The Spy Who Summoned Me

[joshua neff]

Well, for me, one of Sorcerer's strengths is that it doesn't have to be supernatural. Demons can be electronic gadgets, or psychic powers, or the aspects of a spy's life that causes the spy to lose Humanity (which is whatever you define it has). I love supernatural stuff, but I also think RPGs have become so full of the supernatural, a break would be nice.

Sure, you could run a spy game using all sorts of mechanics--d20, GURPS, Story Engine, Theatrix. Hell, if you still have them (or can dig them up somewhere), Top Secret or James Bond. The reason to do it with Sorcerer is to run a game in which the aspects of the spy's life (a web of contacts, cool gadgets, a sidekick, etc) are both a benefit & a hindrance, in that they help you out, but cause you to lose what's most important to you--your Humanity. (Plus, I dig Sorcerer's mechanics.)

[Bailywolf]

Well, we could easily adapt Sorcerer to describe the life of someone with a body dysmorphic disorder.  All the horrors of eating disorders, or steroid abuse, or plastic surgery run amok... and it is a HORROR to witness (I've seen it nearly kill a close friend)... but why do it?

I could run a special forces combat game using sorcerer; things like guns and special training, and The Corps would be demons... but it's such a stretch.

Or a Mafia game.  The people you control, your contacts, sources, and crooked cops are your demons.  Your Lore is your Respect.  But again, too far out there.

Just because it is possible to kink the Sorcerer mojo to fit another kind of mojo all thogether.. well, is it worth it?  It just seems like a mental exercise rather than anything worth playing.  If my GM told me that my character's new laser watch was somehow going to dehumanize my character, I'd tell him to stick it up his ass.  The whole idea of humanity loss in the spy game scheme is a bad fit anyway unless you define Humanity as something very out of the box.  And once you've radicaly redefined everything out of sorts... well, why not just play another game entirely?

Sure, I can see how you could adopt sorcerer to describe intelligence networks... but really, why bother?  How would that actualy function in game play?  You roll your lore (or whatever) to try and compell your network to do... what?  

Beyond that, exactly what kind of spy stories are you looking to tell?

This thread started with a clear ideal: cinematic, over the top, Bond-Avengers spy action adventure.  Not spy-horror as it seems to have drifted into.  (and why must sorcerer always be about horror and degredation?  This is coming from me.  The guy who loves to riff off on the sicko stiff.  Sometimes even for me, it just gets to be too much.  Why can't a spy game be about action and adventure and intresting character conflict, and not about personal disintagration and horror?  er... rant over)  

So for Bond-style spy adventure- the basic game mechanics of Sorcerer would work fine.  The sorcerer/demon relationship rules seem inapropriate to the genera.  Like jacking up a porshe and slaping 14" mud tires on it... they are still wheels, it will still roll... but just look at it!  It is possible to just try too hard.


But even if you are talking about more realistic spy stuf... anyone have any idea just how mind-numbingly boring 99.99999999% of all spy stuff actualy is?  Most of the career intelligence officers I've met are 40ish, ex-military, and completely normal.  

What is the baseline for this discussion?

[erithromycin]

Just because it is possible to kink the Sorcerer mojo to fit another kind of mojo all thogether.. well, is it worth it?

Yes. Just use a mojo filter.

And once you've radicaly redefined everything out of sorts... well, why not just play another game entirely?

Because Sorcerer is good for letting you play with things greater than yourself.

Sure, I can see how you could adopt sorcerer to describe intelligence networks... but really, why bother?  How would that actualy function in game play?  You roll your lore (or whatever) to try and compell your network to do... what?  

Provide you with airline tickets, gadgets, assistants, cover, backup, or to get out of missions, avoid betrayal from their end.

Beyond that, exactly what kind of spy stories are you looking to tell?

Scary ones.

This thread started with a clear ideal: cinematic, over the top, Bond-Avengers spy action adventure.  Not spy-horror as it seems to have drifted into.

Did you miss the part where I suggested how you could go back to that?

(and why must sorcerer always be about horror and degredation?  This is coming from me.  The guy who loves to riff off on the sicko stiff.  Sometimes even for me, it just gets to be too much.  Why can't a spy game be about action and adventure and intresting character conflict, and not about personal disintagration and horror?  er... rant over)  

Because the question was asked in the sorcerer forum. That's why. Who, by the way, is to say that there can't be character conflict and action and adventure, with personal disintegration and horror nothing more than a part of the game. I'm not saying you have to role Lore [or equivalent, though I like Tradecraft myself all the time, but that when you are dealing with the big ramification stuff, like recruiting moles, double-crossing. The really scary bits.

