Hello All,

I had an experience I thought I would share.

So, my weeknight group is playing Spycraft. Now, I consider Spycraft to be a fairly Gamist facilitating game. From the game mechanics it is pretty clear that the purpose of play is to have the players achieve their mission objective while the GM acts as an impartial referee. It's very much the easily recognizable Gamist set up of Players vs. Scenario, GM Refs.

Side Note: If the whole Director Stance does not equal Narrativism discussion ever comes up again, Spycraft is a good game to point to because it contains a lot of (controlled) Director Stance manchanics that are structured clearly for Gamist priorities.

Anyway, I'm GMing this thing and to make my life easier I'm running a prewritten adventure available off the Spycraft Website called Back To Basics. Now when I was reading this scenario I was, very, very impressed by something. In this scenario there is what amounts to several relationship maps and a boat load of personal conflicts between NPCs that have absolutely nothing to do with the mission objectives or the built in combat/action sequences or at least seem to make the action sequences about more than just "do we survive."

What I saw while studying the scenario was ample opportunity for one or more players to shift their focus on the game if they wanted to. If suddenly a player decided they wanted to express their character dealing with blowing their cover to help this NPC keep their job the space was there. It didn't really happen with my group but something DID happen that I found very interesting.

In the scenario the players are sent in to investigate the theft of some rocket fuel at a nearly forgotten reseach installation in Spain. They are given a list of important NPCs who work at the installation: The Chief Officer, The European Union Contact, The Lead Technician, Two Technitions, The Head of Security, and Three Guards. Now here's the relationship map plus the conflicts that threaten it:

Technition A and Technition B are in love and having an affair. The Lead Technition is jealous, hates Technition A and is trying to move in on Technition B. Technition A is the brother of Guard A. The Head of Security is convinced that the theft was an inside job and that Guard A is responsible since it was his key card that was used to access the lab.

That leaves The Chief Officer, The European Union Contact, and Guard B and Guard C outside of this little sub drama. The interesting thing is that Guard B is the inside man on the fuel robbery. He does have one MINOR connection in that he drugged Guard A to steal his access card.

Now here's what happened that I found so interesting: The players got instantly and so completely sucked up into the first group of NPCs that they almost immediately ruled out the second set of NPCs without even talking to them. I know they didn't ever interacted with Guard B or C AT ALL. Now the NPC - PC interaction never went beyond, "extract information to advance the scenario" style play but they kept going around and around and around that first set of NPCs trying to figure out what they missed. Finally, they had to resort to the Spycraft Inspiration Check mechanics to get a hint from me.

I found this highly interesting and goes to show that even when the game isn't focused on Narrativist style ethical and moral choices the relationship map technique is powerful enough to completely derail an adventure designed with different goals.

As an aside I also found it interesting that the adventure awards a 25 XP bonus for "Helping Guard A keep his job."

Hope that was interesting.

Jesse

As an aside I also found it interesting that the adventure awards a 25 XP bonus for "Helping Guard A keep his job."

Being, of course, a player in Jesse's game I can honestly say that helping the gaurd keep his job was done completely in Actor stance.

The gaurd in question was assaulted and drugged by an invisible assailant the night several thousand pounds of rocket fuel was stolen from this facility. Seeking to discover how exactly this happened (we were sent to investigate, after all) I first checked the gaurd's body for puncture wounds thinking possibly he had been hit with a tranquilizer dart. Not finding any, I used a chemical analyizer I picked up during the "gearing up phase" originally for the purposes of tracking the rocket fuel. After sampling a bit of the gaurd's saliva it was discovered that the man had, in fact, been drugged with chloroform. Thus, he was not a willing accomplice in the theft and should (the adventure isn't over yet) keep his job... providing he survives the impending firefight implicated by last Monday's cliffhanger.

Anyway, my point is that Gamist play had nothing whatsoever to do with aiding the gaurd to keep his job and what I did I did completely within Actor stance. We were sent to investigate and that's what I did. The thought of an XP award was the furthest thing from my mind. What the XP award did was reinforce that Spycraft is not just about sweeping in and shooting up places with advanced weaponry. It's also about subtlety, roleplay and attention to NPCs. I expect this will, in fact, trigger the sort of Actor mode the designers hope it will because the mechanics support it and Jesse is a competent enough GM to realize when he's got an opportunity for some good storytelling.

