Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 03:22:30 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Products
| |-+  Spycraft Third Edition
| | |-+  SpyCraft 3.0 and, Y'know, Spy Stuff
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SpyCraft 3.0 and, Y'know, Spy Stuff  (Read 3739 times)
mathey
Agent
***
Posts: 227



View Profile
« on: March 25, 2010, 03:20:51 PM »

I like the spy genre. I like SpyCraft. I liked that 2.0 was a toolkit that ventured outside of the spy genre, but I think I like the idea that 3.0 will be re-focused on spies once more. You're welcome to disagree of course, but that's not what this thread is about. No. This thread is about SpyCraft 3.0 and actual honest-to-god espionage roleplaying in its many and varied forms. What do the spy-lovin' gamers out there want from 3.0 as it relates to this specific type of game?

Personally, I like making spammy lists like this...

The Great Game(s)

The term spy genre is probably a bit like fantasy genre; it conjures popular images, but those don't really express everything that exists under its umbrella. FantasyCraft isn't just for dungeon crawls or high fantasy; it can be used for sword and sorcery, dark fantasy, wuxia, and steampunk just to name a few familiar subgenres. I hope (and fully expect) SpyCraft 3.0 will follow suit, offering us options for many flavors of espionage adventure. There's the familiar big-budget blockbuster gadget-laden style that people still tend to associate with the 20th century Bond films and its imitators, but you've also got the much less gear-focused Bourne films, grim LeCarre spy novels, that awesome Sandbaggers show, Clancy technothrillers, weirder stuff like the old Prisoner TV series, Metal Gear Solid, all those spy genre crossbreeds, and a whole lotta things I've probably never even heard of.

I don't think it needs to be all-inclusive, though; I'd be perfectly happy if they kept the focus to 20th and early 21st century spy hijinx, m'self. There's some cultural, technological, and social assumptions in that period that are think are ideal for the genre.

Given Crafty's ability to make FantasyCraft as flexible-yet-focused as it is, I don't think I have much to worry about here.

Specialists AND Generalists

I always liked how SpyCraft's past iterations emphasized team roles for each class and therefore each PC. I liked that you had a designated guy for driving stuff (Wheelman), another for killin' people (Soldier), and yet another for making everybody gel (Pointman). Its suited to group play, which is the typical tabletop experience, and it provides for dynamics and tactics that encourage the social aspects of gaming. I also liked when 2.0 gave us some ways to specialize and potentially specialize even more if we wanted to. That's all good.

I would, however, like to see better ways to create characters who aren't so focused in one field. I know that it'd be wrong to have one class that is "omnicompetent", some sort of over-powered monstrosity that eclipses everybody else - that'd be no fun for the specialists (See: Scientist). On the other hand, in my experience the class roles can get to be a little too specialized. This is especially true given the Result Caps and penalties for untrained skill checks in 2.0; my players' characters often seemed a little myopic somehow when it came to getting the job done. It wasn't that they weren't James Bond or Jason Bourne experts-at-everything; it was that they were experts-at-one-thing-and-that's-it; anything outside of their class' conceptual niche was a real bitch and not all that flavorful. This would actually become even more extreme at higher levels, when a 10th level PC who doesn't get Athletics (0 Ranks), for one example, is going to be constantly owned in a grapple by most 10th level NPCs.

I know that multiclassing is an option, but there's something that bugs me about it; those strong specializations do weird things when they overlap and compete for space. Also, Cross-Class Skill Ranks=A Pain. I also know the Pointman can pick and choose options from other classes - but that's relatively long after 1st Level and he still ends up being mainly a motivator rather than an actor. And, yeah, there are the campaign qualities that remove or adjust the penalties for untrained skill usage and cross-class skills - but those are the exception rather than the rule.

