAM doing MISSIONs ... this is the alpha and omega of the game.
You first play a brief pitch to come up with a TEAM concept and a reason for everybody to be in such a team ... then you build characters.
Missions can be of a personal nature, and PCs may come from very different angles, but there has to be a basic unity of INTENT for the game to work.
We are doing this mission is the conditio sine qua non.

Characters stats are:
- MODEs = how many dice you roll when you act in a certain way (Direct/Indirect/Defensive) within a certain field (Physical/Mental/Social)
- SKILLs = how many dice you roll when you use this or that skill
- PERKs = special bonuses and advantages, contacts, powers, etc ... they also work as negative traits, as these also give you extra dice (Danger dice, but more dice none the less)
- TIEs = people or places you care about ... you use them as a powerful fuel during a Mission, but then have to solve problems for them in the FollowUp phase, or see your tie weaken and eventually shatter
- Equipment = all the mission-relevant things you highlight as important (giving them a dice value)

That's it :P

Finally, do you think of your game in terms of atmosphere or meaningful color? When I see "tactical ops," the image I get is partly serious and partly melodramatic. For example, in InSpectres, the text and illustrations are carefully chosen to provide an atmosphere and an attitude toward play - and especially what to create into play. What do you want to exemplify and reinforce in your text, in these terms?

mmm :\
I'm not sure how to answer.

One thing I loved to see happen in all playtests was that players spent time planning their moves as if they were the characters ... I mean ... talking about Fiction problems and how to solve them with Fiction tools.
Even when a Player is rules-conscious and maneuvers to roll the most dice possible, he always does it through the Fiction.

Maybe the point wasn't so much the "planning" (strictly speaking) but the fact that the players were analyzing and dissecting the Fiction as if it was a solid reality.
A problem to be solved with ideas rather than with numbers and dice.

Other than that... the game starts out as pretty generic (setting wise).
It works in a way that allows players to PRODUCE setting just by playing... so I offer suggestions to get a specific color (cyberpunk rather than fantasy or Firefly-like).
And I intend to produce a sort of distilled setting, called Setting-in-a-Box, that allows players to experience a specific game setting (let's say Shadowrun or Dark Sun or SLA Industries) even if no participant ever read the original material.
[this is intended both for MY original setting(s), as much as to celebrate and finally "Play Right" all those famous Traditional settings ruined by a flawed ruleset]

Also the game is playable as a one-shot, for accessibility reasons, but is actually geared towards continuative play.

Don't know, is this an answer to your last question? o_O

[Ron Edwards]

Alessandro

I'll merge this thread into the first one once I figure out how to do that without accidentally deleting everything. The two actual play reports are not distinct enough to consider different topics.

Your #1: Yes, in-play negotiation about how things are, what it is, whether it's like that, are poisonous. They are a clear indicator of a crucial issue in play and design: the Murk. I think you were wise to spot it and try to do something about it. However, my historical observation is that formal negotiating mechanics can cause problems of their own - for example, Bidding can become its own annoying sub-game in playing Universalis. I've typically found that clearly establishing who has full authority over what, and when, is the better alternative. Are you familiar with my discussion of four distinct types of authority during play?

Your #2: This brings us back to the issue of InSpectres, which is a good reason for merging the threads. In that game, the company is affected by the mission in significant ways, which leads to a number of inter-session decisions - most importantly, whether the company will be weakened by individuals reducing their Stress, or whether the individuals will accept carrying a certain degree of Stress to benefit the company. Nothing about the previous session or inter-session work sets up anything about the next mission; that will simply be initiated by the GM. However, one of the historical problems with InSpectres is that its quirky and fun features are so captivating that people completely overlooked that its main strength lies in long-term, multiple-session play, with the ultimate issue at hand being the success or failure of the company. I like your idea of setting up the new mission as a component of play.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Well, it's clear that your game is a grandchild of InSpectres, and a very genetically recognizable one. I think you would benefit from reading it carefully and even playing a few times, to get an idea of how your game differs and how you can bring its unique strengths forward. (I mentioned one of them in my other post: establishing continuity between missions.)

I offer suggestions to get a specific color

There. Right there. This is so important I want to tag it as the single priority that your current text must address before you can call it a game text at all. Someone needs to do this or the game will not work. If you don't want to call this person "the game master," you don't have to, but don't pretend to me that "everyone's equal all the time." They aren't. Unless one person sets this very basic and specific feature in place before anything else, then play fails; I have seen it in so many designs and play-experiences that I won't bother mining the two Forge sites for the dozens of threads. So far, you have been performing this role and I'll bet you a bottle of Bertinoro wine you didn't even realize its importance.

Don't miss it now. You may think all your procedural instructions are crystal clear, but if the text lacks this one solid instruction, people will flail around playing Shadowrun vs. Annie Hall and blame the game because they won't have any idea what to do, and you'll be baffled because they obviously should.

Best, Ron

[Hasimir]

However, my historical observation is that formal negotiating mechanics can cause problems of their own - for example, Bidding can become its own annoying sub-game in playing Universalis. I've typically found that clearly establishing who has full authority over what, and when, is the better alternative. Are you familiar with my discussion of four distinct types of authority during play?

I've heard the name, but never player nor read, Universalis.
For all the rest, on your cue I went to the wiki to read the Murk and Authority entries ;)
In TOps it works like this...

VETO is free and automatic... you say VETO and the thing is already cancelled from the fiction.
You just have to add what was wrong with the fiction, so that the others can find a new solution more to your liking.
This only applies to how the fiction LOOKS.

