A new Spy Game

[Rodger Thorm]

Spy Game

We are working on a new Spy Game that has several conventions of RPG gaming reversed.  The primary question at this point is how to set limits on what the GM-players can or should throw at the spy-player.  Should there be a system that limits what the GMs can introduce into the scenario?

The Spy Game doesn't yet have an official name. For the moment, we're just calling it Spy Game.  Some of the inspiration for working on it has come from Thor (Thor from Toledo, as he is known around here) and the game Tiny Spies he worked up several years ago.

The new iteration has several conventions of RPG gaming turned on their heads.  For example, everyone has a spy character, but rather than running as a team (like Mission Impossible, or its like), each spy is working in a different area.  So in play, at any time, there is just one player, and the others are acting as GMs.  

Another characteristic is that the mission profile (the adventure) is not crafted by the GM, but rather by the player.  Each spy develops a plan for his mission, indicating the steps to be performed in carrying out the mission.  (The long term development of these missions will tie in with campaign elements that deal with the importance and timeliness of information, etc.)

So it's an ensemble, but in reverse.  The GM-players throw in complications or play the NPCs the spy character deals with on his mission.

This game deals not with heroic, larger-than-life superspies (James Bond, et al), but instead with spy runners (agents who develop networks of spies in opposition territory who are working for them).

We tried out a preliminary verion of the game last weekend, to see how it might work.  Starting from scratch, we used some improvised mechanics to deal with things in dice-rolling situations.  The primary question was whether the inverted player and GMs system would work.

So the question for discussion is how to set limits or constraints on what the GMs can throw at the player?

Rodger Thorm
spygame@cornellbox.com

[Brendan]

Well, the obvious suggestion is to quantify those "complications" by the difficulty involved in overcoming them.  Give the complication a rating in dice, and require that the GM who plays it spend that many dice out of her pool (or the collective GM pool) when it comes up.  Set a limit on the total number of dice that can be spent for any one run; if the spy-player confronts and overcomes the challenge, he gets the dice to use during his own turn at GM.

This is largely stolen from PTA, of course.

[Bill Masek]

Rodger,

Another option would be to let the players set the difficulty of their missions.  Since you haven't posted a link to your game I'm not sure how exactly to do this, but here is a few ideas.

1.  Players the known difficulty of their missions (ie: the stuff that they laid down) and a danger unknown level.  The danger unknown level represents unforeseen dangers they will encounter during their adventure which are not part of their original plan.  The GM can use the known difficulty dice only on stuff in the players mission layout and can only use danger unknown dice for stuff the player has not laid down in their mission layout.

2.  Players set out their missions, assigning a difficulty level to each stage.  Then they assign a danger pool.  This pool can be used to increase any of the difficulties or to create new complications.

3.   Take either 1 or 2, but the danger pool starts at 0.  Allow the players some beneficial action they would not normally be allowed (something along the lines of retroactively getting the equipment they need for this dire situation or re-roll failed checks) but at the price of increasing the danger pool.  The danger pool can be used by the GM to create new threats/challenges as above.

These are just a few ideas.  With all of them I would recommend that you build some type of payoff into the game rules to give players the incentive to make their challenges harder.

Best,
        Bill

[Rodger Thorm]

Thanks for the responses, guys.

This is way too early and way too sketchy to have the rules drawn up in a useful and organized fashion.  I'll try to do that, though, as we get things worked out a bit more.

Since the spy player is already writing the mission brief, I had thought of letting them set the difficulty level of the particular steps they are dealing with.  This would correlate to the value of the information they collect.  

But at that point, the other GMs seem more extraneous, and the system more like something for completely solo missions.  

I want to be able to value the contributions of the GMs.  When we ran our initial playtest, the whole mission got interesting when it went off-plan, and the spy player had to improvise in order to recover the missing film and save the mission.  That was certainly a creation of the two GM players.  But in other circumstances, it might have been too much.  

We had a lengthy discussion right at the beginning about how severe the customs search was going to be when the spy was traveling into his target country.  If the GMs throw too much at the player, especially early on, the mission can be terminated before it even begins.

I also need to deal with how to assign which GM can introduce complications and things that are off plan.  Since, at other points in the game, all other players will be GMing for each other, there's a certain balancing that factors automatically.  

But while a single GM can adjust the challenges for the players to set the tone they want, coordinating the actions of multiple GMs and controlling them is harder.  My reluctance to use some sort of pool is that it may set a limit on what the spy may run in to.  If a mission goes seriously off-plan, it's not unreasonable for it to get lots more complicated than originally foreseen.

Rodger Thorm
spygame@cornellbox.com

[Bill Masek]

Roger,

If it is "way too early and way too sketchy to have the rules drawn up" for your game, then it is probably too early to be asking for feedback on it.  I have seen too many creative efforts abandoned because people asked for feedback in the early stages.  Also, if you start asking for feedback now, you will probably get less feedback during the editing stage when your game really needs it.

If you really want to stay away from dice pools then consider a system where the GM(s) only start with minor power in cracking the original plan.  (Perhaps a limited number of ways he can crack it.  Perhaps a limited amount.  Perhaps a little of both.)  They can only change things slightly or add minor complications.