I think the notion of Origin Skills found in FantasyCraft is a step in the right direction (player picked universal class skills), but I'd like to see some more ways to create a PC who doesn't quite fit the typical class roles but who IS conceptually and mechanically consistent. This PC might be less awesome at driving, shooting, and sneaking than more Specialized characters, but I'd like it if they also aren't relegated to support roles. Do I have suggestions on how to do this? Well; no, not yet. But I think its worth thinking about.

We Can't All Be Armchair Commandos

I know that SpyCraft has a following that really likes guns, vehicles, and military history and tactical stuff. I'm cool with that, honest; soldiering is a great foundation for modern adventure gaming. But - its not the only one. Its not even the preferred one for many players. And I don't think it should be the start point for an espionage game system or how it approaches equipment and combat.

Granted, Intelligence was and still is steeped in warfare. But its a fairly distinct kind of warfare from paramilitary operations, I think, and one with different philosophies, interests, and themes tied to it. I personally feel that the natural reaction for SpyCraft agents to hostiles should maybe look more like James Bond (whatever version) than, say, Rainbow Six. Don't get me wrong; a Rainbow Six game could and should be an awesome campaign to play. But, personally? I don't want my SpyCraft PCs to start raids with kevlar helmets and M4s as their default way of dealing with a Top Secret mission or covert objective.

How this ties to the system is in the details and the presentation.

Armor, for starters, is a bugaboo of mine; you can't make it potent (nigh necessary) and not expect people to take it. At the least, there should be genuine penalties to using it even in a realistic game - AND maybe even incentives for PCs in a more cinematic game to not use it. As its presented in even the revised 2.0 rulebook, though, you'd be a putz not to wear it all the time and with nomex underpants. That doesn't sit well with me, no matter how players rationalize it. If there was a way to make it tactically viable for games doing Rainbow Six but also make it less appetizing or appealing to games about discretion and guns-as-genuine-threats...well, that'd be nice.

I could elaborate on this as it regards the entire Gear chapter in 2.0, but I'll keep it brief; I think everybody who cares to know already knows how I feel about it. Lets just say that I kind of like the idea that a gun is a tool, a means to an end rather than end unto itself. And Gadgets - there should be ways to make 'em fun and easy to use in a game that favors them, but they should also be something a GM can tone down or remove without screwing over the PCs.

Lastly, I think you can push skills even more and make non-tactical solutions to problems even more appealing. I know that a team of PCs quietly bribing and influencing NPCs into surrender might sound boring to many players, but some times its as fun as pumping every thug you meet full of lead. And, really - if I'm running a game that has a lot of combat, I think it should also be easier to dial it from "hardcore tactical simulation" to "crazy over-the-top mayhem". How much of this would be easily solved with a few Campaign Qualities? I don't know; probably most of it. But I feel like putting this bug in the ear of the designers while I have the chance and before my camouflaged, face-painted brethren storm this thread. Wink

Logged
Desertpuma
Control
******
Posts: 4274


Highest Level LSpy Agent 16th, almost 17th


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2010, 04:08:55 PM »

I'm in agreement on your Great Game synopsis. There are many variations and you can go as far back as the Victorian Era if you want to accomplish them.

Specialists and Generalists. Hmmm .... I'll say this: People who choose to overspecialize their characters get what they deserve when it all goes bad. I've seen a few people so overspecialized that they could not handle it when things went the opposite of their PC design.

Most of this is from experience in playing, running, and even writing Living Spycraft stuff. I've only seen a couple of people venture into Scientist and then only for 2 levels at most. This even carries over into a home game of mine. Most don't emphasize the belief it can be a highly valuable class beyond that it seems. I've also seen a PC that was so good a shot with rifle and equally so poor without it or in a social situation. This happened to the point that the player ended up taking himself out of the situation because he refused to adapt. He ended up reading book at the table Pat was running rather choosing to adapt.

