hi there. another newbie to the forum here.

I had started to make a spy game similar to wushu for my friends to play, after having some success with Once Upon a Time. But, life gets in the way sometimes, and I've since moved out of the country. After going through my files, I uncovered some old ideas and thought I might dust 'em off and see what might work. After poking around, I thought I might offer a power 19 (why couldn't you have made it an even 20? Ah, well...)

My game group was more or less Catan/eurogamers or card players, but overall the favorite was Mafia (aka "Werewolf"). So I wanted to build a narrative game that had elements of Mafia (double agents) in it. I was very excited about wushu, because I could envision poker chips being involved and I (and my group, too) like the physicality of elements on the table. But there's way too much dice. Wouldn't it be simpler to use cards-- and after percolating thougths like this, I've come up with the following power 19.

1. What is your game about?

The game is a storytelling game featuring super-spies in action-filled scenes.

2. What do the characters do?

Besides saving the free world, each spy also has a personal agenda he or she must fulfill, and any one of them (or maybe none) may actually be a double agent working for the other side!

3. What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

Players help form the scenes to create maximum tension, play cards to advance through the scene, and win tokens to protect their own health/secrets.

4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

The 'is-he-or-isn't-he' secrets are perfect for espionage, and there's a certain element of strategy and surprise when cards are played/revealed.

5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Character abilities are free-form yet focused, allowing for highly-specialized agents that are the best at what they do.

6. What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

Players can actually add to the tension of the scene by *adding* to the target numbers for the scene. The higher the Tension, the bigger the Payoff, so there's incentive in high-octane action. But this also allows double agents to be sneaky in acting out their secret, because are they adding to the tension to prolong the fight or to get a payoff? dun dun dun...

7. How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

How is this different than the previous question?

8. How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

I'm trying to make it GM-less, which is good and bad. It might foster too MUCH paranoia if there is no GM, but it might give too much away if the double agents and the GM work together.

9. What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

A trick-taking resolution means the control of the scene can be in the player's hands and then change at the flip of a card. Again, players set the scene, adding to the tension to get the biggest payoff, which can be done throughout a round.

10. What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

A Scene Card flipped-- this is the opening card for the trick. Players add a card from their hand face-up, next to an ability, and narrate that ability in the story. The highest card in suit wins the trick/controls the scene-- even if it's the Scene itself. To trump the trick, spend a trump token, and place another card in an untapped ability. High card in suit = control of scene. The player can add to the "resolution", add to any "defense/health", or even add tokens to the "tension" (remember, the higher the tension, the higher the payoff at the end!)

The Payoff at the end of the scene equals the tension the players just played through. The payoff is distributed and can be used to buy trumps, protect secrets, or to buy abilities.

11. How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

Storytelling-- players match their narration to the cards as they play them. Sometimes it will be lower-- you can narrate the action as showy but ineffective or you can even take the hit. And there's trumps, of course. Which can also add to the strategy-- and/or paranoia.

12. Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

I'm thinking no. The presence of double-agents makes it hard to see this more than a one-shot game.

13. How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

See above.

14. What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

Action, tension, paranoia-- and yet a collaborative storytelling experience

15. What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

I'm not sure what color is. The construction of each scene and each act is crucial, though, because it allows players to play through the character's secrets.

16. Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

The resolution mechanic and scene construction being the same, because it is both strategic (card playing and trumps), narrative, and luck-of-the-draw. Having, the double-agents possibly working against you is also exciting and adds a layer of complexity.

17. Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

A GM-less way of creating action rpgs, even with players working at cross-purposes.

18. What are your publishing goals for your game?

PDF, print on demand.

19. Who is your target audience?

Storytelling gamers.
 

My big question here, aside from the obvious "what do you think," is--  should a GM/moderator be necessary? At the beginning of each scene, the characters do a "missions briefing" style narration and the scene tension is created. Also, players narrate complications, failures, and added tension during the scenes. But with double agents built into the system and resolution, would there be too much cross-purposing going on? does a GM really help with that anyway? For example, I'm using the wushu idea of health-- that it's more about story presence. If a character is reduced to 0, who should determine if he dies?

Heya,

My big question here, aside from the obvious "what do you think," is--  should a GM/moderator be necessary? At the beginning of each scene, the characters do a "missions briefing" style narration and the scene tension is created. Also, players narrate complications, failures, and added tension during the scenes. But with double agents built into the system and resolution, would there be too much cross-purposing going on? does a GM really help with that anyway? For example, I'm using the wushu idea of health-- that it's more about story presence. If a character is reduced to 0, who should determine if he dies?

