[Spookbaggers] Basic assumptions and testing mechanics.

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

Hello, my name is Leslie and I am a Simulationist.

Oh, wait, this is not the Simulationists Anonymous meeting? Damn. ;-)

OK, here's the deal. I'm trying to create a simple and abstract set of Simulationist rules  for modern-day gaming, because I have found no such beast despite extensive search ;->

[I thought about calling this "Spookbaggers Unknown Delta Chtulhu X" ;->]

What do I want: a simple and realistic set of mechanics for playing in modern times and near future, in a realistic convention, mainly with characters who are operatives of intelligence agencies (Le Carre, Spooks[1], Sandbaggers[2]), either mundane or ones who discover and fight supernatural horrors hiding behind the veil of seemingly normal reality (Call of Cthulhu, Unknown Armies, Delta Green, Conspiracy X). Should also be appropriate for playing characters who are private eyeys, policemen, criminal profilers and so on.

The mechanics will concentrate not on combat, but more on detective tasks, tradecraft, surveillance, information gathering, manipulating and using other people, administrative and political backbiting and pulling strings. They also should deal with reactions of the characters to all the things they have to do during their work in the name of their "Higher Goals" (thus I will need mechanics for stress, and also of supernatural madness for use with the Cthulhu Mythos convention).

Main problem 1: mechanics should allow for both realistic resolution of tasks done by single characters (shadowing, interrogation, surveillance, combat) and by groups of characters. For playing higher level games ("Sandbaggers" style, where the PCs are directors of various departments in an intelligence gathering organisation) most of actual tasks in the game would not be performed by the characters themselves, but by their subordinates.

Problem 2: I want variable randomness, depending on situation. Basically, the mechanics should work for situations with low variability (playing chess, weighlifting, ritualised combat in controlled environment, like a karate tournament) for highly chaotic situations like combat or car chases, and for things in-between like political and bureaucratic infighting. :-)

Problem 3: I want character creation to be fast and simple, since the entire game mechanics should be relatively lightweight. At the same time, there should be some diminishing returns from training more and more.

I first thought about describing characters on a 1-100 scale, like in BRP or Unknown Armies, which would ease the conversion of NPCs and adventures. However, I'd skip the "%" sign, because I thought about a different task resolution than rolling a d100.

The general conditions would be reflected by the amount and type of dice used for tests. Thus, like in Unknown Armies you could have proffesionals on the 30[%] level, and while doing routine tasks you'd roll 1d10, 1d20 or 2d10, open-ended upwards, do there is always a small chance of a fuckup. At the same time, in difficult conditions, high stress and so on (like in combat) you'd roll 4d20 or 5d20, so people with some training would be suddenly in trouble, and even proffesionals could fuck up. Also, levels of skill above 70-80 would have an effect of diminishing returns.

Each 10 points above/below skill would be an additional degree of success/failure. Those can be used for task difficulty (difficult tasks require 3 levels of success) and probably for group/extended tasks (completion of a Top Secret level clearance vetting requires a total of 10 successes over a long period of time).

My main problem is doing group tasks, with multiple characters, the influence of their coordination (whether the agent coordinating the surveillance has lots of experience and good
equipment or not) and so on.

I thought about doing a logarythmic scale but I could not come up with anything which would not be terribly grainy.

Anyway, the mechanics will also need a realistic, abstract damage system (no cumulative effect of wounds except for blood loss) and something akin to Madness Meters from Unknown Armies, only more sensible, for tracking stress, PTSD and such.

Besides group tasks, the basic mechanics also require a way of dealing with two-dimensional tasks, ie. when performing an extended surveillance operation on a target there are two semi-independent goals - to observe the target and see what he does, but at the same time not be observed by the target. Two-dimensional tests will probably also be rather useful for combat.

Anyway, I'd be grateful for any comments on these basic assumptions, and any ideas on group actions, two-dimensional actions and actions performed by subordinates are welcome. :-)

Leslie

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooks - an excellent BBC TV series about MI5 agents. After the first season it becomes less realistic and more cinematic, and the quality noticeably drops, but it's still a very good TV series.

[2] http://www.opsroom.org/ - an even better BBC TV series, about MI6 agents, from the 80s, nowadays may be considered pretty boring by most TV viewers. :-)

[Rob MacDougall]

Hi Leslie, and welcome to the Forge.