Whenever I was helping people make characters, I emphasized two big things: there is no dump stat in 2.0 AND being versatile is better than being specialized. Missions are highly fluid situations most times and it is better to be well-rounded than too focused. Admittedly, my LSpy character was almost 17th level at campaign's end but I still had at least 2 ranks in 24 of 30 skills so I had a chance to assist those who could do much better what I could not.

Armchair Commandos...

Armor & weapons can be or are necessary at times BUT are not always required. It depends on the group planning their take on the mission. If guns blazing is the only way they know how to do a mission, then throw them a curveball where doing so gives them negative Reputation or Net Worth. Make them pay for running down the street in a covert operation with an assault rifle if they are supposed to be quiet about it.

Part of the problem as to whether or not skills became necessary is entirely upon the head of the GC planning & writing the mission. If you want to make skills more important as a GC, than plan to make your missions less focused on combat and more focused on skills. Simple solution.

As for gadgets, they just require a little imagination. My roommate, who's PC is a social monkey where he managed a +27 to Impress checks by 12th level, created the Glove of Doom once for the Judas Protocol, a LSpy mission. My PC carried a Commerical GPS in his watch, a reserve parachute in his belt, and a flashbang grenade in a pen most of the times.

A friend of mine created Undercover Brother as a Charisma based Martial Artist/Faceman. He had a feather in his hat for skill boost to Impress checks, the big clock he wore around his neck gave him additional DR, a parachute was in his pants, his dolemite swordcane had 3 flashbang grenades based in it looking like diamonds, his belt gave him a bonus to Athletics for grapple checks, and the bottom of his shoes could taser someone like they were a stungun. He did spend all of his Charisma picks on gadgets though.

As for crossclass skills, I allow people to spend ranks in them like normal skills but they are maxed at half the allowable ranks. It makes it easier.

Well, my two cents....

Logged

Crusader Citadel

Living Spycraft Mastermind Council Member

Crafty For Life!
MilitiaJim
Control
******
Posts: 4306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2010, 09:55:27 AM »

Speaking as one of the armchair commandos, I caution against offering Misters Bond and Bourne as examples for a tabletop game for one reason:  They work alone.  The point of teams is to cover individual weaknesses, but you are doing your character wrong if he/she does one thing only.

And about armor:  It keeps you safe and is not very expensive.  The only reason they would not take armor is if they regularly don't need it.  Cops wear armor every day and most never are in a gunfight in their entire careers.  I will end with agreeing with DesertPuma about gear generally being a result of mission expectations; enough violence free missions and you won't see the PCs looking like a SWAT team, but if the opposition's goons are packing heat, expect some armor.
Logged

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."  ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool  in the killer's hands.")
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
Desertpuma
Control
******
Posts: 4274


Highest Level LSpy Agent 16th, almost 17th


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2010, 10:04:51 AM »

Trust me, it is amazing at the look on your players' faces when they are told they have to meet their contact in a bathhouse and he insists they sit in the very hot water for the discussion. ... Something tells me he won't be very talkative when you have teflon on your balls and holdout pistol up your ass.
Logged

Crusader Citadel

Living Spycraft Mastermind Council Member

Crafty For Life!
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 6997


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2010, 11:21:29 AM »

Also, remember that most good armor is Obvious or close to it and that in most of the world high end body armor isn't easy or legal for civillians to acquire.

Put another way, use the rules about spotting armor and have the authories react appropriately.
Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
mathey
Agent
***
Posts: 227



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2010, 02:17:11 PM »

Speaking as one of the armchair commandos, I caution against offering Misters Bond and Bourne as examples for a tabletop game for one reason:  They work alone.  The point of teams is to cover individual weaknesses, but you are doing your character wrong if he/she does one thing only.

