Inspirations for Spycraft

[Psion]

Okay, Pat said it was on us to record anything we wanted to keep.

Should we just repost the stuff in threads here, then?

Here's one I saved. A thread by Buzz contemplating Spycraft 2.0's origins.

So, without further ado...

[Psion]

Buzz Started the Thread with...

I was just curious whether the design of SC2.0 was influenced at all by the thinking going on over at The Forge. I ask because there are aspects of SC2.0 that seem to exemplify some of the design attitudes I see there.

Yes, I consider this a good thing.


(I would also ask that people please not use this thread as an opportunity to bash The Forge or Big Model/GNS theory.)

[Psion]

Psion posted:

(I would also ask that people please not use this thread as an opportunity to bash The Forge or Big Model/GNS theory.)

Awww...

I'll be interested to hear what the designers have to say on this score.

There are some sharp people that post at the forge, and when sharp people post, you tend to see good ideas. Heck, my D&D game is influenced by the Forge (I dug into Bankuei's posts on flags and conflict webs, and that grew out of forge discussions.)
 
That said, I think that the conceit that some forgeites put forth (unfortunately generally the big names like Clinton) that if there is a good innovation in gaming it came from the forge to be a bit unrealistic. I put that in the same box as I put the conceits of many Vampire players in the 90s that basically claimed there was no roleplaying before Vampire. Ironic that Vampire players were the target of much forge vitriol of late...

[Psion]

Buzz Posted:

That said, I think that the conceit that some forgeites put forth (unfortunately generally the big names like Clinton) that the if there is a good innovation in gaming it came from the forge to be a bit unrealistic.

I've heard this brought up before, and I honestly don't know if it's true or gamer legend. I can't think of anything I've read on The Forge or amongst the blog diaspora that made this claim. Not to mention, Forgeites tend to give mad props to people like Jared Sorenson and Mike Mearls, and they're not part of their clique. But, I haven't read every single post to definitively refute you.

Ergo, why I asked we avoid commentary on The Forge itself. You pick any online community, and you have the good eggs and the bad eggs.

I'm just saying that I see some "good egg" Forge thinking in SC2.0, and am curious whether it was spontaneous invention or not.

[Psion]

Psion posted:

Er... quoting and replying not quite working right.

Anyway, I would not have named Clinton if I didn't know he said it. He said it on RPGnet. (Edit: I could point you at it if you are interested.) That Clinton and Ron are two influential figures at the forge and say boastful and inlfamatory things has a lot to do with the forge's image problems, I think.

But, as you say, let's not get bogged down in forge bashing. What characteristics do you think are "forgish", if you will?

[Psion]

Buzz posted

But, as you say, let's not get bogged down in forge bashing. What characteristics do you think are "forgish", if you will?

The main thing is that, iirc, nowhere in the rulebook is there a, "The GC should ignore any rules that get in the way of a fun game, and should fudge results beind the screen if a die roll produces a result that woudl be un-fun." On the contrary, SC2.0 codifies the "fudging" process with Action Dice and Dramatic Scenes.

The other is that SC2.0 systematizes what skill checks are made in the open and which are made in secret. Other d20 RPGs (as well as other systems) generally leave this in the "GM whimsy" netherworld, which is essentially the "GM is allowed to fudge at will" thing again.

Hmm... I would probably also say the concrete mission design guidelines and Campiagn Qualities feel Forge-y to me. I.e., the point-of-play of SC2.0 is made very clear. Oh, heck, and Dramatic Conflict, too!

SC2.0 is just very much the opposite of the typical mainstream RPG model, i.e., "Here's a die mechanic and some setting/genre info; how you're actually supposed to make it work is for you to figure out, and be ready to toss out some of the rules in the process." SC2.0 is actually designed to produce results as-written. There's no fudging or force necesasry. All the numbers and rules matter.