A typical session, huh? Okay-- here it is. Notice that I sprinkle a lot of questions throughout my description. Everyone should feel free to tackle any or all of 'em. I think I got a great germ of an idea but there's a lot to flesh out here.

First, players choose characters, but my intention here is to describe the whole play and resolution mechanics. Suffice to say that there are just a few, free-form skills at low numbers. Meaning that they are catch-all traits-- 5 (world-class), 4 (great), 3 (average),  2 (weak area) and 1 (distraction).

Next the group decides on a Mission. (Question: Does a GM introduce it, do they use a table/generator, or does one character offer an idea? Not sure yet, but I would like to make it a GM-less game if possible, and the game lends itself to done-in-one sessions.) After the group Mission is decided, players take a card to obtain a secret mission, which is something the character will have to do privately during the game. If the secret mission reveals that he/she is a double agent, the secret mission might be to derail or otherwise work against the main mission.

Example: The mission is to recover an agent who has gone missing. The double agents might need to keep the agent hidden or prevent the agent from being recovered.

Next up is to describe the first scene, creating the "Tension" that the players need to overcome to advance to the ultimate goal/plot. Again, does a GM introduce it or does a character offer an idea? Either way, the basic Tension might be, say, 10, and every detail a character adds will be a random card that adds to the Tension. This takes the form of a "Missions Briefing." When everyone has added a detail (question-- how many details would be too little/too much?) then the scene can play out.

Example: The Mission Briefing begins with the offer-- the agent was last seen in an outdoor market in Morocco. The Tension = 10 but the players add other offers like this is a known hotbed of enemy territory, we have to pose as coffee salesmen, it's a public holiday so there's more people than usual, etc. The final tension becomes 30. (How high is too high? Would flipping cards yeild too high of numbers?)

Players then begin the storytelling, describing their abilities and playing a card. High card wins "control", but players may purchase/narrate trumps and so play an additional card from their hand to win control. Whoever has control can place tokens equal to the ability that was tapped in card play. He can add to a Resolution pool and/or add to his or another's Cover (a Health mechanic).

Example: Player A and B team up, using social skills to interrogate a shopowner (7 clubs and 10 clubs). Player C uses a high tech scanner to pick up tracer signals (K clubs). Player D tries to bribe local officials (3 clubs). Player C has the high card showing, but Player D plays a trump token to add another card (Q diamonds) about the official's reaction, but it's ultimately Player B who plays a trump on top of that, with more details of his interrogation (Ace diamonds).  Since Player B used his Expert ability, he adds 5 tokens to the Resolution.

A "burn card" is also played from the deck during the round, and could be the high card. If it is, it works against the players and *adds* to the tension or *removes* their Cover.
(Question: Should a GM be the one playing the burn card? Can players take turns narrating the burn card--in which the player determines if it adds tension or removes cover? Could the a player instead of using HIS abilities, play on a communal character called "Scene" with attributes like Setting, Villains, Henchmen, etc.)

Once the "Resolution" pool = Tension, the scene can be resolved in the player's favor. Otherwise, if one character's cover is reduced to 0, the scene can be resolved  against the players.

So to answer your quesiton, here is some of the most fun-- the play gets interesting as players will be watching each other for storytelling clues AND how tokens are played-- is their a double agent working against them?

Also with the scene resolution, Tension is divided among the players as a reward. The tokens can be added to their Cover/Health to buff their presence in later scenes, but will most likely be used to as trump tokens to add trumps during play. Perhaps it could also be added to a grand design, meaning the final scene can only be played once a certain amount of Grand Design is achieved? (In other words, what's to prevent players from resolving a Mission with just one scene? Or maybe it should be? But then that's TOO quick of a game and I'd like multiple locations like any good spy story.)

This next part is a really fun part of the game, and one of my reasons for wanting to write it-- it's putting that party game Mafia into a role playing world. If a player's Cover is reduced to 0, not only does that scene end, but before the next scene begins, players have the opportunity to vote on the zeroed player, whether or not he is a double agent. Votes are public, and if majority wins, that player is narrated out of the game-- not necessary killed, but the character is no longer playable. Removed Players *can* still play the game-- adding story by taking control of the burn card, for example. (Questions: Does this give them too much of a GM role? Also, I don't want players who get voted out and are NOT the double agent to feel that they now have to work against the others, necessarily. Also, should the removed player reveal his secret mission? Perhaps players don't know if they've actually removed the double agent until the overall mission gets resolved?) 

