I was fooling around with some ideas the other day, and got the idea to see if I could make a collaborative mini-game about terrorism, or more specifically being a probably either really competent or really incompetent covert cell.

This is what I came up with:

Handler: Comrade Nips
Cell 1
-Fluffy
-Percy
-Little Bit
-Sadie
Cell 2
-Lumpkin
-Calico
-Molly
-Bubbles

Makes the Videos
Makes the Plans
Makes the Bombs

Cell 1
-Fluffy: Makes the Plans
-Percy: Makes the Bombs
-Little Bit: Makes the Videos
-Sadie: Makes the Plans

Cell 2
-Lumpkin: Makes the Plans
-Calico: Makes the Bombs
-Molly: Makes the Videos
-Bubbles: Makes the Bombs

Cell 1
Makes Plans: 2d6
Makes Bombs: 1d6
Makes Videos: 1d6

Cell 2
Makes Plans: 1d6
Makes Bombs: 2d6
Makes Videos: 1d6

Attack on the Kibble Towers

The Plan: 6 + 5 = 11
The Video: 1 + 4 = 5
The Bomb: 6 + 8 = 14

The Bomb : Really Worked
The Plan : Worked OK
The Video : Screwed Up

Molly and Little Bit : Got Caught/Killed during the mission
Calico, Bubbles, and Percy : Were Caught/Killed after the mission
Fluffy, Sadie, and Lumpkin : Got Away

2                  : Out of Cell 1 were Caught/Killed
3                    : Out of Cell 2 were Caught/Killed

So now Comrade Nips must roll 2d6 vs. 2d6 to avoid getting identified as the mastermind

and then 1d6 vs 4d6 to avoid getting identified

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To explain what all that means I'll lay out my thought process during it.

I remember seeing a diagram of the structure of a covert cell. There's always a commander or handler who is in charge of two autonomous cells that don't know each other.

And to keep my idea from offending anybody, for this example I thought to make it about kitten terrorists among the kitten population of a dog controlled society.

First comes the character generation. This consists of bassically deciding who does what of the 3 tasks. Since each cell has 4 members there's going to be one task that has two people that do it.

The cell gets 1d6 for each person they have on a certain task. So each cell is especially good at one certain thing.

Then the handler (in this case Comrade Nips) goes to each cell and introduces their mission objective, which in this case is an attack on the Kibble Towers, a symbol of canine superiority.

Essentially not only do the die being rolled by each cell add on (2d6 in planning, one die rolled 3, another rolled 2, add it up to 5) but the two cells efforts are added together. This is done for all three tasks. This decides the fate of the attack. The task with the highest total works perfectly, the task with the middle number works ok, and the task with the lowest number of the three, even if it's a relatively high number, goes terribly.

And the idea is that the members of each cell involved in the task that went great are tracked down later by the vengeful dog nation and the members that failed horribly obviously got caught or killed in their bumbling.

And while the knowledge of the handler isn't shared between the two cells, if enough members of a single cell are captured than it represents a risk of the identity of the handler coming out interrogation, which is where those two final rolls come in. If he fails either of those two rolls, rolling himself a number of die for the members of the cell in question that didn't get caught/killed, than he's identified and later tracked down and caught/killed.

So bassically after this mechanical process occurs, then the game is played out. They Handler, played by the GM activates Cell 1 and they play through the Planning, Video, and Bomb stages of the Attack. In this case the Video screws up and it's really their fault and Little Bit gets caught/killed during that stage because of it.

However when then the scenario is replayed as cell 2, since they werent really responsible for the Video failing they get to play out losing Molly due to outside circumstances that the GM gets to bring on because of the other cell's incompetance.

And at the end the stories of who gets caught and who get away (ultimately the people involved in the most average of the three stages) are told.

So bassically this is my idea for how to tell a story about a terrorism attack from the perspective of the terrorists.

My question is does the sharing of succes and failure but the division of the risk to the handler accurately reflect on some level both the heirarchical structure of terrorism and the disposability of the cell members in the minds of the people directing the attack; and also would playing out one's already mechanically determiend successes and failures as a story be as fun as I think it would be?

Like I think this could be a fun sort of mini-game where you get to tell a complete story but have a randomized predetermined structure to that story that you did have input in, via character generation of a sorts as of how you defined each cell's roles.

I think there are some good ideas in that concept.

I'd be interested in seeing it twisted to a fantasy setting with secretive societies who are each trying to subvert an "all-powerful" empire.

I get a kind of "Reservoir Dogs" vibe from it, because no matter how well the dice roll, something is going to fail miserably. Then the game becomes a story about dealing with the fallout from things going wrong.

It would also be interesting to have a few terrorist cells with opposing agendas. Let's say there are 5 players including the GM, each player could control a handler and two cells. At the beginning of the game each player sets a goal for their two cells, but the twist is that the goals are shuffled and handed to other players. Player's don't know whose goals they are working on, they simply know that their cell gains experience and extra resources from completing the mission. As a handler, the player gains prestige or status from assigning missions that get completed.