I'm still uncertain as to whether I can identify if there's a single Creative Agenda being facilitated, as I have yet to play the game (I can't wat for the Farthest Star event at GenCon!). I want to say that it's Gamism supported by a heavy dose of Simulationism; the players' rules-fu and character builds pit against the GC's rules-fu and mission setup, all thoroughly marinated in genre conventions.

Heck, did any of that make sense?

[Psion]

Psion posted:

Some of it. [Smile]

Again, I'd be interested to hear what Scott, Alex, & Co have to say. I see some design elements you discuss here that have existed in other mainstream games in one form or another, and in some cases, introspection seems as likely a candidate as any. As an example, I've seen clearly codified "who rolls" rules as part of the MegaTraveller rules in the 80s, and seems just as likely to be a frequent headscratcher that a rules tinkerer might want to codify.

In fact, I think that many of the design decisions of SC 2.0 seem to be informed by the decision to "not need to fudge." The source of such a decision could be as informative as any, and I've seen such a sentiment expressed in other mediums.

Similarly, there have been other discussion forums similar to (and in many cases, predating) the forge. I've had various levels of participation in rgfa and RPGcreate, two good old forums that have many published authors (and for that matter, forgite pundits) numbered among their current and former members.

I should hasten to clarify, I'm not trying to pick on the forge here, but it sounds as if you had not considered many of these techniques outside of the forge.

I'm still uncertain as to whether I can identify if there's a single Creative Agenda being facilitated(...)I want to say that it's Gamism supported by a heavy dose of Simulationism

I think that's as close as you'll get. I think though the threefold model is something to get you thinking about what your priorities are, I think it's a mistake to assume that any aspect of a game is best or properly modeled by a single model, or that the three "isms" are mutually exclusive and engendering two at once necessarily dulls the impact of the game. I think you can examine specific rules or sets of rules to decide whether such conflicts exist or are harmful.

[Psion]

Buzz posted:

I should hasten to clarify, I'm not trying to pick on the forge here, but it sounds as if you had not considered many of these techniques outside of the forge.

Admittedly, most of the coherent expression of these ideas that I've encountered has been at the Forge. Given that the Forge is the "it" place for this stuff right now, it's the source I was focusing upon. I spent a bit of time on r.g.f.a back in the day, and I've read about the Threeforld Model. Still, it's the Forge's take on all this that finally gelled in my fevered gamer brain.

I think that's as close as you'll get. I think though the threefold model is something to get you thinking about what your priorities are, I think it's a mistake to assume that any aspect of a game is best or properly modeled by a single model, or that the three "isms" are mutually exclusive and engendering two at once necessarily dulls the impact of the game. I think you can examine specific rules or sets of rules to decide whether such conflicts exist or are harmful.

My point was simply that, would I have been able to clearly identify a single CA being overtly supported, it would have pointed (IMO) to the Forge being an influence.

I guess it's mainly SC2.0's appearing when it did that makes me curious about a possible Forge influence. I mean, you think it's going to be another d20 RPG, and then there's all this social contract stuff all over the place... and a genuinely useful GC chapter!

Honestly, it's these aspects (and what I mention above) that really sold me on SC2.0 as a replacement for d20M. Whether the Forge was the source of this goodness or not, I'd really like it if more d20 publishers followed SC2.0's lead.

[Psion]

Buzz posted:

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing about any of the sources that were a design influence on SC2.0. Was it discussion on r.g.f.a? Or just play experience? Other RPGs in particular?

[Psion]

Crafty_Alex posted:

Quite frankly, I never even visited The Forge until I heard it blew up (after 2.0 was written). I believe Pat and Scott were also relatively disconnnected from that site - it certainly never came up in our discussions. The whole process was very organic, and in a sense, hermetically sealed [Wink] Sure, we got to hear a lot of player feedback and read what (little) had been posted to the web about the game, but most of it was just us getting down to bringing stuff we like about games to the table and figuring out how to make it plain better.

