[Nerdinburgh '08] Spione
Joe Murphy (Broin):
Spione
Last Saturday evening, five of the Nerdinburgh attendees played Spione. Gregor ran the game, and the players were Jenny, Joe Prince, Gordon and me.
JoeP and I picked out the protagonists, Issam (sp?) (who was in movies) and David (an entrepreneur). We picked our two missions. Both focused on the low key end of espionage - meetings, informants, dead drops. We got a 1950s setting. And Gregor explained the system in detail (there was lots of conversation before we got into play, but it was good).
Gregor opened with Issam's wife sitting opposite in an apartment, and a cold argument. Pornography flickered on a screen behind. As players, we thought the porn might be a misunderstood surveillance tape, or perhaps blackmail material. But the wife just wanted it out of the house. We had an immediate flashpoint - something was going to happen here.
Intertwined with this, we had David entering an airport with his beautiful Italian actress girlfriend. They have a brief argument when he's called away (some espionage business, I assumed). He raises his hand to slap her. A cop approaches. Flashpoint two!
Issam's flashpoint resolved to the wife vanishing. David's resolved to his girlfriend returning to the luggage hall and triggering a luggage bomb. She was killed. So, great start! Whatever you do, don't date a spy.
Over the next three hours, we played through their stories and reached a conclusion (if not a very satisfying one) for both. I had a hard time following JoeP's character's storyline, so I'm not even going to attempt to write it up. Any volunteers, Jenny/Joe/Gordon?
David had an assistant, Eric. Eric turned out to be a honeytrap, and had also slept with David's wife. We saw film of her+Eric in one of Issam's scenes (and that was the only crossover). Overall, David's operation was being rolled up. An informant realised he was due for the chop, and saw David as a bargaining piece. Eric turned out to be working for the Russians, and was sent in to wipe out David and the informant. Both die in a grubby apartment. We had an epilogue with Eric killed many years later (having been a successful spy for decades) killed by the same assassin who took out David and the informant.
There was a lot I liked in Spione, and a lot I found difficult to grasp, employ and play with. I'm very glad I tried it (along with Dirty Secrets a few weeks back). And Gregor did an excellent job running the game. Hands off when he needed to be, pacing when that was required, lots of system explanation.
I thought flashpoints were a superb evolution of weaves and bobs in Sorcerer. They're a great, solid technique I want to use elsewhere - store up the conflicts and resolve them as one. Nifty.
The flashpoint _mechanics_ felt hugely random. Juggling cards around took a long time, for no benefit I could see. My attention wandered while cards moved, stacked, moved again. The system was competitive, and I wasn't sure why it needed to be.
The way the cards fell, I felt fairly powerless. There was nothing I could do, as a player, to nudge the results one way or the other or communicate my investment. In the final scene involving my protagonist, I had just one card.
I scribbled notes of retcons, possible retcons and possible scenes, but didn't get to use many. As David's story played out, I really wanted a scene where he confronted Eric (I was quite attached to the honeypot explanation for some of the events). I felt unsatisfied when we didn't get that.
Following what had gone before, and which of it was fact and which supposition was difficult. We perhaps needed more bookkeeping. I know I swapped a couple of 'wtf?' looks with other players.
In some games, I tend to instinctively scene frames, with no real sense of where they're going. The conflict then evolves as I play off someone and I can tweak the scene this way and that. In Spione, I had to pass on the responsibilty for evolution to the players around me. Maneuvers were short - just a few sentences. So scenes felt more like a game of exquisite corpse than I'd like. Though some of that was likely down to us being a new group.
In order to incorporate material from the missions, and make sense of previous scenes, we retconned a lot of material - this was hard work. I enjoy retconning - it's very seat-of-the-pants exciting - but it's hard work. There were a few 'ah-ha!' moments I liked.
In flashpoints, the protagonist-owners should play towards 'what their characters would want' and the other participants should play obstacles and difficulties. This was difficult, as I wanted to engage with the tragedy of a scene, but felt like I had to hand over that responsibilty to other players. In many games I enjoy, other players provide obstacles to what I want as a *player* - an unwanted happy ending, for example.
We did have a lot of conversation about the game, and about scenes, and about flashpoints. I think one of the other players (Gordon?) felt we needed more. To really get the purpose of scenes out there, then make maneuvers. Instead, we made maneuvers and tried to build them into scenes.
I didn't understand if I could reveal information (suggest connections and motivations) outside of flashpoints, and/or if flashpoints were a narrative rubber-stamp for suggestions.
I found the briefing sheets difficult to assimilate. The details felt stifling rather than suggestive. As they're quite factual, rather than evocative, I found them difficult to use (compared to juicily suggestive Motifs in Covenant).