So for Bond-style spy adventure- the basic game mechanics of Sorcerer would work fine.  The sorcerer/demon relationship rules seem inapropriate to the genera.  Like jacking up a porshe and slaping 14" mud tires on it... they are still wheels, it will still roll... but just look at it!  It is possible to just try too hard.

We were asked for ideas about what daemons might be though. So adapting it was the question that was asked.

But even if you are talking about more realistic spy stuf... anyone have any idea just how mind-numbingly boring 99.99999999% of all spy stuff actualy is?  Most of the career intelligence officers I've met are 40ish, ex-military, and completely normal.  

Yes, yes I do. Most Intelligence work is dull. The politics and personalities behind it however, aren't, and I think Sorcerer covers that well. Your mileage may vary.

What is the baseline for this discussion?

What it was at the start. How would those who post to this forum adapt Sorcerer to cover spy thrillers. I made a suggestion, and you don't like it. I'm cool with that. Let's not throw the whole thing away though, eh?

I mean, come on. Does sorcerer always have to involve magic? No.

But does sorcery always have to have risks? Hell yeah.

Come on. Let's stretch this toy.

drew[/quote]

[joshua neff]

What Drew said.

Sorcerer doesn't just allow for variations on the "baseline", it encourages it. The rulebook screams for radical interpretations of what Demons are & whay Humanity means, as defined by the group. I see no reason to only stick with "demons are snarly, scaly monsters summoned through occult rituals" & "Humanity is empathy or sanity". To define Demons as Contacts, Networks, Gadgets, & such isn't really pushing the envelope that far, I don't think. Neither is defining Humanity as "Trust in other people & yourself". Because the main book defines neither Demons nor Humanity--it's left to the group.

And Sorcerer doesn't have to be "scary". I see the spy stuff that Drew's been proposing as being along the lines of Alias, The Prisoner, & maybe Mission: Impossible, none of which are scary (except maybe some parts of The Prisoner). You're still dealing with Humanity loss (because that's what the game is all about) & forces that threaten to overwhelm the character--but throw in loads of ass-kicking action & snappy dialogue, & it's not "scary" at all. But it is Sorcerer. As you said, to each their own...& while I love occult conspiracy stuff & surreal horror, I'd find a "spies summoning nasty hellspawn" to be fairly unengaging (depending, of course, on the GM's enthusiasm, for it & the color of the game). I get tired of PCs with nifty super-powers & supernatural effects. Sometimes it's fun to just go for straight drama or romance (or comedy). (Like, say, a Sorcerer narrative in which the PCs are Elizabethan playwrights & the "demons" are their muses, completely non-supernatural--just women or men who inspire the writers & also threaten to overwhelm them in one way or another.)

[Bailywolf]

I'll concede the match.  All told, I'm a bit old-school when it comes to my role playing.  Take things too far off baseline, and I sort of shrug and move on to things more familiar.  

I liked the old Bond game a lot.  One of the first games I played in regularly was run with the Bond system.  We played a group of freelance inteligence operatives formerly with the major inteligence services (one CIA, one MI6, one KGB), but now working for a private foundation (run by a really wierd guy- think of him as a just-this-side-of-evil Bond villian with the world's best intrests in mind... but a Machavellian sense for politics).  It was a blast, and we covered most of the issues tossed about here-in... but as elements of play rather than as matter for rule judgement.  


'yall continue to have fun in here, though.

[erithromycin]

That's fine Baily. Please don't think I want to convert anyone who doesn't want it, because I don't. If everybody thought like me I'd have no ideas to steal.

I was thinking about Ronin [1998] today though.

Now, here's the way it works, I think -

Sam Robert De Niro - His network is one he's stepped away from, what's left of his former employers, the CIA/NSA or somesuch. What we see in the film is an example of a Pact, I think.

Vincent Jean Reno - His network is another he's stepped away from, French Intelligence probably. He doesn't use it in the film though, instead turning to an ally who was once part of the same network. If that's possibly a Network of former Network members that could be quite cool.

Deirdre Natascha McElhone - She's the only one with a Network, one she contacts through her Handler Seamus. He is a 'Sorcerer' too, but he's a manifestation of a shared Network. Perhaps orders passed from him through the Network, and then onto lower types, but here they go directly.

Gregor Stellan Skarsgard - He's the tech guy, so possibly has a Gadget with Hint or somesuch. He also makes a Pact, but that's a key part of the story, and may have taken place before the 'game'/movie. He's also got a Passer, but they don't get revealed until the end.