I suspect people are going to press you to articulate WHY you want your system to emphasize the things you mention - to figure out what your game is supposed to be about, and devise a rules set from there.

I was in a very good game inspired by precisely the same subject matter you reference (LeCarre, Sandbaggers, MI5/Spooks), run by Jeremiah Genest and using a variant of Chris Lehrich (who also played)'s Shadows in the Fog system. There's a detailed Wiki on the game, with session summaries, character dossiers, and most of the rules we used, at: http://www.innocence.com/games/age-of-paranoia/index.php/Main/AgeOfParanoia

Based on the dream game you're describing, this may not be the system for you, but you could still find our case files interesting. The "Mission Play" system we concocted (rules here, actual play examples here) was extremely powerful for generating story and handling complicated espionage scenarios. But it was not oriented to resolving specific tasks at the level of granularity you seem to want.

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

I have read the Age of Paranoia (before posting here, I did an extensive search for espionage and spy related threads on the Forge :-)), and yes, it is not exactly my cup of tea, since I'm interested in a heavily Simulationist approach. But it is interesting, I do have to admit.

Why Sim?

Because I'm interested in doing a simulationist exploration of one of the most interesting and IMHO playable aspects of the modern conflict space, that is, intelligence warfare. Simulationist games in modern world tend to be either boring or deadly, intelligence and police operations are one exception where there is risk, but characters do not get involved in fighting on a regular basis. And intelligence is more interesting of those two.

I'm interested both in playing "what spies do" and "what are the personal consequences" (Madness Meters in Unknown Armies made me go "gosh, wow, like, brilliant", but I dislike the general resolution mechanics of UA as pretty clumsy and unwieldy).

And besides, I have always wanted a set of simple, realistic mechanics for modern day gaming. :-> CORPS was another of the game systems I went "gosh, wow" over, but after some time I cooled on it a bit (it has plenty of flaws, unfortunately, like too detailed combat resolution, which breaks when characters engage in melee, and not enough support for non-combat conflict). Since modern time or near future games are my favourite settings (sometimes with supernatural elements, sometimes without), I find the lack of a good sim mechanics pretty irritating. :-)

[Thor]

Hi Leslie

If  like Spooks check out the Tara Chase novels by Greg Rucka. it is stolen from Sandbaggers but is very readable.

I have always had a problem with 100 scale systems. It is way too easy to get caught up in "Is following the guy thru the tube station at rush hour a 47 or a 54" the fiddely bits are the ones that take a system from lite to hairy. to keep things simple keep them simple.

If you are set on simulationism, think about what you are simulating. Are the characters in the show so bad that they wiff the number of times that your system would make them? Does your system allow for characters to get information as easily? One of the dirty little Forge secrets is that most Narr systems are really Story Simulators. If you are intending to simulate the feel of the story then you know where you are going.

If however you want to simulate the reality of spying, then you need to think about the things that your characters will be doing and model those fairly closely. I remember one spy game where a player, who was a macroeconomist and an avid spy story reader, had his charactrer perform some esoteric act on some money so that the bad guys couldn't get to it. Way too early in the game any hope of a good story sank. So think about what your characters can and will be doing, find a mechanism that allows you to model that as easily as possible then move on to the next thing.

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

Yes, I do have most of the Rucka's "For Queen and Country" comic books. What can I say, I'm a sucker for spy fiction (of "Spy Game" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" kind, not James Bond and "Mission Impossible). :-)

I always had a problem with 1-100 scale systems. However, I think the scale can be used usefully if it is thought out properly. Here, I intend the scale to be more of 1-10 with the random factor scalable down to D0.1 (well, a D10 with results ranging from 1/10 to 1).

Also, my campaigns tend to be drawn over a long time-scale. That means that characters can train and learn stuff. With a high granularity scale character change over a timescale of a few weeks should be non-existent, skills could possibly improve by 1 point over multiple months of training.

Another problem with high granularity is the one I have encountered when playing Conspiracy X, with its 0-6 scale for human characters. Every agent has skills of 3 or 4, there's not much differentiation.