Players will be stuck with the dilemma of wanting their cell to succeed, to gain experience. But not wanting the other handlers to succeed and gain extra status. I like the simple system you've used for the core mechanic, as it allows player politics to potentially play a much larger role in the game (rather than focusing on the number crunching).

There are some inspiring ideas here.

I hope you don't mind if I play with them a bit more.

V

If you play around with it I think you should jsut keep that all the terror cells do present a risk, but a seperate risk as their kept isolated from another, to the Handler. In that sense if things go bad for the PC's, they also get to storytell a bad thing happening to the GM's sort of NPC.

So just remember that for every cell caught by the same handler, each cell represents a threat in the form of it's ratio of caught to uncaught members to the Handler at the end.

Handlers with fewer cells have less risk but also I guess less spectacular successes, because if you pit cells against each other then probably whowever had the highest numbers will matter, even though everyone has a failure, success, and great success result.

The other important thing to me is that the people who really screw up and the people who had part with the highest profile part of the mission end up caught or killed. If your too successfull there's no way the nation you attacked will let you go uncaught. It's really the middle of the road guys that survive to go on to other attacks.

And I don't think terror cells should fight each other. Instead it would almost be a "pro wrestling rpg" style competing for attention rather than trying to harm each other. It's about who causes the most terror, and thusly unless you introduce some Terror Points, who has the most successfull attack. I suppose on that level maybe each stage the total of the previous stage should add on. That is your plan affects the success of everything, and so on.

Everyone has a failure, success, and great success; but the cell that had the overall most effective attack gets more media attention, which is the goal in terrorism- to strike terror.

So bassically at the end maybe the Attack totals of each Handler's group of cells would be weighed against each other and the results on the news storied out accordingly.

And yes, my point was almost to have it to evoke either hilarious incompetance or cool failure, which gets into the Resevoir Dogs style situation you mentioned.

Coyote247 wrote:
And I don't think terror cells should fight each other. Instead it would almost be a "pro wrestling rpg" style competing for attention rather than trying to harm each other. It's about who causes the most terror, and thusly unless you introduce some Terror Points, who has the most successfull attack. I suppose on that level maybe each stage the total of the previous stage should add on. That is your plan affects the success of everything, and so on.

Everyone has a failure, success, and great success; but the cell that had the overall most effective attack gets more media attention, which is the goal in terrorism- to strike terror.

Handler: Joe White
Cell 1
-Mr.White: Experienced/Sentimental
-Mr.Blonde: Cool/Psycho
-Mr.Orange: Hotshot/Mole
-Mr.Pink: Smart/Paranoid

The Plan: Mr.White and Mr.Pink
The Prep: Mr.Orange
The Job: Mr.Blonde

2d6= 9 Plan (9)
1d6= 2 Prep (11)
1d6= 1 Job (12)

The Failure: Job
The Success: Prep
The Great Success: Plan

Made During: Mr.Blonde
Made After: Mr.White and Mr.Pink
Got Away: Mr.Orange

Handerl Risk: 1d6 must beat 3d6 to not be identified

Handler: The Fixer
Cell 2
-Thief A: Connected/Cowardly
-Thief B: Scary/Warrants
-Thief C: Badass Mofo/Philosophical
-Thief D: Vicious/Junkie

The Plan: Thief A
The Prep:Thief C
The Job: Thief B and Thief D

1d6= 5 (5)
1d6= 5 (10)
2d6= 7 (17)

The Failure: The Plan
The Success: The Prep
The Great Success: The Job

Made During: Thief A
Made After: Thief B and Thief D
Got Away: Thief C

Handler Risk: 1d6 must beat 3d6 to not be identified

Notoriety Rankings:
Cell 2 (17)
Cell 1 (12)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell 1's Tell-All
Everything Was Going Fine: Prep (Mr.Orange the Hotshot)
We Thought We Had It: Plan (Experienced Mr.White and Smart Mr.Pink)
We Really Fucked Up: Job (Mr.Blonde the Psycho)
Mr.Orange : Got Away
The Handler: Joe White got...

Cell 2's Tell-All
Everything Was Going Fine: The Prep
We Thought We Had It: The Job
We Really Fucked Up: The Plan
Thief C : Got Away
The Handler: The Fixer got...

In the News:
Cell 2 was the big news
Cell 1 was second fiddle

It has it all: good/bad traits of which only the one that applies (good for success bad for failure) are true to guide the telling of that section, disjointed storytelling that goes from everything fine to the screw up, and the ranking of total effectiveness as of who gets the most publicity. Bassically a lot of hooks for how to tell an entertaining story at the end. I imagine you wouldnt neccesarily follow the disjointed format if you were playing it as the terrorist game.

And yes, while it's odd, I think that the competing for publicity even works with thieves. Since ultimately almost everyone ends up getting caught (only the people who were part of the middle success, not the great success or the failure) the real competition between these two groups of caught people thta went after the same score is who gets top billing. Same for those who get away. If you got away from the biggest crime of the century then it's cooler than if the police were concentrating their search on the other guy.