I appreciate that we don't want a PC team that consists of one movie version Bourne and four specialists from, say, the '60s TV version of Mission Impossible.  However, if everybody gets to be roughly as useful whether or not they're specialized, I'd personally be okay with that. To put it another way, Bourne and Bond clearly prefer to work solo, but what'd be so awful about Bourne, Bond, Nikita, AND the Tom Cruise version of Ethan Hunt teaming up for some seriously badassed opposition? They'd surely have some overlap in skill sets, but they'd also have certain approaches that would play off of each other in fun ways. Bourne could improvise solutions and hit people with books, Bond could mack on the ladies and gamble, Nikita could mack on the guys and blow up restaurants, and Ethan could be the master of disguise who has a bunch of gizmos. I'd LOVE that cross-over in a SpyCraft game!

To give another example of generalists-working-as-a-team, check the guys from Burn Notice. Michael is great at roleplaying and martial arts, Sam's got a ton of contacts, and Fiona blows things up - but they all can handle security systems, long cons, b & e, and all sorts of other spy stuff. They are still fun and interesting together as a group despite these shared abilities because of their personalities and how they interact. And, yeah, I know; Michael's the primary protagonist - but in a tabletop metaphor I think he'd be the same Level as his buddies. Just, y'know, more connected to the metaphorical GM's plot. If that makes any sense? Smiley

Ultimately, I personally don't think Bourne or Bond or Solid Snake or the other ten-million solo superspies are less relevant to SpyCraft PCs because their escapades assume they work on their own. I think they can work in team environment provided that team is on the same footing and their opposition is ratcheted up to match as well.

Quote
And about armor:  It keeps you safe and is not very expensive.  The only reason they would not take armor is if they regularly don't need it.  Cops wear armor every day and most never are in a gunfight in their entire careers.  I will end with agreeing with DesertPuma about gear generally being a result of mission expectations; enough violence free missions and you won't see the PCs looking like a SWAT team, but if the opposition's goons are packing heat, expect some armor.

Yeah, this is very true. But 2.0 Armor still bugs me if for only one reason: genre emulation.

I'm not really into simulating real world responses to firearms if I'm running a game with a cinematic bent.  Would it make sense in a real world sense for cinematic superspies to wear kevlar everywhere they go given how many times they get shot at? Sure! Would it make even more sense for them to get kitted out with tactical armor when they know they're entering a high risk situation, like raiding a mastermind's base? Absolutely! But do they? Nope. They don't. Suits, ties, and regular street clothes plus 1 handgun often seems like more than enough for them. Realistic? No. A common thread in the genre? Yes. And that's where I've got to respectfully suggest that a tactical simulation approach gets in the way of my (and my players') genre emulation.

Conversely, if I'm doing the Rainbow Six thing, then I've got a basis in the source material for people to get loaded for bear and make with the SWAT/Delta Force/whatever ops lingo while clearing rooms of terrorists. Rainbow Six is, in its own myopic way, meant to be more tactical after all, so I'd be fine with all that armor and milspec armament. That'd totally fit that particular SpyCraft game. The trick, as I see it, is making "suits and ties" as viable for some types of SpyCraft games as "tactical armor" is for others.

This might be a simple thing to solve with a Feat or Campaign Quality that lets some PCs avoid sudden death from small arms fire more easily even if they don't strap on helmets and vests. To be fair, we already have the Feats Bloodstain Resistant (bonus to Defense via Lifestyle), Not The Face! (DR versus Charisma damage), and Too Ugly To Die (DR if you don't mind being grotesque) in 2.0. The Campaign Qualities Blockbuster (less damage from explosions) and Bulletproof (harder to activate crits on PCs/Specials) are also probably applicable - but I'm not sure they quite do what I want either.
Logged
Desertpuma
Control
******
Posts: 4274


Highest Level LSpy Agent 16th, almost 17th


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2010, 02:52:00 PM »

Don't forget Quality of Life as a Campaign Quality from World on Fire: you gain a bonus to your saves equal to your Appearance modifier.