Players win if the overall mission idea gets resolved, however many "scenes" become necessary. Double agents win by remaining anonymous and helping to remove the other characters (making sure their Cover is reduced to 0) before if the mission idea gets unresolved.

Whew. I didn't mean to take this long, but as I started to think about the idea, I just kept typing and typing!

Heya,

Tackling one thing at a time:

(Question: Does a GM introduce it, do they use a table/generator, or does one character offer an idea? Not sure yet, but I would like to make it a GM-less game if possible, and the game lends itself to done-in-one sessions.)

Thanks, Troy, for your feedback. I appreciate it! Anyway, the more it's percolating, I want to keep pushing it towards GM-less. So that means keeping it more like question number 2.

Here's a couple of ideas.

1) Part of the set-up includes a big Story-Map or "adventure sheet."  One card is placed face down into each "Scene"-- usually four, but could be 3 or 5 depending on how quick or drawn out the players choose to play. These are separate cards, a mixture of people, places, things, objectives, etc. (think: Clue, or Once Upon a Time.) Each Scene of play  begins with a "missions briefing," and the Scene card is flipped over to begin the Briefing. That's the rounds of detail-building that I've mentioned before, with each player adding a detail in order to build Tension. Example: Scene 1's card is flipped, and it reads "Lost." (I just pulled out a card from Once Upon a Time.) So, the first player offers-- "The government has lost a nuclear missile, and we're going to find it." The next player adds "It's actually a nuke recovered from Iran, but no one is supposed to know about that." The next player adds, "It was on a ship last seen somewhere in the Indian Ocean, near Phutamkesh."

So the players detail their character's actions in Phutamkesh. (Don't worry. It's not a real place. I just made it up.) If the scene is resolved in the player's favor, then they can narrate having found information about the nuclear missile, if not the missile itself. So the next scene card can be flipped. Uh-oh. I just used the Once Upon a Time card again, looking for an example. This one read "An Object Breaks"... Dun, dun, dun!!   

2) Instead of a simple set-up, the players engage in a more elaborate "pre-game" to work through a kind of adventure generation process together. Many story games already do this, like Wushu and PTA. It could even use the same cards as above, but players have to work them together ahead of time, so the cards "Parent", "Boat," "Book," and "Two People Fall in Love" cards I just pulled could be combined into the endgame of "Character A's spy-mommy fell in love with an enemy agent and stole the plans for the nation's most sophisticated naval vessel since the creation of the submarine." Part of this process would be to also come up with a who-what-where for the first scene. From there, the Mission Briefing structure falls into place again.  This one, while it lacks the simplicity of the first, would work better, potentially, with the idea of double agents, as the double agents can influence the endgames/scenes according to his hidden agenda, or at the very least be able to anticipate ways to fulfill their secret mission.

And... each of these ideas don't preclude the other--  the second one could be a sidebar for optional play, for example. And in either case, I would have pre-generated adventures that list various scene objectives in one-sentence pitches, perhaps even an option for GM-"ish" games to include recurring characters, nefarious organizations, and the like. You know, enough of a broad Endgame with related Scenes, but general enough to allow players to add their own Tension.

Danny

Heya,

And... each of these ideas don't preclude the other--

2. What do the characters do?

Besides saving the free world, each spy also has a personal agenda he or she must fulfill, and any one of them (or maybe none) may actually be a double agent working for the other side!

Thanks again Troy for your questions. I'm a little jealous that other people keep getting comments. I wonder if it's because my game is so brilliant that no one can add anything, or if it's so terrible that no one WANTS to say anything.

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Well... I always prefer one specific and descrete way to take care of something during play, BUT that's just a personal preference. So, definately test one and both in play.  You're a beter judge than I am from here :)  On to your Power 19.

Are the goals of "saving the free world" and "satisfying my own personal agenda" ever in conflict with each other?  Must a spy choose between one or the other?  Or does one serve as the back drop for the other? Why?

Thanks again Troy for your questions. I'm a little jealous that other people keep getting comments. I wonder if it's because my game is so brilliant that no one can add anything, or if it's so terrible that no one WANTS to say anything.