For me, the player (a Gamist, in fact), it didn't set up "Gamist challenge" so much as indicate that good roleplaying and investigation of relationship maps will be supported and awarded (with plot reprocussions, changes in said relationsip map and interesting character development in addition to XP awards).

Even as a Gamist, good roleplaying and well-developed characters are worth more than XP. Discovering the chloroform in the gaurd's spit with a device I picked up for something totally different is what sticks to my ribs, not 25 measly XP.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Jesse says that the adventure got "derailed" by our investigation of the well constructed relationship map. As a player I didn't feel anything getting derailed at all. We had a lot of fun delving in to the rich background provided by the scenerio and when we had enough of that we used the mechanics to move things forward. It was brilliant.

I'd also like to clarify that from my perspective the "extract information to advance the scenario" style of play Jesse talks about was actually just us playing our characters... a bunch of secret agents with a cover story sent to investigate a fuel theft. In my mind I was in Actor stance pretty much the whole time, hopping into Author from time to time to color my character a little but mostly just wrapping myself in the game's Premise (will you figure out who the bad guys are and kick their ass?). So um... yeah. I wasn't playing so much form a "advance the scenerio" place as a "what the hell is going on and how do I figure out who dunnit" kind of place.

There was one scene in which the Faceman of the group (a woman, acutally) did, in fact attempt to insinuate herself into the personal lives of the NPCs but it didn't really get anywhere.

Anyway, Jesse was all:

I found this highly interesting and goes to show that even when the game isn't focused on Narrativist style ethical and moral choices the relationship map technique is powerful enough to completely derail an adventure designed with different goals.

Being, of course, a player in Jesse's game I can honestly say that helping the gaurd keep his job was done completely in Actor stance.

The gaurd in question was assaulted and drugged by an invisible assailant the night several thousand pounds of rocket fuel was stolen from this facility. Seeking to discover how exactly this happened (we were sent to investigate, after all) I first checked the gaurd's body for puncture wounds thinking possibly he had been hit with a tranquilizer dart. Not finding any, I used a chemical analyizer I picked up during the "gearing up phase" originally for the purposes of tracking the rocket fuel. After sampling a bit of the gaurd's saliva it was discovered that the man had, in fact, been drugged with chloroform. Thus, he was not a willing accomplice in the theft and should (the adventure isn't over yet) keep his job... providing he survives the impending firefight implicated by last Monday's cliffhanger.

Anyway, my point is that Gamist play had nothing whatsoever to do with aiding the gaurd to keep his job and what I did I did completely within Actor stance. We were sent to investigate and that's what I did. The thought of an XP award was the furthest thing from my mind. What the XP award did was reinforce that Spycraft is not just about sweeping in and shooting up places with advanced weaponry. It's also about subtlety, roleplay and attention to NPCs. I expect this will, in fact, trigger the sort of Actor mode the designers hope it will because the mechanics support it and Jesse is a competent enough GM to realize when he's got an opportunity for some good storytelling.

For me, the player (a Gamist, in fact), it didn't set up "Gamist challenge" so much as indicate that good roleplaying and investigation of relationship maps will be supported and awarded (with plot reprocussions, changes in said relationsip map and interesting character development in addition to XP awards).

Even as a Gamist, good roleplaying and well-developed characters are worth more than XP. Discovering the chloroform in the gaurd's spit with a device I picked up for something totally different is what sticks to my ribs, not 25 measly XP.

TW,

You're making some odd points. For example, did you know that the 25 EXP bonus was available? I'm assuming not, and that it therefore had no effect at all on the play in question. My point had nothing to do with your session, but the impact of such designs on play in general. That is that amongst player who have been canalized to play a given Gamist game in a Gamist manner, that such Gamist players, knowing that such rewards exist will trat tham in a gamist manner. I'm not theorizing, I've seen it happen in a number of cases.

As for your other claims, you say that you're a Gamist, but that you stayed in Actor mode the whole time, only coming out into Author mode to create color. That sounds very Simulationist to me. Your decisions seem to soley be based on "what would the character do" or "what would such a character do in this sort of game". That's Simulationism. At waht point did you decide to do things just to beat the scenario? That would be Gamist play. You even point out how you weren't interested in the success metric provided by the game, EXP as much as playing the character correctly. To a Gamist EXP are worth more than "good role playing and well-developed characters". That is exactly what Gamism is. (note that the phrase "good roleplaying" is useless in this instance because to a Gamist playing OOC might be considered "good roleplaying" as an example) Gamism is prioritizing success over "well-develloped characters" and stuff like "story".

