[Shadows in the Fog / Age of Paranoia]

[clehrich]

Hi again.  Some of you may remember some previous threads about Shadows in the Fog, a while back:
The first thread
The next try

Then Jere decided to port the game into John Le Carre and The Sandbaggers, and this was the thread.
There was also this thread of some setup actual play.

Okay, the most recent information is at the game's home Wiki:
Age Of Paranoia Wiki
If you click on the link Age of Paranoia, i.e. the very first real link, you will get the new rules and whatnot in Wiki format, which is pretty convenient.  The link to Missions will give you charted breakdowns of card-play and what happened, which may be helpful.

All this by way of background.  Now feel free to read the whole Wiki, and the rules, and everything else, but here's where things stand.  I do think that reading a couple of missions might make the details clearer, but whatever.

There are two quite different kinds of card-play.  One happens in the normal course of events, where a PC wants to do something and has to beat a difficulty.  (Note for those of you playing at home, Jere has generally not been giving re-draws after action scenes.)  

The other is called Mission Play, and it happens when somebody plays a Trump and says something like, "I have this wonderful source in Yugoslavia named Hedy."  He also has to interpret the Trump to fit this statement somehow.  When this happens, we go into a trick-taking card game sort of like Bridge or Hearts, played out in five tricks; in the process we discover what sort of source Hedy is and how the PC ended up having this source.  Usually this is something that happened in the past, though not necessarily.  

If you've seen the Sandbaggers, the difference is between fighting in Whitehall and the Ops room (regular play) and the Sandbaggers out in the field dodging bullets and bringing in double agents (mission play).  For LeCarre fans, think Tinker, Tailor, with Smiley et al. (regular play) and Prideaux in Czecho (mission play).  Okay?

Now here's the problem.  Several of us have hands of around 18 to 20 cards by now, and it seems hard to do anything about this.  

When Missions happen, you can generally dump a bunch of your weak cards and replace them; if you have a strong hand, you can increase your hand because you win tricks.

Furthermore the strategy of Mission play is such that if I have a strong hand, I would be well advised to keep the lead for three tricks and win them all, because if the lead shifts the suit may shift and I'm not likely to have strength in all suits, while if I have the lead I can set the suit with a high card.  This means that a player with a strong hand can win three tricks back-to-back, gaining 3 re-draws and 3 new cards, and nobody else gets any cards except re-draws.

If the guy who starts the Mission isn't the one with the strongest hand, and the former selects the wrong suit to lead with, the Mission-starter can actually lose cards from a Mission, because he played a Trump to start it and then took no tricks, so he's down one Trump and one pretty strong card (the first played, which wasn't strong enough).  See what I mean?

Thus it does seem that this system rewards inactivity for those with weak hands, and lots of missions by those with strong ones.  And that produces a long-term division, because the weak hands stay the same or sometimes slowly decrease, while the strong ones get ever stronger (and larger).

Note also that we've pretty much chucked all the "best player" stuff, because we've already got too many damn cards and don't need a bunch more handed to us.

Any suggestions?  Take your time; it's a lot to read.

[bluegargantua]

Hey Chris,

 This is a bit of a recap from the rambling email I sent to the game's mailing list, but I wanted to toss out the three ideas I thought would probably be best:

 1.)  We seem to be pretty good about recognizing Missions we'd like to play, so maybe you can just say "let's do a mission" without paying Trump.  You can then bid for operational lead if you want to, but there's no need to lead off a Trump.  If people are unenthused about the mission concept, maybe you throw a Trump to say "no, I really want to do this one".

 2.)  We're using three decks combined into one big one.  Trumps could be considered a fifth "suit" and it makes up almost 30% of the deck.  Remove one full set of Trump from the deck.  This will make Trumps more rare (down to 20%).  If you remove two full sets, Trumps become pure gold (at 11%).  Though I do like being able to liberally throw them around.

 3.)  There's no prize for second place.  Right now we reward everyone who wins a trick regardless of whether or not they win the mission.  Change it so that after a mission, everyone draws cards equal to the number they played.  The winner of a mission gets ONE additional card as a bonus for winning.  This doesn't eliminate the problem where one person plays a trump and a good card and then gets wiped out, but it does reduce the disparity between him and the winner.  Combined with solution 1 above, the disparity is almost nil.

later
Tom

[Jere]

I'm not sure lessening trump use is necessarily the answer.