To over come these (or possibly bad luck, or just the difficulty they set themselves) the spy player has access to some meta game power (such as I outlined in #3 in my first post.)  Using this power the GM gains more control over what she can do to the plan.  (More time to change it, vaster changes, etc.)  If done right this will give your game the spiraling out of control feeling that your last post seemed like it was going for.

Good luck finishing your rough draft.  Get those rules written and posted so we can give you some real feedback!

Best,
      Bill

[MatrixGamer]

What about requiring the GM players to have to agree (either unanimously or by 2/3rds) on what the complications will be. They can then create a group consensus about what the difficulty level of the game will be. There is a do unto others as you would have them do unto you dynamic.

This approach would lessen the amount of rules you'd need and create a potentially fun interaction pattern into the game as well.

I always like avoiding rules if you can use what players do naturally anyway.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

The more I think about it the more intriguing a multiple GM and single player formate is. It tweaks the god like role GMs play.

Missions might end quickly so players would all need to be prepared to jump in with their mission in a session. This could make for a very fast paced dynamic game.

Are you thinking of this as spies now (ie war on terror) or more cold war? If it is cold war then there are basically two sides. If it is war on terror there are many sides (even on ther terrorist side!)

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Simon W]

Have you seen Chalk Outlines?

http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/chalk.html

It's not spies (it's a heist game) , but seems to have some of the elements you are looking for in the set up, planning and complications areas. It might be of help to you.

(I was planning on using Chalk Outlines as a basis for a 'jailbreak' rpg, where the players are prisoners, maybe WW2 ala The Great Escape and they have to make plans to escape and the GM/other players come up with suitable complications to thwart their escape plans)

Simon W
http://www.geocities.com/simonwashbourne/Beyond_Belief.html

[Russell Collins]

Wow, been a while since I've posted here.

I would actually recommend that at the beginning of a scene 1 GM describes the location and then the other GMs can enter in by becoming relevant NPCs. They are then locked into this role for the remainder of the scene, and they determine the "power level" available for their NPC when they step in.

As an example, the spy arrives at the airport checkpoint. The location GM describes the scene, laying out the room. The spy approaches the desk and the first NPC GM acts as the check-in agent, a relatively low powered official. After a little dialogue, the second NPC GM steps in as the pushy businessman in the line behind the spy. He is slightly more powerful and can aggitate the situation by attracting everyone's attention to the "delay" being caused in front of him. As the scene progresses, the 3rd GM steps in as the security chief, a very powerful character and capable of causing much grief for our spy. You can see how the situation escalates. A good player will try to work the various NPCs against each other, and when all else fails, ask the scene GM where the nearest exit is.

This means you may end up with a "too many cooks" situation, but that will probably be to the spy's advantage. After all, tradecraft includes lots of social engineering, and what's better than setting your possible opponents in each other's way?

[Rodger Thorm]

I thought this thread had died.  I'm glad to see that there were some further comments.  Thanks again to those of you willing to discuss the general concept of the game.

We're also working on getting a rough draft of the rules pulled together so that you can take a look in greater detail.  Drop me a line if you'd like me to let you know when we have that available.

MatrixGamer wrote

The more I think about it the more intriguing a multiple GM and single player formate is. It tweaks the god like role GMs play.

Missions might end quickly so players would all need to be prepared to jump in with their mission in a session. This could make for a very fast paced dynamic game.

Are you thinking of this as spies now (ie war on terror) or more cold war? If it is cold war then there are basically two sides. If it is war on terror there are many sides (even on ther terrorist side!)

I'm glad that you are intrigued by this.  Part of my excitement as well as my reason for de-lurking and posting about it was to see if anyone else thought it was a cool idea.

The other thing is that the spy player feels a real sense of isolation, of being the only person on scene to handle whatever happens, as compared to a game where "the party" is working on whatever problem the GM has devised.  I think that this will end up helping create a feeling of being in the spy's shoes, and in a place where "everyone is out to get you."

You are also right about the play dynamic.  My vision for the game is that there would be two or three player missions run in a typical game session.  The emphasis is not on labyrinthine adventures, but on shorter set-pieces.  There's a lot less need for search-and-explore, since the motive and the goal is fairly well set at the beginning.  The adventures should be ones that deal with overcoming complications, rather than figuring out the mystery, so they should be quick.

The game is definitely set for Cold War era spies, though I think that someone could certainly apply it in other settings if they wanted.

I would actually recommend that at the beginning of a scene 1 GM describes the location and then the other GMs can enter in by becoming relevant NPCs. They are then locked into this role for the remainder of the scene, and they determine the "power level" available for their NPC when they step in.

This is largely how we envisioned things running, but I don't (at this point) want to set this in stone, as I can envision a case where one GM would start off a scene, and then another might come up with a great idea to extend it, and I want to allow that flexibility.

I don't know if it's better to let each GM jump in with whatever character they want, or if the GM running the scene introduces characters as the scene develops, and hands them off to the other GMs with a little guidance.

Rodger Thorm
spygame@cornellbox.com

[Rodger Thorm]

Have you seen Chalk Outlines?

I have now, and, after a cursory look, I have to say I like it.

Thanks for pointing that out, Simon.

Rodger Thorm
spygame@cornellbox.com