We had very little dialogue. I didn't know how to get other players involved in scenes (compared to Contenders, say, where I can say 'Gregor, play my dying aunt'). So the power passed around the group, instead of across and among the group. I had less of a connection with the players opposite than the players beside me - which is damned interesting, actually.
I know a couple of the other players felt a bit unsatisfied, so hopefully they'll wade in soon. And I was really pleased when people talked about how unsatisfied they were in a clear, above-board conversation. That was superb.
Cheers,
Joe.
GreatWolf:
Hey, Joe. Thanks for posting this up! I have a couple of random comments that will hopefully be helpful. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I consider myself to be something of a Spione partisan, so I'd like to help your next game be a better thing.
Hmm. If I'm a Spione partisan, does that mean that Ron is my case officer? Disturbing....
Anyways! My random comments.
The first random comment has to do with a potential misconception about how player turns Spione (and, to a lesser degree, Dirty Secrets) function. When it is your "turn", you have the final say. It does not mean that you have the only say. Everyone should be talking during everyone's turns, offering ideas and suggestions and whatnot. Now, if you want to be sure that your idea gets incorporated into the fiction, then do wait for your turn to slip it in. But you shouldn't feel like you need to be silent when it's not your turn. I'll refer to this point later.
Quote
# The flashpoint _mechanics_ felt hugely random. Juggling cards around took a long time, for no benefit I could see. My attention wandered while cards moved, stacked, moved again. The system was competitive, and I wasn't sure why it needed to be.
# The way the cards fell, I felt fairly powerless. There was nothing I could do, as a player, to nudge the results one way or the other or communicate my investment. In the final scene involving my protagonist, I had just one card.
I'm quoting these two things together, because the one explains the other. Yes, there is randomness in which cards appear during Flashpoint. However, the whole point of the card maneuvering is to allow you to "nudge the results one way or the other". This is the whole point of the Helping/Hindering rules. Let's say that the Ace player is bound and determined to make sure that your principal gets hurt. You'd rather not. So, if you can, move one of your cards onto his card. Now, when the Ace player narrates your spy's injury, you can Hinder and reduce the narration to little or nothing.
But, yeah, sometimes the cards just don't go your way. Such is life, you know?
Quote
#In some games, I tend to instinctively scene frames, with no real sense of where they're going. The conflict then evolves as I play off someone and I can tweak the scene this way and that. In Spione, I had to pass on the responsibilty for evolution to the players around me. Maneuvers were short - just a few sentences. So scenes felt more like a game of exquisite corpse than I'd like. Though some of that was likely down to us being a new group.
Actually, the short Maneuvers is how Ron envisions the game being played. (Check out the discussion here and here for more details.) In Spione, the evolution of conflict is supposed to be a shared thing.
Quote
#In flashpoints, the protagonist-owners should play towards 'what their characters would want' and the other participants should play obstacles and difficulties. This was difficult, as I wanted to engage with the tragedy of a scene, but felt like I had to hand over that responsibilty to other players. In many games I enjoy, other players provide obstacles to what I want as a *player* - an unwanted happy ending, for example.
Well, to be somewhat clear, your card narrations need to be in the favor of your principal. So, there's nothing to say that you couldn't use the card maneuvering to set up someone else to drop a negative 2-card narration on you.
Quote
#We did have a lot of conversation about the game, and about scenes, and about flashpoints. I think one of the other players (Gordon?) felt we needed more. To really get the purpose of scenes out there, then make maneuvers. Instead, we made maneuvers and tried to build them into scenes.
I have a question. Did the group understand the concept of the Cold? This is critical to making the game work. When the rules talk about Maneuvers putting a principal "into the Cold", they are serious. Otherwise, you find yourself flailing about, uncertain what should happen next. But this is how to evaluate your Maneuver. Don't worry about the purpose of the "scene"; rather, focus on the purpose of your Maneuver. Does this particular contribution place the principal further into the Cold? If this is working, then you shouldn't have to worry about the scene that is shaping up. It will shape up all by itself.
Quote
#I didn't understand if I could reveal information (suggest connections and motivations) outside of flashpoints, and/or if flashpoints were a narrative rubber-stamp for suggestions.
Yes, you certainly can reveal information and such outside of Flashpoint. In fact, it's required. You can't just say, "Someone is listening in." That's not a valid Maneuver. Instead, you have to say, "The CIA surveillance team is listening in." There are no secrets in narration. Now, Flashpoint can alter what is said in Maneuvers, so these assertions are not final. However, they are necessary to enable your fellow players to have some leverage in the story.
I find it helpful to think of three levels of narration, measured by the amount of cards used to "power" the narration.