As for what I am simulating - I explicitly don't want to simulate stories. The games I run are not about a story, but about characters living their lives in a world. It's exploration.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm on board with your desires for the system. I really don't think this thread will include anyone telling you your goals aren't justifiable or interesting, so you can probably stop defending it in those terms.

My question for you concerns Spycraft 2.0, which includes a tremendous focus on tuning one's spy game into the type desired, from balls-out actioner to shadow mole-ridden office drama. It also features the most tuned version of D20 available today, very strongly emphasizing the kind of realism you're talking about, as one of its options anyway.

What features would your game design present that produce a different play-experience from Spycraft 2.0? This question is not intended to deter you. To the contrary - I think how you answer it will make this thread really valuable for you and the design of your game.

Best, Ron

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

I have only seen the first edition of Spycraft, only skimming through it, and I've decided it's not what I'm looking for. Now, it is possible that Spycraft 2.0 has rules tunable enough to provide me with what I am looking for, however, I highly doubt it. It is still D20 modern, even though it may be a very tweaked version thereof.

I am trying to approach resolution mechanics from a more abstract angle than is usual in mainstream RPGs, D20 being a good example. For example, combat resolution will have no rounds, no rolling for each shot fired, no wondering about exact positioning of characters and so on. What combat resolution in Spookbaggers should concern itself with is situational awareness of characters, limitations of psyche and group coordination. (Although the size of guns will also count <grin>)

I want a workable and scalable mechanic for group actions and for action at a distance by underlings, contacts, watcher teams and such. In many possible game situations the characters are going to have a similar role as the protagonists of Spooks or Sandbaggers - sitting somewhere in their HQ or in a surveillance van, and coordinating actions of many NPC characters.

The game will also feature personality, social interaction and political influence mechanics that will enable players to see how their characters cope with burnout from manipulating other people, to see how they manipulate others and are in turn manipulated, and so on.

Most mainstream RPGs describe innate characteristics of characters in detail while leaving the externalities (status, wealth, influence) either undescribed or extremely sketchy. In a Sandbaggers-type game physical description of characters may be completely unimportant, while their political connections and influence is as important as their cunning and willpower.

[I am now involved in a Conspiracy-X campaign which is very much run in this vein, with characters directing operations from their secret base but not participating in them directly.]
I want a system that will be able to describe those political connections and will have mechanics for using them that go beyond "roll your Status/Influence and let the GM decide".

[Ron Edwards]

That is an excellent answer.

I suggest that if your entire notion of "character" in terms of game mechanics is that non-traditional, then you might do well to consider resolution mechanics being similarly non-traditional. For instance, if we were talking about Neil sending Willy off to find a missile base in Cyprus,* clearly we have to talk about who is the opposition. We might find that there are several: the militant Turks who've disguised their base by buying an asylum off in the hills, and the KGB who have no intention of letting their recent defector (in the asylum) get recovered by the SIS. Oh, and we have more to contend with, don't we? MI-5 is breathing down Neil's neck again, as they love nothing better than to turn the SIS upside down looking for moles.

What I'm getting at is that whether Willy shoots a Turkish guard at the asylum or not is one thing, whether the KGB plant is going to achieve her mission is another, and whether Neil manages to figure out how to keep his agency safe from interference is still another - all at different levels (smallest to largest). And once that's established, all three are clearly going to be interactive phenomena during play, based on what you're describing.

So you not only have the hierarchical "team" resolution that you might use when an MI-5 agent is throwing off surveillance as he moves through the city, using a variety of cues and communications with the support agents, but you also have conflict occurring at the "same" levels. A guy tries to shoot Willy back - that's at his level of engagement. A rival spymaster blocks Neil's politicking by getting to his father-in-law first - that's at Neil's level of engagement.

What I'm envisioning looks a lot like a circles-and-arrows diagram, what Markus Wolf called the Spider's Web of interacting espionage agencies active in a given area. We can imagine all sorts of oppositions currently flaring up at the connecting lines or arrows in this diagram, for a given situation.

Do you think that would be a good framework for arriving at whatever resolution method you'll use? And if it is, or something sort of like it, then the whole idea of wondering whether and how much Willy gets better at shooting if he trains a little more becomes ... well, worse than meaningless, totally irrelevant and uninteresting.