Keep in mind that the reason for the suits and ties. There are supposed to be covert operatives and sometimes things can get dicey but they don't start out that way. The reason it is a handgun and not something bigger is the need to curb Exposure. Even in Dr. No, Bond is told he now has a license to carry it because has become to valuable to lose which is why he has a 00 number so he can kill to defend himself and Britain will bail him out. Previously, if he screwed up, he'd have been hung out to dry for breaking the law. This is also why the IMF operates with the mandate: "If you or any of your agents are caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge or your actions." Even in the film, The Recruit, Pacino espouses that number 1 rule in espionage: Do Not Get Caught.

Agents are expected to blend in, face the danger, succeed at the mission at all costs, and make it back home. If they succeed, they may even get a medal they cannot put on their mantle. Not enough people seem to remember that in the process of playing the game. That's why certain rewards are possible golden like the biggest reward from the LSpy mission Fire Into Ice which granted a Caliber V Resource request to the agents who succeeded wherein you could call on the President of the US once for a favor.

The Bond, Bourne, Nikita, and Ethan Hunt team would be a terror to behold on in terms of combat, consider what else they could do. Everyone of them is skilled at passing themselves off as another person and they can all fight unarmed or with improvised weapons. They could go into a situation with no armor or weapons and still have a good chance of coming out on top, even while disguised. Admittedly, Bourne is the weakest in the disguise department but makes up for it with his ability in improvised weapons. Ethan may wear masks, Bond may be suave, and Nikita can beguile you but they can also handle combat. It is as much about the build and skill sets as it is combat.

The general flaw in the plan is that many players, still thinking of D&D, believe you have to kill the obstacle and survive the combat instead of thinking their way around it or using a skill set to circumvent it.

I can assure that players will always want their characters to have armor and weapons. But try running a game based less around combat or engage in stiff penalties for focusing on it. Instead make it easier to use skills through the mission or make it part of the mission profile that armor & weapons are at best limited due to the circumstance. Parachuting into a country like Thailand where they had a recent coup 5 years ago and the police were gunning down without question anyone carrying anything larger than a 4 inch knife as a weapon changes the parameters. It should make your players think about how to accomplish things without emphasizing the violence.

My players in my new home game are starting out on the run from the military police and the regular police have their picture on file because they are escaped prisoners. They have to be careful because of the parameters and cannot afford to be guns blazing in the streets.

Part of it is not the gear but the players' mindset.
Logged

Crusader Citadel

Living Spycraft Mastermind Council Member

Crafty For Life!
TheAuldGrump
Control
******
Posts: 3283


Because The Cat Told Me To...


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2010, 09:48:42 PM »

Speaking as one of the armchair commandos, I caution against offering Misters Bond and Bourne as examples for a tabletop game for one reason:  They work alone.  The point of teams is to cover individual weaknesses, but you are doing your character wrong if he/she does one thing only.
Heh - why I loved the old Mission: Impossible, and how the movies completely screwed it up.... Mr. Phelps as the leader of a team, and specialists were brought in as required.

The Auld Grump
Logged

I don't know how the story ends...
But I do know what happens next.
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2010, 01:26:35 AM »

I think its extremely important to have all the armour options, as both not every campaign is going to be the same - even within the Espionage genre, there's plenty of examples of the spooks being attached to military units overseas, or gearing up heavier for specific missions.  Even in Burn Notice Sam has his lucky vest, that they use to keep the client a little safer from Evelyn [False Flag - S01E10].

As long as there's rules for exposure still [and I see absolutely no reason why there wouldn't be] and the GM keeps those in mind when running the game it won't be a problem.  Players want to take riot gear and a Minimi into a city, good luck dealing with the police, both local and federal, and then controls anger at what will surely be a botched mission.