0 card narration--used in Maneuvers--means "This is provisionally the case."
1 card narration--used in Flashpoint--means "This is probably the case."
2 card narration--used in Flashpoint--means "This is definitely the case."
However, narration should be considered "binding" until a higher value of narration is used to override it. So, most narration will only be at the 0 card stage. That doesn't make it untrue. Instead, it means that everyone was happy enough with what was said and haven't bothered to override it. 1-card narration puts some weight behind something being said; now you can't just steer away from it in Maneuvers, but you could override it with a 2-card narration. 2-card narrations are final and can't be changed.
Now, let me state this clearly: this is my understanding of the rules. I may be wrong, and we'll see what Ron says about this little layout.
Quote
#We had very little dialogue. I didn't know how to get other players involved in scenes (compared to Contenders, say, where I can say 'Gregor, play my dying aunt'). So the power passed around the group, instead of across and among the group. I had less of a connection with the players opposite than the players beside me - which is damned interesting, actually.
Actually, by my understanding of the rules, you can totally do this. Any dialogue from the other player simply becomes "suggested narration" like I discussed above.
Are these comments helpful? Please poke at my thoughts!
GreatWolf:
Just a little more on Maneuvers.
On anyway, Ron wrote this about Maneuvers:
Quote
Because during Maneuvers, [generating adversity is] *everybody's* job. Anyone at the table can reach over to that sheet, point to the brother, flip over the sheet, and point to some part of the Spy Side (say, the NATO part, and the tradecraft that says "bugs"), to generate a scene.
One person might say "your brother's lounging around your flat all day" and someone else picks it up with "and he finds one of your bugs," and still another person says, "he wants to be a spy too." This might all happen on the first person's turn, or be established through a series of turns, depending on how dialogue goes in that group.
Another, related feature is that since the Ace player begins, he or she *must* frame a scene for a spy he or she does not run. So that automatically creates an asymmetry during the first round ... the person running the spies do not, by default, necessarily get to frame their own scenes.
The group I played with in Berlin last November articulated this point so well, during play, that I transcribed the way they said it directly into the rules, and I think every time I try to say it, it's not as good. So see how I put it in the rules for the best way.
My point is that there's a *lot* less pressure regarding scene content than I think you're seeing or feeling. A lot less than Primetime Adventures or the Shab-al-Hiri Roach, for example. It's kind of the opposite, actually - the material for the scenes really is right there on the sheet, and the group/jigsaw rules for scene-creation during the Maneuvers lets you contribute as little or as much as you see fit, at the moment, without pressure to make it all climactic right that second.
So, again, it's better not to approach Spione trying to construct scenes. Instead, as described in Ron's example, Maneuvers are best used to pile on the badness of a given situation, be that in one "scene" or over the course of several "scenes" within a given round of Maneuvers.
Valamir:
Quote
The way the cards fell, I felt fairly powerless. There was nothing I could do, as a player, to nudge the results one way or the other or communicate my investment. In the final scene involving my protagonist, I had just one card.
YES! Embrace this fully.
When Ron initially explained the system he was going to use for Spione, I was entirely unimpressed. When I saw it in action after getting a handle on what the game is really about...its perfect.
You are spy in the cold. Not James Bond, not secret agent man, not Commando...just average (or in many cases below average) Joe...all of which you probably already know. Now apply that knowledge to the resolution mechanics.
You are playing a very dangerous game with not one but multiple powerful organizations...organizations that may well be insane and half way to incompetance (or all the way for that matter)...but organizations with large bureaucracies and lots of funding none the less. You are a nobody. The only influence you had at all was the information you could bring to your handler...and now...you don't even really have that.
You are a mere cog in the machine. No amount of planning you do will save your ass. No amount of sneaking around will keep you hidden. No amount of going to ground will keep you protected. No amount of running will keep you from getting caught. Ultimately it is very nearly completely random whether you have any influence at all in how a flash point plays out...or maybe...you have the decisive role to play. That is ENTIRELY up to fate. You are completely unable to influence this in any fashion
...welcome to the Cold.
Once I made that connection...that the entirely arbitrary resolution system that I as a player have no ability to manipulate in a meaningful way...puts me as the player in essentially the exact same position as the Principle...I totally fell for it. That resolution mechanic, more than any number of hours of discussion or pages of text in the book, taught me what "being in the cold" is like. It means being utterly and completely at the mercy of fate, powerless to do anything more than try and pray.
Don't fight that...use it. Its powerful stuff.
Joe Murphy (Broin):
Ralph, Seth,
Great stuff so far. I'm not going to dive into responses just yet. I'll be mulling a lot and I'd like to give the other guys a chance to come in with their thoughts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page