Troy_Costisick wrote:

Thanks again Troy for your questions. I'm a little jealous that other people keep getting comments. I wonder if it's because my game is so brilliant that no one can add anything, or if it's so terrible that no one WANTS to say anything.

Eh, I wouldn't worry about it.  There are a million reasons why someone might not comment on a game in this forum, and few of them have to do with how interesting a game might be. 

Hopefully the structure is engaging, the people you play with are fun, and the mechanics will lend to some interesting action moments along with a suspenceful suspicion of other players.

4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

The 'is-he-or-isn't-he' secrets are perfect for espionage, and there's a certain element of strategy and surprise when cards are played/revealed.

5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Character abilities are free-form yet focused, allowing for highly-specialized agents that are the best at what they do.

Hey Danny, not sure if you're still checking this thread or not, but I think your game idea is excellent. I'm a big fan of Mafia too, and I've toyed with bringing its double-agent element into the RPG realm. A couple of specific responses:

Re: 6) and 10) I think your mechanic is great. How many abilities/suits do you see here? How much of a learning curve do you want the game to have? Can you make the abilities deep without making them complex? Again, great stuff. I could see it going toward either end of the spectrum (heavy or light rules) and still being successful. This relates somewhat to my second comment.

Re: 12) What if players actually represented an agency, and the agency could advance? Then double-agents wouldn't prevent advancement because they could be discarded after exposure while the player simply introduces another character from his organization. With advancement, you could have some added complexity to the rules, since perpetual games tend to support heavier rules sets better than one-shot games do.

Hey there. Yeah, I'm still hanging around. Altho apparently I forgot to reply to Troy's last post. Oops!

Glad you hear you like it, and thanks for the comments!

Abilities: I was thinking of just 5 thru 1, labeled World-Class (5), Above-Average (4), Typical (3), Weak Area (2), Distraction (1). Each of these would be defined with a free-form description, like:
(5) World-Class: Demolitions
(4) Above-Average: Punch 'Em in the Face
(2) Weak Area: Can't Shift Gears Quickly
(1) Distraction: Family Comes First
Typical (3) is the default.

Keeps it simple but strategic. That said, I love chargen and this is pretty simple. So I'm torn between keeping it like this and having the ability to have multiple traits-- like having more than one 5, more than one 4, etc. If I do, then there wouldn't be free-form descriptions, and instead any freeform description can give an additional X-level ability.

Thus, if I have this:
(5) World-Class: Spycraft
(4) Above-Average: Mental
(2) Weak Area: Physical
(1) Distraction: Social
plus:
(5) Disguise
(4) Pick Up on Subtleties
(2) Punch 'Em in the Face
(1) Sucker for the Ladies

Then I can tap both my Spycraft and my Disquise in the same round.

But this complicates things, and I'd rather focus on different aspects of the game. After platesting, if it works, this might make a good 2nd Edition/Expansion!

Re: 12)
I love this idea-- that players are an agency, and their characters could be double-agents or not. Thank you! This also gives another alternative to players if a double agent is revealed-- that character can be retired immediately and a new one put in. (Altho that character could potentially be a double agent, too...) I'll have to percolate this idea for a while, but you've definitely given me somethign to think about, and perhaps a potential solution.  Great!

danielsan wrote:

Hey there. Yeah, I'm still hanging around. Altho apparently I forgot to reply to Troy's last post. Oops!

Glad you hear you like it, and thanks for the comments!

Abilities: I was thinking of just 5 thru 1, labeled World-Class (5), Above-Average (4), Typical (3), Weak Area (2), Distraction (1). Each of these would be defined with a free-form description, like:
(5) World-Class: Demolitions
(4) Above-Average: Punch 'Em in the Face
(2) Weak Area: Can't Shift Gears Quickly
(1) Distraction: Family Comes First
Typical (3) is the default.

Keeps it simple but strategic. That said, I love chargen and this is pretty simple. So I'm torn between keeping it like this and...

[snip]

Re: 12)
I love this idea-- that players are an agency, and their characters could be double-agents or not. Thank you! This also gives another alternative to players if a double agent is revealed-- that character can be retired immediately and a new one put in. (Altho that character could potentially be a double agent, too...) I'll have to percolate this idea for a while, but you've definitely given me somethign to think about, and perhaps a potential solution.  Great!