[jeffwik]

Thus it does seem that this system rewards inactivity for those with weak hands, and lots of missions by those with strong ones. And that produces a long-term division, because the weak hands stay the same or sometimes slowly decrease, while the strong ones get ever stronger (and larger).

I think this point is a very significant issue.  I have seen my hand dwindle by an average of one card per session, and I think Bryant is in the boat as me.  Granted, in part that's because I was saving good cards for my Vietnam flashback, but there's no way that (to use a moment from last week's session as an example) I could possibly have won even a single trick in Operation WOLFHOUND, had I been playing my own hand, while you won the first trick by accident, and had no trouble following through on later tricks.

[Jere]

I think this point is a very significant issue.  I have seen my hand dwindle by an average of one card per session, and I think Bryant is in the boat as me.  Granted, in part that's because I was saving good cards for my Vietnam flashback, but there's no way that (to use a moment from last week's session as an example) I could possibly have won even a single trick in Operation WOLFHOUND, had I been playing my own hand, while you won the first trick by accident, and had no trouble following through on later tricks.

On the other hand, the slow dwindling of hand stocks is very appropriate. It adds to that claustrophobic, exhaustion setting in, weariness of the world that we're striving for.

I do think we need a better rate, so awarding for trump use is definitely called for (something we've been very bad at doing). But in general I'm not so sure I'm against the steady down draw on cards.

Than theres the matter of trumps being either too common or not valuable enough. That really perplexes me.

[jeffwik]

On the other hand, the slow dwindling of hand stocks is very appropriate. It adds to that claustrophobic, exhaustion setting in, weariness of the world that we're striving for.
I do think we need a better rate, so awarding for trump use is definitely called for (something we've been very bad at doing). But in general I'm not so sure I'm against the steady down draw on cards.

What I object to, I guess, is that my hand is dwindling while the hands of others grow or remain the same.  If I felt that I'd accomplished a lot more for the cards I've spent than, say, Chris, that I was getting something for my fatigue, I'd be fine with that.  Or if I felt that I was playing badly and it was being reflected in the state of my hand, sure.  But what I think it reflects is almost solely mission play and inability to score tricks in mission play.  Since missions range out so far and widely, they often have little or nothing to do with the "current events" of non-mission play.  Operation WOLFHOUND is an excellent example of this.

[Jere]

Since missions range out so far and widely, they often have little or nothing to do with the "current events" of non-mission play.  Operation WOLFHOUND is an excellent example of this.

I think the far and out missions have done quite a lot to affect current events. Because of Operation LATHER, Mitch Hort has instant name recognition and the ability to call favors from stations heotherwise wouldn't. Because of Wolfhound we know have Wellesley hav some pretty heavy karmic obligations to Farmsen. Thats important stuff. I can't think of a single past mission that ahsn't enetred some rpetty significant things to the game.

Jere

[bluegargantua]

Since missions range out so far and widely, they often have little or nothing to do with the "current events" of non-mission play.  Operation WOLFHOUND is an excellent example of this.

I think the far and out missions have done quite a lot to affect current events.

 Yes, the missions we've played have all affected current events.  But their primary purpose has been to explain the past.  Yes, they've carried some side benefits, but I could also get those side benefits by playing a Trump.  It's probably not as creative or interesting as the stuff that emerges through mission play, but I could get the same effect.

 But the mission play (so far) hasn't actually resolved anything that the characters are currently working to resolve.

 Consider the following:  My character wants to uncover this technology leak in Britain (Operation Triptych).  He wants to be successful at it.  I, as a Player, want him to be successful at it.  From a purely game-mechanics view of things, I don't really care how the sitaution came to be like this, I want to track down the leak and stop it up or turn it to our advantage.  That mission is the only one I care about.  All the backstory missions add yummy flavor, but the cards I play in the "present" to help my character resolve the issue he is currently facing are the only cards I care about.

 Backstory missions are useful though -- I use them to dump low-value cards from my hand in hopes of drawing high-value cards I can use for things I consider important.  Winning tricks is sort of secondary because that's spending high cards on things which aren't as important (from a purely "succeed at Triptych" sort of view).  

 The other weird thing about backstory missions is that you can wind up rewarding players for taking control of another player's character history.  I think this is what's a bit unsettling about Wolfhound.  Bryant wanted to do this side story about his character's past.  By accident, Chris steals the trick and winds up taking the whole thing.  Now, he gets narrative control AND a hefty reward.  Bryant loses narrative control and comes out 2 cards down.  All of this for a story that Chris wasn't nearly as invested in as Bryant.

