[Spione] Follow-up and musing about the Forge Midwest game
Ron Edwards:
Hello,
I will come clean: this is an unabashed promotion thread.
We played a game of Spione (pronounced "shpee-oh-neh," or "-nuh"; the last syllable isn't "ee" or "ay") during Forge Midwest. It arose in a funny way, because Roland had traveled to the event specifically to play it, and so I set up all the stuff for play on Sunday morning. He took a while to arrive that morning and I was stressed, because I had to drive back to Chicago later that day, and I had the kids, and so on. In the meantime, a ton of people sat down with me and wanted to play, so by the time Roland showed up, we had a great big table. I think I said eight people in the conventions thread, but am not sure: it was Clyde (for the first half), Brendan, Tim, Mark, Len, Roland, and me ... am I missing someone? Tim and Len ran the principals.
I'd like to discuss the details of play in the forum at the Spione website, rather than here. Anyone who was involved, please start that one there, or perhaps I'll get around to it later in the week. Here, this thread's topic is based on these follow-up questions. It's like a user survey, only public.
1. What did it feel like to create, to incorporate (for Tim and Len), to encounter, and to act upon the Trespasses? Please don't reveal whether yours were or were not used, and please don't reveal the contents of any that were not used.
2. In the Spione resolution system, one might not get the chance to act (i) before someone else does something that negates your intended narration and (ii) as the starting speaker for a given "bit' at all, depending on the draw and how people moved the cards. As I perceived it, everyone at the table quickly understood the Flashpoint rules and knew the consequences of moving or not moving cards if they were able. What did you think of the chance that you might not speak as planned, or perhaps not at all?
3. What do you think our story "said," if anything, whether about people, or about politics, or about spy stuff?
4. Which character or characters became protagonized in your mind, and if so, did that get expressed during play, and if so, did anyone else pick up on it and enhance that role for that character?
I'll include my own thoughts on these things as we go, but I wanted the user-survey effect first.
Best, Ron
Clyde L. Rhoer:
Hey Ron,
1. I can't remember feeling out of sorts because of the trespasses, but I see why thats something to want to check on. Speaking as a paranoid guy interested in security you may want to add two steps to protect peoples identities as I've got a fairly good idea whose trespasses were used. I'd make sure everyone writes on the same paper type, and I'd have the folks playing the spies rewrite the trespass in their own handwriting, and then dispose of the originals with the unused trespasses. That's... you know... if you were interested in paranoid guy security. If played at my apartment there would also be a paper shredding.
2. I loved this. It creates tension and requires you to be on your feet. I deliberately left myself last in the layout hoping to be the person who had to tie things up a bit.
3. I was only there for half the time. So I'm not sure I can answer this.
4. This is an interesting question. During this game I realized from playing all these wacky games that I've learned a different form of immersion. So many of the characters were protagonizied, the standouts were the mailman, Oscar, and Len's character, also the unnamed spy. I was a bit disappointed that no one picked up on the unnamed spy, as I was kind of leaving him out there as an "offer" to see what other folks did with him, so I could respond and build off their additions. So I moved to using what other folks were interested in.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Clyde,
I liked the mole too.
One thing I found with that many people playing is that the plot is richer, smoother, and faster than with four people. I now wish I'd set up bigger groups for demonstration purposes in previous promotional events. On the other hand, it's also easier for certain avenues which would be interesting to remain only hints.
In retrospect, it's kind of cool that that particular HVA mole in the BND just didn't ... ever ... get identified by anyone, or exposed, or caught. All our story briefly brushed him, long enough to see a bit of him, and that was it. He's still there.
If you had been able to stay for the second half of the game, that might have turned out differently, but speaking as someone who had actually planned on picking up that thread you started, and got sidetracked by compelling other stuff, I think it actually turned out quite well as the spooky, hey he was never caught, implication.
Best, Ron
Clyde L. Rhoer:
Hey Ron,
Totally. I think if I had stayed I would have used him more without ever identifying him. That just seems really cool for spy fiction, where you're like who the heck is this guy. I think when Len pushed his lover off the bridge the focus really shifted to more of investigating the trespasses and less on the spy genre. Is that how the game proceeded, as that was the point I stepped out to interview Mike Holmes?
Ron Edwards:
Hi Clyde,
Both elements - the personal/emotional and the operational/agency - ramped up in a remarkably synchronized way. Probably the turning point for me was revealing Hovsep's Trespass, which the player (Tim) tied directly into the operation. The guy had actually screwed over his own spymaster, and we'd already established that his handler was a pretty all right guy - so with Hovsep dead, the handler effectively became a protagonist who was standing up to the spy web he and his buddy had been trapped in. So how the operation went, and how the personal interactions went, affected one another quite thoroughly in Hovsep's case and we were all interested in developing both. I felt quite sympathetic toward the handler and did quite a lot to play the shake-up in the spy web that Hovsep's actions caused.
Whereas with the other principal, whose story was far more focused on his aberrant sex life, the tie-in to operations developed differently, largely through a series of different agencies' interpretations of his spying. So those interpretations also cast different lights on judging him as a person - I mean, he was a prick, killing his pal like that, but was he a traitor? That did get answered, and mostly through opportunities via the cards. I know that I always pushed viciously against Harry, putting him in very ugly situations, because I did not like him at all - but that was only one influence on who he was, as his player ended up heroizing him to a strong extent. The result was a degree of political and personal ambiguity that I am certain I, at least, could not have produced by myself.
Best, Ron
edited to delete double signature - RE
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page