[Spione] Pronounced "kah-guh-beh"
Callan S.:
I wasn't thinking broadly enough and dissident fitted in (atleast to my mind, for what it's worth) as soon as it was mentioned, too.
I'm hoping to hear from the other players here, but I'm also interested in what you said here
Quote
Spione is one of those games in which the rules are operating at every moment, rather than being referred to as a subset of (or detour from) otherwise-freeform play.
Assuming I understand what your refering to, this is a fair departure from decades of RPG design. I might call it something like procedure first, where you start with following the written procedure and then, at it's direction or suggestion, produce fiction. This means the rules are operating at every moment because the fiction exists as an extention of following the procedure. Where that subset/detour from otherwise freeform play you mention is what I'd call fiction first, where if the fiction seems to call upon them, some rules are used (as indeed a subset/detour).
I'm not sure there's alot of design, even on the forge, centered on the former idea. Do you think that's the case, Ron, and what do you think about it? (if it's the wrong thread for that question, I'm keen to hear the other players accounts if they come)
Ron Edwards:
We can pursue this, no problem.
My first design along those lines was Trollbabe. The new text (book version) includes design notes about how and why that came about; it resulted from a kind of two-step design process among me and some other authors. Basically, I took the procedures of scene-making that I'd used to make playing Hero Wars and Dust Devils most powerful, and then turned them into Trollbabe rules. Ever since, I've applied the point you articulated very well in your post toward all of my games (It Was a Mutual Decision, for instance), including retroactively, refining my approach to and explanations for playing Sorcerer and Elfs.
Although Spione is included in the above point, it is a stark departure in other ways. I'm not even sure where to start in talking about it. You may not know that the whole thing isn't "a game" in the ordinary sense, but rather a book with its own points and content, which happens to include a game embedded as the sixth chapter.
As far as I can tell, the text does a good job of instructing for the procedure, staying clear about what to do and still managing to explain why (and what to expect) without getting bogged down. I took a kind of board-game approach to that part of it.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Thanks for that, Ron,
I suppose I'm scratching my head because it seems easy enough for fiction to be prompted by procedure, demonstrated in this account as well, but just about everywhere design focus is on fiction/freeform first. But that doesn't appear to be able to go anywhere in terms of design - if the rules can't direct the fiction, new rules designs wont change anything about the fiction produced. In a fiction/freeform first design, any new rules will only be inacted if it seems to fit the fiction - and even if those rules do manage to affect the fiction somehow, they'll be quickly rejected since the priority is on the fiction choosing the rules and not on the rules choosing the fiction. It seems a dead end, in terms of design (not that it can't prompt ideas for procedure first games - it's good at that, I find).
In a community/gamer culture that is strongly focused on fiction first, how have you moved away from that with groups who probably share that focus? How do you work on 'procedure first' rules for a group activity when the group you might expect to play with are likely fiction first? How did you break away? Or is that a vague question?
Simon_Pettersson:
Sorry to bring back this thread to the early posts, but this is just a quick thing: Can I get a definition/explanation on what "protagonist" means in the context of this thread? How do you know whether a character is a protagonist or not and why does it matter? Thanks.
Ron Edwards:
Hello,
Callan, that's a pretty general question which I think can only be addressed through my games, essays, posts, interviews, talks, and similar contributions. I'm not trying to put you off or to tell you "read everything about me and that I've done," so much as saying, you've summarized the point (or question) of my personal work with role-playing over the past 20 years, maybe even from the beginning (31 years). So I guess I'm saying, I can't really sum it up easily. Although if it's not too crass, I think the texts of Sorcerer & Sword, Trollbabe, and Spione would do a pretty good job from the game design-and-play perspective.
Hi Simon,
In this discussion at least, I'm using "protagonist" to mean a character with three features:
i) who deals with situations which themselves raise disturbing and engaging thematic questions
ii) who generates a distinct sort of sympathy or understanding from the real people playing the game
iii) whose responses and decisions have irreversible consequences for themselves and other characters
I'm not sure how well you know Spione, but the system designates two (and always and only two) people to take the main responsibility for playing two principal characters, one each. Through the rules, the principal definitely displays the features (i) and (iii).
Therefore, whether a principal also gains the (ii) feature is open to play, and I stress that this is not a goal of play, simply a possible outcome for that character. Also open to play is whether any other character (in game terms, usually a member of the Network or the Supporting Cast) may acquire the three features. Since such characters are played in a more group-based fashion, this typically happens when (ii) arises first for that character.
Let me know if that answers your question.
As a side note, identifying protagonists in most of the spy fiction I'm inspired by is not easy to discuss. A lot of the stories concentrate on the experiences, thoughts, and decisions of quite despicable people, such that the person you "know" the best through the story is not necessarily a protagonist in terms of the three features I list above. In some notable cases of repeated characters (George Smiley, Bernard Samson), the author clearly varies a lot from story to story. Also, in this body of fiction, characters who do display all three features often come to tragic ends.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page