Or is that too wacky? I'm getting the idea that you're aiming at something a little less abstract and weird than I'm describing (which I admit is beginning to look a little wargame-y). Is that right?

Even so, I think you've already done great work by breaking your mind out of traditional character description in role-playing. Having done so, see if there are any cobwebby strands of other assumptions, particular resolution and improvement, still clinging.

Best, Ron

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

My notion of "character" in terms of game mechanics is more like "semi-traditional" - since there are going to be attributes and skills, only they're going to include not only shooting/handguns/Walther PPK or Social interaction/bluff/my stepfather, but also MI 6 Influence/Department of Intelligence/Archive access or Wealth/real estate/family castle. :-)

There is another constraint/assumption that I forgot to mention - I am developing this system partially for use on summer RPG camps. Thus, I'm going to use it to run both politically heavy games for my regular gaming group (age average of 20+, and plenty of RPG experience) and for 15-16 year old kids who want to play Secret Agents and the only system they have played before is D20 (well, possibly also WoD, CP2020 or ShadowRun). I intend the game to be a stepping stone to other play styles - it should be possible to use the mechanics for a straightforward "let's go find some cultists, shoot them up, and cover up the Mi-Go infestation" Delta Green game, and then move the characters up and have them direct actions and work on a higher, political level, with no more shooting and running around.

Still, the game during any given moment is going to take place only on one level of engagement. [OK, perhaps for political games the players may decide sometimes to play a lower-level flunkie as he does some dirty deeds, a bit like playing Anchors in a Nobilis game, so that there is some action during the session and not only political]

As for the cobweb of advancement, I thought about approaching it in a different manner (for example, I have long since advocated no character advancement in narrativist cinematic games, since James Bond does not advance between movies :-)), but the Sim approach I am taking means that I need some way of tracking character change - especially that while the question "how much of a better shot will Tom be after a month of regular training" is not particularly interesting, the question "how did Zoe's influence increase after two monts of downtime spent on bureaucratic backstabbing" is. And I'm also interested in character degradation - skills (well, more of "descriptors") should change both upwards with use and training and downwards with disuse. Since my usual campaigns tend to span months of game-time in a few sessions, this does seem a requirement to me.

Your idea seems more like Age of Paranoia, which is interesting, but not exactly what I am looking for. :-)

[Filip Luszczyk]

The question is - how much are you interested in plausible and believable outcomes of events, and how much are you bothered about including the influence of details in your game? I have an impression that you are preoccupied in "realistic" advancement, emulating psychological mechanisms and mechanical representation of non-combat activities, which more "zooming in" than with a single test. If you are more interested in plausible outcomes than in specific details you could use some kind of conflict resolution (more complex than a typical conflict resolution though, maybe in the lines of DitV). It allows to easily apply the same base mechanic to detailed resolution of series of tasks leading to a particular goal regardless of their nature and it can be very scalable in scope.

Also, since you are obviously able to understand The Third Most Difficult Language in the World ;) you could check on Crystalicum Lite for its rules of knowledge gathering and disabling traps. Since you plan on having degrees of success, they should be easily adaptable.

[Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik]

I am interested in realistic^[1] outcomes of events, and I think that "detailed equals realistic" is one of the Bad Memes of RPG Design, so no, I'm not bothered about details. (In order to provide plausibility I intend to include some links and short essays on why particular aspects of various modelled activities do not mesh with popular perceptions of a given subject, gun combat being one of the prime perpetrators here. :->)

However, using conflict resolution akin to DitV does not mesh particularly well with the explorationist agenda - conflict resolution sometimes puts the burden of determination of "what happens" on the player, and for me, this breaks immersion. Especially since this is a sim game of secrets and other cloak & dagger stuff - I want players to be frequently as ignorant of what is really happening as their characters are. Thus, large-scale task resolution is the way to go, IMO.

[I've seen Crystallicum Lite, and I'm awaiting the full version, even though I'm not a big fan of neigther manga/anime nor fantasy :-)). However, what it lacks is two-dimensional tests (a bit like the Godlike resolution mechanic), so it's too simple for my needs.]

[1] Flames on the subject of "realistic vs plausible" are a bit tiring IMO, so let's just say that I side with John Kim here about the existence of objective reality and I like the idea of games that try to model the objective reality, and let's leave it at that.