I think the biggest advantage we had going into the 2.0 design phase was a very deep understanding of the system - basically, all of us worked on nothing else for the 3 years prior to 2.0 - and a fantastic sense of how things worked in the real world thanks to Pat's intensive Living Spycraft experience. Rarely do you see designers who play so much of their own game as Pat has of Spycraft. He's been at every major con, running his game almost the entire time. That injected a vital dose of reality into many of our conversations. To top it off, Scott has been exceptional in keeping his fingers to the pusle of our community and has a keen insight on how things should work and what needed to be made to make them that way. When new and fresh ideas get to meet the place where we see problems, it only makes a better-working game.

Psion was correct when he wrote:

In fact, I think that many of the design decisions of SC 2.0 seem to be informed by the decision to "not need to fudge." The source of such a decision could be as informative as any, and I've seen such a sentiment expressed in other mediums.

A bulk of what's so different about 2.0 design happened in a single weekend at my house - 3 days of literally nonstop brainstorming and dissecting the game page by page. Our only rule - everything must have a purpose and a mechanic which makes it work. The fact that we had LSpy in this sense was a blessing and a curse, because we had to have clear, concise, precise rules in order to keep things in order. As such, we put on our critical glasses and started looking at what was successful and what was not. Stuff like social contract play (seductions, brainwashing, much of the new rules on disposition) all evolved very naturally from systems we saw that worked and could be applied more broadly (chases) and what wasn't working/being torn to pieces (old disposition checks). Skills were 1 day of that 3 day stretch, involving us taking every single skill apart as checks, then recategorizing them in a way that made each useful and sensical. Other which hadn't existed, like Resolve and Streetwise, were brought in later mainly through much persuasion

As for the absence of the "what is roleplaying?" section - that was very definately our decision based off what we knew the book to be. At the end of that first meeting, it was concluded that this was not going to be a game for beginners. We knew the market, we knew our distribution, and we knew our customer base. So why bother?

As for the GC chapter - Pat runs far more than I do, but I run all the time. I have read a dozen GM advice books and most of the time I want to tear my hair out. We needed to make this an honest-to-god resource chapter, and so we set off. I was advised only by my own experience of what I needed as a GC, what many others had done less effectively than I would like, and the fact we needed to make 2.0 a truly multi-genre system. So I spent the bulk of my time on Chapter 7, in the NPC qualities and Campaign Qualities and Genres sections trying to make them GOOD rather than just interesting, while my mates were off making the rest of the book actually work 

As for influences - we all play pretty different games. We've all played a lot of games, too, but (correct me if I'm wrong, guys) Pat's a big CoC fan, Scott has played a good amount of D&D, and I've always leaned toward modern stuff like Deadlands, Cyberpunk, and TMNT. One palpable influence (and distinct love of Pat and Scott's) was TORG. The Drama Deck is visible in the cards for Dramatic Conflicts, and we reworked some of the Drama Deck into Complex Tasks (that was a really fun conversation, actually). Pat and I wanted simpler NPCs, and I took a note on effective NPC simplicty from Savage Worlds and Mutants & Masterminds and Scott's note on 'lensing' challenges to fit all levels really crystalized it for us. Believe it or not, 10kB's first draft was also an influence - the Streetwise skill and the Wealth system being the first that pop into my head.

So that's all I can think of right now. I'm sure once the guys catch wind of this thread they'll have thier own bits to contribute. Hopefully I've been able to keep all my facts straight...

[Psion]

Buzz wrote:

This is great stuff, Alex. That you guys played your own game so much and gave so much thought to each component really shows in the finished product. If only more publishers did this.

"An honest-to-god resource" probably sums up SC2.0 better than anything. [Smile]

[Psion]

Psion posted:

I think it's interesting that you cite LSpy as a formative influence. Theoretizing is all well and good, but I think that the "Living" circuit makes a good medium for informed game design decisions. You often deal with a group of players who haven't played with each other before. As such, it seems you can't "cheat: and rely on group dynamics to overcome lapses in the rules--what's in the book has to work.