 Imagine if Jeff had scrimped and saved for his Vietnam mission and then, through dumb luck or fearsome opposition, he lost out and didn't take a single trick?  Suppose he'd tried hard to take tricks but just couldn't muster the cards?  He'd be out a lot more than Bryant was.

 This isn't to say that characters should always succeed or never suffer any setbacks.  The ideas that emerge from mission play are often really inventive so losing narrative control isn't always bad either.  But stuff like Wolfhound can make you a little nervous about committing to anything that isn't an absolute priority for you.

 That's why I think reducing the reward for mission play to 1 bonus card will take the sting out of losing on "unimportant" or "backstory" missions and encourage people to be more active and adventuresome.

later
Tom

[jeffwik]

Since missions range out so far and widely, they often have little or nothing to do with the "current events" of non-mission play.  Operation WOLFHOUND is an excellent example of this.

I think the far and out missions have done quite a lot to affect current events. Because of Operation LATHER, Mitch Hort has instant name recognition and the ability to call favors from stations heotherwise wouldn't. Because of Wolfhound we know have Wellesley hav some pretty heavy karmic obligations to Farmsen. Thats important stuff. I can't think of a single past mission that ahsn't enetred some rpetty significant things to the game.

Jere

Crossposted from our Yahoo! group, because we seem to be having the same discussion in two places.


Sure, but!  The fact that Terry had some kind of prior relationship
with Wellsley was loosely established before the mission began.  The
nature of the relationship wasn't decided by Bryant, it was decided by
the cards played -- and looking over the summary on the wiki, it
doesn't look to me like the cards that really nailed the relationship
between the two men came from Bryant.  Bryant didn't play that Chariot
and declare that his past with Wellsely involved some heavy debts on
both sides -- all he got was that his relationship with Wellsley would
be fleshed out in some way.

Initiating a mission is like opening a door.  As the initiator, you
might have very limited control over what the result of the mission is
going to be.  I don't think that charging a Trump is always justified.

Operation LATHER is a different case -- I went into that knowing more
or less what I wanted, and having the cards to back it up.  I have no
problem with having been charged a Trump to initiate LATHER, it was my
mission, I maintained control over it (though, hey, Mitch now has a
nemesis and another illegitimate child, them's the breaks).

I think the problem I'm trying to describe could be allayed by
combining with one of Tom's suggestions like this:  after a mission is
over, everyone who participated draws cards back up to their original
hand.  The winner of the mission gets an extra card.  The initiator of
the mission gets an extra card (recompensing him for the Trump he
spent).  If the winner and the initiator are the same player, he draws
only one card.

[Jere]

To keep anyone here who is interested up to date we're currently considering several proposals, including this one I'd love to get input on.

I think there are two basic solutions:
(1) Trumps, and thus missions, are much more powerful and produce bigger results; more specifically, you get to announce quite big things and have them be true because you played a card.  This is like Asserting Reality, except that you don't have to be an expert, and there is no way to overrule.  The only weakness is that you don't get total control because of the card-play element.
OR
(2) Trumps are more or less as we have done them, in which case you must _pay_ players to get them to use the things, as playing a Trump becomes a form of gambling.

In either case, it seems clear that people are taking too many cards as a result of missions, and I think that should certainly be reduced.  But to figure out how to reduce this effect depends greatly on what missions mean, i.e. which of the two above choices we go with.

Another point was that as I had constructed all this trick-taking stuff, you had to take sides.  Nobody was neutral.  You could side with the opposition, or with the Operational Lead, the point being that winning was a matter of which _team_ succeeded.  In order to make that work, you have to have a contract for how many tricks constitutes a win (minimum 3), and you have to decide who gets the operational resources (the kitty).  So let me re-state how I imagine Shadows in the Fog magic, based on our current experience, and then we can decide what to do with Age Of Paranoia from that.  I'll use the terminology of Mission, Operations, and so forth, however, just to keep things clear.