DISAGREEMENT is used to settle any other kind of dispute.
Stealing the framing rights, stealing Leadership, imposing your point of view about something ... you bid for Disagreement.
What you use for bidding is Influence points (so, your very own xp/resource points), you must start at 1, all rises must only be +1, who doesn't bid even once is out for the rest of this specific Disagreement ... and whether you win or lose EVERYBODY pays his own last bid.
Disagreement can't be used 2 times in a row for the same thing.

There is also the PAUSE tool... that stops the game to allow people to ask clarifications and get on the same page.

And as a general rule no one is allowed to debate "what if we say THIS instead of THAT" about fictional content ... whatever gets narrated is a fictional FACT and you can only build upon it ... unless Veto or Disagreement are used.

Regarding authorities...
At the start of any session the first player with an idea for a Scene gets both the FRAME and the LEAD cards.

The framing of a scene is very strictly and specifically done.
You state Location, Time, Cast and Extras -- no backstory, no junctions, no pre-narration, no nothing -- after the 4 elements are set the action starts.
If the framing is for some reason not to someone's liking (to close/far from the previous scene, not interesting, etc) you can stead Framing rights with Disagreement.
The Scene ends in a clearly established way (Location or Cast substantially change, or a Challenge ends) and then the Frame card changes hands in clockwise order.

The Lead stays with the same player until someone steals it with Disagreement.
The Lead has a 1pt discount on Disagreement bids and can make his PC appear in any Scene (always subject to Veto/Disagreement).

NPCs are moved collectively by any player whose PC is not interacting with it right now.
So in a 2 player game if our PCs talk to an NPC when my PC asks something you answer, and when your PC asks something I answer.

So, to be specific... (and hoping I understand everything correctly)

Content authority is shared.
Whoever has an idea and actually expresses it to the table establishes it as a FACT, always limited to the PC's immediate perceptions.
Veto, Disagreement and Pause are used by the others to mediate such facts.
This applies also to the "options" provided as possible answers when a d6 is rolled to randomly establish something.

Plot authority is shared in the same way as Content one.
Also, the Opposition effects can impose the insertion of plot twists during the course of the game.

Situation authority is, as a general rule, shared just like the other ones, with the obvious exception of Framing, regulated as described above.
Beside the specific requirements of the Frame card, everyone can add NPCs, or other scenery descriptions, events, etc -- both as simple fiction or as mechanically relevant Details (gaining or spending Influence).

Narrational authority is always held by the Player of the acting PC.
All PC actions automatically succeed unless an Obstacle is involved -- so usually you say "I try to jump the wall -- hop! -- I graciously land on the other side".
As usual Veto, Disagreement and Pause are used to mediate such content.
During a Challenge you narrate the actions your PC performs to interact with the Obstacle, and then narrate their outcome, limited/guided/influenced by the dice result (which will either result in a Success or the emergence of Soft or Hard Opposition effects).
Again, Veto/Disagreement/Pause are used to mediate such content.

--
..
.

About color, could you elaborate a little bit?
I admit that in the SLA Industries setted games I was providing the SLA-peculiar color ... but for example in a generic cyberpunk game I played both participants (me and my girlfriend) just had a pre-game pitch (which is part of the rules) and then rolled with it.
Same happened when a friend of mine and his girlfriend set their game in the Fable3 setting.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but looks to me that any player with a working knowledge of the agreed-upon "color" will be able to provide it for the others, as long as the others ALLOW him to.
Veto & Disagreement work normally, regardless of other considerations ... the initial Pitch only serves as a "let's try to start out as much as possible on the same page" tool.

Other than that, the components of a Setting-in-a-Box set are specifically meant to take the place of the GM when it comes to color for a specific setting.
Let's say we use the "DreamWake" SiaB kit.
No one at the table knows anything about it.
We just sit down, read aloud the INTRO section, add the specific Crunchy Bits to the standard rules, and then use the provided Cards (either at random or picking them) to fill in Locations, notable NPCs, peculiar Equipment, folkloristic Threats, etc.

Plus, all such elements (Locations, NPCs, Equipment, etc) that we create and "save" on self-made cards, to expand our table-setting.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alessandro,

My apologies for the delay in replying.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but looks to me that any player with a working knowledge of the agreed-upon "color" will be able to provide it for the others, as long as the others ALLOW him to.
Veto & Disagreement work normally, regardless of other considerations ... the initial Pitch only serves as a "let's try to start out as much as possible on the same page" tool.

You're seeing it perfectly, and now I have a good idea of the process in your game. My concern arose from my experience with games which have similar goals but fail in that crucial, minimal-but-enough starting point that allows everyone to contribute well from that point forward.

I'm looking forward to trying the game because, again, it would be great to have a game in which investigations are actually fun. They're fun in InSpectres, but that game is really about something much more specific and the investigations' results are effectively frosting (very fun, but a sweet topping nonetheless). But perhaps a really good serial killer / cop session could emerge from Tactical Ops, with some action for sure but also with a good solid content at every step of the investigation.

I do recommend Universalis. Its features include a valuable starting Tenets phase, and the way different speaking roles are organized is very effective. I think it's the first really well-written, talking-driven, no-GM (or rather multiple-GM), build-in-play role-playing game.

Best, Ron

[Hasimir]

Thank you Ron.

inSpecters was very interesting food for thought, especially the Confessional mechanic.
I devised something akin to it a few years ago for a different project, but it was overall a broken game and I completely forgot about it.

Now with TOps I was struggling to find a way to give a bit of human depth to PCs.
My solution was, let's just say, less than optimal.
The Confessional mechanic reminded me of my earlier design and I think that NOW, injected in THIS structure, that crunchy bit will fit perfectly and actually solve my problem :D

[Pat Gamblin]

As the aforementioned Patrick, I'll definitely be taking a look at this. My brain's a little heat-fried at the moment, but I'm always interested in ideas about handling investigations.

Pat