Jesse's point was not that the Relationship Map did something wrong, just that it provided a direction to play that was counter to that with the otherwise Gamist rules (I'll have to trust him on this, I haven't read them closely) would have provided. Which seems to make sense. He's simply speaking to the strength of that particular design method to produce a particular sort of play. Which you seem to be agreeing with.

You seem to be disagreeing with something, but I'm not sure what.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
You seem to be disagreeing with something, but I'm not sure what.

Just as a quick side note: I've run this adventure and barely anybody noticed the relationship map.

And another thing: the module says, and there's a way for the players to find out, that "Guard A" is a narcoleptic. The moment the players heard that, they immediately wanted to make sure he *didn't* keep his job, for obvious reasons.

TrizzlWizzl wrote: Two things. One was Jesse's use of the word "derailed". I don't really think the scenerio (or the game for that matter) was "derailed".

Two was you saying, regarding the 25 XP: "Supposedly a reward for 'Role-playing', these sorts of things certainly don't produce the sort of Actor mode play that perhaps the designers think it will."

I'm just kinda trying to provide a red lens you can toss up next to Jesse's blue one to get a more three dimensional view of the situation.

Mike Holmes wrote: But all he was saying was that much of the printed material didn't get addressed. The players were taken off the Gamist rails of the rest of the adventure, and routed into the Relationship Map. Not a bad thing, just probably not what the designers intended. Else why put in the other stuff?

I think that you're just a Simmy player, and Jesse is a Narr GM. No surprise that the Gamist portion got lost. So, you are correct in that it was partly Jesse's "fault" that the game went the way it did. If he had presented it in a more Gamist fashion, it may have occured that the play would have been more Gamist (but, who knows; Contrary to Fact, Conditional to Error).

TW,

Thanks for providing input. Actually, I think that "derail" was a bit harsh and in fact almost immediately rethought the use of that word after I put up the post.

Mainly I was observing how those NPCs involved in real everyday human conflict immediately grabed the groups attention while those not, litterally became side characters rather quickly and naturally. In this thread:

Relationship-map Issues

Ron talks about how we're basically biologically hardwired for this kind of thing. The first time I used an explicit relationship map in a game (a Deadlands game I was running) over the course of three or four sessions the number of significant NPCs had been pared down to just the immediate members of one particular family. Again, this happened rather naturally.

I was just commenting on how powerful a tool it is, for ANY style of play since everytime I've encountered a game that used one in any shape or form it immediately grabbed the players attention in some way.

Jesse

TrizzlWizzl wrote: ... I'd like to put forth the idea that Spycraft is far more a genre simulationist system than gamist. Which is maybe why I like it so much... it does a great job facilitating the feel of the spy thriller genre. With it's Budget Point system, Action Die mechanic and obvious encouragement of "non-Gamist" exploration of the setting (I know "exploration of the setting" is like a GNS term or something, but I'm using Webster's definition here, not Edwards), I don't really see how it can be considered "Gamist". One could, of course, approach it with a Gamist mindset and still be content with the rules, but not as much as with say 3E.

No argument there except to say that, from experience, I find Jesse to be far more a genre simulationist than narrativist in a GM capacity. Hoping that Jesse doesn't mind me talking about him and with all respect due, I think Jesse is quite interested in the theory of what "Narrativism" means and implies but in terms of running Spycraft he's running it just the way I think the designers wanted it run, which is in a manner that simulates the genre. Which I think is rad. 'Cause... it's been a kewl game so far.

I don't know where you get the word "fault" from... "fault" indicates a mistake of some kind. So far I haven't seen any mistakes from Jesse's game.

I'm definately gamist in terms of how I like my rules (I like them to cover what I can or can't do and what I can objectivly expect from the setting), but I never really feel a need to "get more stuff", "advance another level" or "beat the DM".

Mike Holmes wrote:
Well, then maybe Jesse's Gamist assessment is incorrect. :-) As I said, I was trusting his analysis there.

How about it Jesse? Might Spycraft be more Sim: exploration of situation (spy missions) than Gamist? In which case EXP for helping people and such is much more likely to produce Actor stance?