1. Option #1 above: a Trump mission has its basic outlines pre-determined, and is always at some level successful.  It may, however, be a Pyrrhic victory.
2. The GM may not initiate a mission; that would require quite different rules.
3. A contract is bid by the Operational Lead, and may be bid up, going around the circle, by anyone who likes except the GM.
4. Once a player has bid on the contract, he or she is committed to the mission; he or she may not bid "opposition."  Conversely, once a player has bid "opposition," meaning he or she will play against the Operational Lead, he or she may not bid on the contract.  One player per mission may bid "opposition" and also play a Trump, meaning he or she will be the Opposition Lead, instead of the GM.
5. Bids must either rise in Number (of tricks, minimum 3), or Rank (of contract, minimum Petty); if the Rank rises the Number may fall, but the Rank may never fall.
6. The Number is the number of tricks that the Operational Lead and his or her allies will take, minimum 3 and maximum 5.
7. The Rank determines the meaning of the Operational Resource Pool (the kitty).
--- Petty: The Operational Lead may freely use the kitty during the mission.  Value=0.
--- Guard: No one may use the kitty during the mission.  Value=1.
--- Against: The Opposition Lead may freely use the kitty during the mission.  Value=2.
8. Bidding on the contract continues until nobody is willing to raise it.  You have now determined:
--- Who is allied with the Operational Lead, and who with the Opposition.
--- Who is the Opposition lead (usually the GM).
--- How many tricks the Allies must take to win the hand.
--- Who is allowed to use the Operational Resource Pool.
--- Who is the high bidder, who may or may not be the Operational Lead.
9. Play of the hand is as expected, with the play leading from the winner of the previous trick.  Play in suit, and so forth.  Trumps cannot win tricks.  Trumps, if led, do not determine suit; the next suited card sets the suit for the trick.  If two cards tie for high card, the first played wins; that is, if the suit is Pentacles, and two Kings are played, the first King takes the trick.
10. After the hand is completed, the Operational Lead has either won or lost the hand, depending on whether he or she has taken the number of tricks promised in the contract.
11. If the Operational Lead makes the contract:
--- Operational Lead draws to fill previous hand (cards played from the Operational Resource Pool do not count here).  Operational Lead draws additional cards to the Value of the Contract Rank (i.e. 0 for Petty, 1 for Guard, 2 for Against).
--- High Bidder draws to fill previous hand.  High Bidder draws one additional card for each trick he or she has him- or herself taken.
--- If Operational Lead and High Bidder are the same, these are cumulative.
--- All other allied players draw to fill previous hand.
--- Opposition players draw to fill previous hand, less the Value of the Contract Rank.  If an opposition player played fewer cards than the requisite number, he or she need not discard cards.
--- Operational Lead narrates the conclusion of the mission.
12. If the Operational Lead fails the contract:
--- Operational Lead draws to fill previous hand, less 1 plus the Value of the Contract Rank.
--- High Bidder draws to fill previous hand, less the number of tricks by which the contract failed.
--- These are not cumulative: if the Operational Lead and the High Bidder are the same, take the worse result (e.g. if the contract was 4 Petty, and only 1 card was taken, the Operational Lead draws to fill -1 and the High Bidder draws to fill -3, so if the two are the same person he or she draws to fill -3).
--- All other allied players draw to fill previous hand, less 1.
--- Opposition players draw to fill previous hand, plus 1.
--- Opposition Lead, if not the GM, draws to fill previous hand plus 1 plus the Value of the Contract Rank.
--- Opposition Lead narrates the conclusion of the mission.

The idea is that every time a Mission is started, everyone takes a risk, and everyone has to help make the hand succeed.  If your side succeeds, you gain from it: allied players can dump low cards and re-draw, and everyone else gets to increase their hands.  But note that how many tricks you take has nothing to do with it unless you were the high bidder.

That may all seem rather baroque, but the idea is that
A. It encourages you not to pass during Missions, to take risks in making Missions succeed;
B. Playing Opposition can actually benefit you personally;
C. You can get sucked into a much bigger contract than you think is sane, and your neck and hand is on the block;
D. Is makes Missions dangerous, risky, and potentially exciting.  This seems to me to fit pretty well what missions actually are.

Now if this is still creating too large hands, reduce all benefits by one.  This means that you always pay when a mission happens, unless you're an opposition player and beat the mission or you gamble on a big mission as the Lead or the High Bidder.  I don't like this much, myself.  It's worth noting that really only the High Bidder stands to gain much on an ordinary mission, and that requires his or her actually having a powerful hand to begin with.

The point of the system is really to make you pay for missions, i.e. to pay for the cool stuff you get to stick in otherwise free of charge -- since you can end up with resources and cool stuff when your character wasn't even on the line (and possibly not even born!).