One palpable influence (and distinct love of Pat and Scott's) was TORG. The Drama Deck is visible in the cards for Dramatic Conflicts, and we reworked some of the Drama Deck into Complex Tasks (that was a really fun conversation, actually).

Interesting. I like TORG on an aesthetic level. The drama deck thing never occured to me as an influence, as the cards in torg were a bit "bossier" and never really gelled for me because of it. I guess putting the curve balls in the players' hands instead of randomlv introducing them takes it to the next level.

[Psion]

Crafty_Alex wrote:

Interesting. I like TORG on an aesthetic level. The drama deck thing never occured to me as an influence, as the cards in torg were a bit "bossier" and never really gelled for me because of it. I guess putting the curve balls in the players' hands instead of randomlv introducing them takes it to the next level.

If you have a copy of TORG (I can't find one for the life of me...) take a look at the Drama Deck rules then look at our Complex Task rules. Stuff like the spiking error range and incremental nature of Challenges is all based (if loosely) on the play of the Drama Deck. The fact the guys just loved the cards meant we had to have Conflict cards in the last part of the book (Which, in retrospect, was a fantastic idea - I use those things in every game I run now).

[Psion]

Morgenstern wrote:

I think it's interesting that you cite LSpy as a formative influence. Theoretizing is all well and good, but I think that the "Living" circuit makes a good medium for informed game design decisions. You often deal with a group of players who haven't played with each other before. As such, it seems you can't "cheat: and rely on group dynamics to overcome lapses in the rules--what's in the book has to work.

First note: Never been to the Forge, never read one word from there that I know if. I've heard of it, but only in a distant, theoretical way. Is it a site? A mailing list? I gather various designers (pro, prodigal, and presupposed) converse there, and apparently philosphies are expounded upon?

LSpy is an even harsher environment that you describe - not only does the book need to work, it needs to work with as little GC intervention as possible - it's a tournament environment, and the players would generally prefer the GC not get wildly extemporaneous, but deliver a consistent experience for each and every table that plays a particular scenario. 2.0 invokes "with GC approval" very, very rarely these days.

Interesting. I like TORG on an aesthetic level. The drama deck thing never occured to me as an influence, as the cards in torg were a bit "bossier" and never really gelled for me because of it. I guess putting the curve balls in the players' hands instead of randomlv introducing them takes it to the next level.

Well, the hand full of cards aspect wasn't really necessary for us - you give a pile of action dice and they can do anything. But there was other stuff on the cards that we thought added good elements to the game, and we adapted/addopted those concepts to the game.

One thing I don't like to see printed in a rule book is "wing it." If a book doesn't cover something, fine, but I should not be paying for printed pages that tell me to make it up - that's sufficiently implicit in it not being there.

Of the three of us, I'm the theorist. I don't get to play much at all. I do however keep in touch with the forums and the playtesters, so I hear about games a lot. I'm also pretty good at seeing a thing in fiction or real life and disolving it down to a small number of mechanics that work together to produce a play experience like the original concept/idea. Sort of a gaming algorithmic compression. I love when a system produces emergent behavior - lifelike complexity from simple tools.

One of my secret maxims - You can't be better than yourself until there is a rule for it. Evey piece of the world that is mechanically codified is a place where a PC can become larger than life, or at least larger than his player. If I'm a passable poker player, but want my character to be a super-star poker player he can't- untill you have rules for poker in the game. Which can be as simple as "we play real poker, but the character with the highest gambling skill gets 2 extra cards to make his best hand with." The more complete those rules are in addressing the nuances of the thing you want to model, the more hooks they generate for character abilities that bend or break those rules and let a character shine.

And Role-Play, to me, is about having the opportunity to shine at least once in a while .

[Psion]

Morgenstern posted:

*follows link*

Ah. Its a forum!