Larry Skipp Sudduth - He's the Driver. He tunes the car in the movie, so that's probably a Summon [using his Tradecraft to know what it needs to be capable of], a Bind [using his Cover, mechanic, or rolling successes in that over]. His Daemon is a Gadget, but only because the car seems capable of things normal cars are not.

Spence Sean Bean - Is the one they drop, the wannabe, probably with no Tradecraft. He's never explained, so may be a red herring.

The opposition is a single Sorcerer [Jan Triska, credited as The Dapper Gent]. He's got a handful of bodyguards [Passing], and he too makes a Pact with the Russians.

The Russians have no Sorcerers in the film, but do seem to have a couple of Passers. They're a big old shadowy old one, with a huge Power. That's why the Pacts with them are story driving. These big shadowy ones probably also have the power to talk to each other, but you'd have to have seen the film to get that, and I've no wish to spoil it for anyone.

So, in this hugely exciting film, we've maybe got three uses of the 'Daemon' part of the game during the actual story. They drive the plot though, as you should [hopefully] be able to figure out if you've seen it.

Stacks of combat though, I suppose. So Sword would likely be important.

That sort of thing seems close to what you were saying Baily. They're mechanical, because it makes it interesting.

Though if one were running a straight sorcerer game, I'd want to know what was in the box. Oh, and I think we can just lose the Situation thing. That was really a joke, I suppose. Though Possessors could make a game based on Telefon[1977] a real, and terrifying possibility.

The real fear doesn't come from the actions that are sorcerous, but the consequences.

drew

[jburneko]

Wow, this is really great feedback people.  I agree with Raven's initial post that this whole thing hinges on how you define Humanity.  And I really like the subsequent development of Humanity as 'self' or 'identity' or some such.  Oh, and I am interested in 'metaphorical demons' not occult spy thriller.

I had originally thought of defining Humanity as National Loyalty but then I was stuck for a demon definition particularly since I was going down the Object Demon as gagets line of thinking.  How does using a gadget wreck your sense of National Loyalty?  The problem I was having initially is defining the key interaction of Sorcerer has Humanity then when Sorcerer turns to external power source, Demon, Humanity is lost.  What about gagetry and networks costs you?

The 'self' and 'identity' stuff really helps along these lines but it makes the game kind of heavy, I think.  Has anyone got a 'lighter' definition for these things?

Jesse

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

The 'self' and 'identity' stuff really helps along these lines but it makes the game kind of heavy, I think.  Has anyone got a 'lighter' definition for these things?

I don't think the self/identity thing has to be *that* heavy (we don't need spies who cry every night), but it does seem to be a constant theme running through the source material mentioned. I mentioned before how almost every spy show/movie I could think of dealt with the issue of loyalty and self-deception, and the tension between a normal life and a life of espionage. In Bond, it's relatively casual - he gains points every time he boinks and is confident in what he does. In Alias, it's the setup for the entire show, and a crucial motivation for the protagonist.

I played in a Mage: Technocracy game for a few weeks. After just a couple of weeks, I realised that the GM wanted to push people into situations where their loyalty would be in question. I also realised I'd probably have a lot more fun if I played someone who strained against his loyalties, and had various crises of conscience. The only 'fun to be had' otherwise was basically modern-day Shadowrun. Lots of missions, lots of planning, but few moral issues. So sod that.

Humanity, no matter how one defines it *is* a heavy trait, IMHO. It's inclusion would seem to indicate the game should take on moral or ethical issues, or a certain level of 'depth'. Examining humanity is what a Sorceror game is about, and thus, the questions we ask about humanity become the premise of a game.

So if you wanted to go for a lighter game, with exciting missions, but little soul-searching, you could define it as 'Reputation', possibly, but that would seem to diminish the value of the stat. I dunno if players would care so much, or empathise so much with plain ol' 'Rep', y'know?

Joe.

[jburneko]

Joe,

You may be right.  I was trying to avoid the sulky spies stuff particularly after reading that long post above.  However, you're right in that it may not need to get too heavy.  I do want moral issues, I just want them to be kind of lightish and not too dark and depressing.

I think the struggle between personal life and obligation to job is probably the key to a good spy story so I will continue to think along these lines.

Jesse

[erithromycin]

Light moral issues? Sheesh. :)

They don't have to sulk, just be wary I think.

If Humanity were defined as your ability to treat it as a job, rather than a way of life, then that might do it for you. It becomes your ability to walk away from it. Intriguingly, that's the first definition here that gives Bond a low Humanity, and that's neat.