With Cthulhu, the system does push quite a bit of Gamism.

The question with Spycraft is, are there Hit Point resources? Or is wounding more realistic? Is there a Sanity or other resources? Things that tend to throw you into Pawn mode as you play? Or does it keep you in "I'm a spy" mode, by emphasizing how things work in a consistent, yet non-"balanced" way?

My guess is that it's going to be somewhere in between. Like most D20 where you have that same incoherence. It sounds like the Situation and setting may be tipping the scales in favor of Sim in this case. And given you and your players then that easily drifts to a solid center there.

Makes sense to me with the description so far.

It's interesting that a lot of D20 games coming out are trying hard to drift the system to Sim. I wonder how well d20 CoC does, and if in fact it's more or less Sim than the original.

Mike

Okay, so what's the difference between Exploration of Situation as opposed to Exploration of Setting?

I was just commenting on how powerful a tool it is, for ANY style of play since everytime I've encountered a game that used one in any shape or form it immediately grabbed the players attention in some way.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The question with Spycraft is, are there Hit Point resources? Or is wounding more realistic? Is there a Sanity or other resources? Things that tend to throw you into Pawn mode as you play? Or does it keep you in "I'm a spy" mode, by emphasizing how things work in a consistent, yet non-"balanced" way?

Here I go with another likely to be wrong snap judgement.

The vitality system that we see in d20 designs is distinctly Simmy. Think about it. In D&D you have this pool of points that just doesn't make any sense in terms of the world. It's not ability to soak up damage, it's your ability to avoid damage due to experience. Yet, when it comes to healing, the time or spellpower it takes to heal is proportional to the points of damage "taken".

The vitality system attempts to fix these problems in Simulationist perception. The Gamist only cares how many he has. In general terms.

Yep, I think Spycraft is definitely headed towards Sim.

Anyone know if d20 Cthulhu uses the vitality system? Note that this would simply put it on par with old Cthulhu, in terms of Simmines. Cthulhu bases your HP on the realistic criteria of Sixe and Strength. Still HP, however. And, all in all, HP are still not particularly Simmy, especially when they still seem to be a ablative trait. Even in Cthulhu, you were pretty safe from that first gunshot taking you down in one blow. This ablative nature leads often to Gamist play. The classic example being the intentional cliff leap to avoid danger.

Mike

jburneko wrote: Spycraft uses the Hit/Wound point system from Star Wars with a few more modifications.
1) Rolling a 20 scores a "threat" like in the core d20 rules.
2) However, you do not reroll to see if you critical. Instead you can choose to spend an Action Die to activate the critical.
3) Critical Hits go straight to wound points.
4) Any NPC designated as a minion type AUTOMATICALLY goes to 0 Wound Points when critically hit, no roll needed.
I think this set of rules already might greatly skew the game away from the "balance" mode towards the "I am a spy in an action movie" mode.

Hyphz,

Well, that doesn't change any of what we've said. When I say that the system is leaning towards Sim, I didn't say that it was doing a good job. I've never been an advocate for the d20 system in any case. The point being that the intent of the Action system seems to be Simulationist (to simulate Action movies, no doubt), but I wouldn't be surprised if it is broken.

That said, Jesse's group's play is either so Sim as to ignore the effects that you note, or they hav just not played nough to notice them yet, and are playing by the intent of the rule still.

But you may be right, that the system ends up playing more Gamist later. For example, the problem that you point out between the "realism" of the Vitality system, and the "cinematic" nature of the Action Points and whatnot is well documented. But it's also an age-old quandry that we can't blame d20 for not solving. Few systems do. That quandry being how do you increase tenson by making the results of actions potentially dangerous, and yet still encourage heroism. TROS does a great job with this. Spycraft, apparently just puts a conflicting set of parameters in front of the players, and expects them to play in genre. Which as you report seems to produce more Gamism than Simulationism.

That said, I'm sure that the designers are not that concerned with what sort of play the game engenders. The apparent incoherency is evidence of that. The only question is whether or not the hybrid is acceptable or not. For Jesse's group, it seems that drift to Sim works just fine. With your play it seems to drift to Gamism. Did your group have fun? If so I think that we can say that the game plays well when drifted slightly.

Has anyone played with a very mixed result? Some Gamism, some Simulationism in near equal quantities?

Mike