It keeps the players careful of getting in too deep, unless that's what they think they want. But when the job's really getting to them they're going to find it harder to get away, but easier to get ahead. After all, a really easy way to express losing out to a Network is a promotion. More to do, see, so closer to becoming a cog in their machine. The Company want their faceless grey men in black, after all.

How's that one sit Jesse?

We've got how many tones of game now? And all by changing Humanity alone. Ron, as they may still say in the NBA, "I love this game".

[Mike Holmes]

Erithromyacin,

That sounds good for Humanity; it all falls into place, then. Call it "Normality" or something? Yeah, Bond usually is down about two or three and pushing one. But what does zero represent? I suggest that a Spy that gets to zero either fades away into the annals of spy history (becomes totally absorbed by the network) or gives the ultimate sacrifice; he dies for his network. Make that the only way a spy can die. So, just when you think that Bond is down and out, he comes up with another gadget or somebody comes along to save the day (essentially he summons up help). Keeps things totally in genre.

Now, for sorcery. Call it Spying, or Espionage or something.
Contact - that's just perfect the way it is.
Summoning - call it Meeting. Described as finding somebody who can make the deal, or getting them to come to you.
Binding - call it Contracting, or Allying or something? How often are these sorts of things referred to in movies or literature as "deals with the devil"
Punishing - works OK the way it is. Perhaps a better term?
Contain - call it Interdiction. The ability to put somebody or some organization "on ice" for a while. I see lots of blackmail and power-plays here.
Banishing - call itTermination. Works whether it refers to firing an assistant, quitting an organization, or destroying opponent organizations. Note that a network like SPECTRE will be banished only to be summoned again by other spies later.
Pact - like the Warsaw Pact. Works fine the way it is.

Anybody else starting to see the possibilities?

Mike

[jburneko]

Hello Mike,

By Jove, I think you've done it!!  That's pretty much the kind of thing I was looking for.  The really neat thing is that it changes the whole feel of the Sorcerer game.  Before, summoning demons was largely an author or even an actor stance thing because you were calling up some nether world entity.

But since this Spy variation is rooted in the real world with no hint of an occult realm it turns the rituals into hard core explicit Director Stance because it causes the player to directly introduce setting elements via the rituals.  "Well, I'm going to Contact this Drug Cartell I know about..."

Very cool.

Jesse

[contracycle]

Contact - that's just perfect the way it is.

Yeah, although we might want to add another action, Monitor, to cover surveillance and the like, which constitutes a non-reciprocal contact (unless you fail the roll, of course).

Summoning - call it Meeting. Described as finding somebody who can make the deal, or getting them to come to you.

Rendezvous?  Interview?

Binding - call it Contracting, or Allying or something? How often are these sorts of things

"Turning" would be a candidate, although refers specifically to agents of other bodies.  Recruiting would be the simplest, although I keep thinking there are intel terms for these things, dammit.

Punishing - works OK the way it is. Perhaps a better term?

Might want to break this one up by several degrees; interrogations of various degrees.  Or make it cover things somewhat touched on by Contain, like having a specific agent carpeted, or demoted, or transferred.

Contain - call it Interdiction. The ability to put somebody or some organization "on ice" for a

I like that.

Banishing - call itTermination. Works whether it refers to firing an assistant, quitting an organization, or destroying opponent

Yeah, that too.

[Mike Holmes]

Gareth,
Rendezvous is perfect spy stuff, and indicates exactly the right thing. Turning is only good for enemies, though. Remember you might be "Binding" a member of the organization for which you work. Recruiting is good, and is military enough to sound like spy talk.

Yeah, Jesse, lots of directorial power. Need a secretary? Summon her from the pool, and make up a new part of the organization. Nifty. Actually this is all developing off of the SLA ideas generated previously.

Mike

[jburneko]

Along the Director Stance thing I think this would also require a lot of retroactive reasoning.  For example I'd want players to be able to Contact, Summon and even Bind in situations where they're cut off from the outside world and then retroactively explain it.

For example, if you're tied up in the villain's death trap I'd want the players to be able to Contact and Summon an Object 'Gadget' Demon to help them escape and retroactively explain how they got it.

Or perhaps they'd summon a Passer 'Agent' to burst in at the nick of time and explain that there was a prior arangement that if he wasn't out in an hour the agent should come looking for him or some such.

My next concern is that the base Sorcerer rules make Sorcerery really hard.  You can't just go summoning up 'demons' left and right every other scene, you'll run out of Humanity WAY too fast.  I'm not entirely sure if the basic Sorcerery rules will support the pace of a Spy Thriller.  I could be wrong and only actual play will tell.  What do you guys think of this issue?

Jesse