Of course some times having armour is a benefit to espionage - watch Oceans 11 [the new version].
Logged
MilitiaJim
Control
******
Posts: 4306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2010, 07:37:19 AM »

Players want to take riot gear and a Minimi into a city, good luck dealing with the police, both local and federal, and then controls anger at what will surely be a botched mission.
Just for the record:  You can wander around in New York City wearing a tactical vest with trauma plates and the cops won't give you a second look, nor am I certain I got a first look.
Logged

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."  ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool  in the killer's hands.")
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2010, 08:12:27 AM »

Players want to take riot gear and a Minimi into a city, good luck dealing with the police, both local and federal, and then controls anger at what will surely be a botched mission.
Just for the record:  You can wander around in New York City wearing a tactical vest with trauma plates and the cops won't give you a second look, nor am I certain I got a first look.

Really? Wow.  How about the SAW?  Wink

Still I think my point stands, in spite of that little factoid.  Not to mention if my players request something absurd, I often tell them no, control won't let them waltz into an office building with an RPG and a gatling gun.

That or I have other consequences - one player said he needed the .50BMG, even though it was recommended that he take something smaller to provide cover with.  He shot a gun, so I spent some action dice on a complication, had it go through the unarmoured target, and into a bus behind him.  It was meant to show him that there's a weapon suitable for each suitation, instead he declared it his crowning moment of awesome ["Who else on the team has killed more then one person with a single shot?" - direct quote].
Logged
mathey
Agent
***
Posts: 227



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2010, 11:29:12 AM »

Good points all around, folks.

Regarding Exposure as a way to control some of the crazier gear selections, I'll be honest - Reputation/Net Worth never played enough of a role in my games to make that a concern. It was another layer of planning and gear consideration that just didn't interest my players - even when I tried to encourage them to use it. So, taking away Rep for being wasn't really be much of a reason for them to be more covert.

Logged
Desertpuma
Control
******
Posts: 4274


Highest Level LSpy Agent 16th, almost 17th


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2010, 11:52:06 AM »

Having their pictures known by the police who will chase them on sight and arrest them if they don't shoot them might make a difference ... they may be too busy running to do their mission. It is all a matter of keeping the pressure on them.
Logged

Crusader Citadel

Living Spycraft Mastermind Council Member

Crafty For Life!
mathey
Agent
***
Posts: 227



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2010, 11:20:37 AM »

Just to toss around some more common spy tropes for discussion...

Any thoughts on how to make these spy activities playable yet fun in 3.0?

Surveillance: Sitting around in cars and watching places is boring in person, but if its going to be a part of my spy games, are there ways to make it more than just a few Notice/Search checks?

Tailing People: Same thing here; is it going to be easy to handle yet flavorful and engaging?

Investigation: This is a big part of spy stories, but its handled in all sorts of ways in roleplaying games. These range from "the players have to figure this out on their own" to "players invent the clues and the GM works backwards from those to the solution". Is it worth getting its own Dramatic Conflict, only stretched out over the course of a mission? Or would it better to keep it simple and only use skills/dice to uncover specific clues the players then have to sort out? I suppose this might end up in 10kB instead, but I thought I'd mention it here.

Mind Games: Most spy stories involve layers of duplicity, deception, and psyching out your enemies. We saw Brainwashing, Seduction, and even rules for harassment in 2.0; will these be in 3.0? Do we want to try new approaches/conflicts/disposition rules? FC has some adjustments to the latter that I can see working.
Logged
Crafty_Pat
Crafty Staff
Control
*****
Posts: 9443


End of the World? Donít believe the hype.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2010, 12:24:22 AM »

Great thread, and a good read (yes, we read almost everything here on the boards, even when we don't respond). I wanted to take a moment to personally assure you, Mathey, that your concerns are pretty high up on our list of priorities for Third Edition. Indeed, Alex and I just had a pivotal conversation several weeks ago in which I made many of the points you made opening this thread.

It's still early days, of course, but here's what I can tell you. The goal is to establish - in the baseline rules for the game - ways for the GM and the players to tailor the experience. I'm not just talking about campaign qualities but integral options for making the game play with more or less tactical mayhem, more or less gear management, more bombastic or realistic super-science, etc. Campaign qualities are by their very nature optional, and don't satisfy those groups that want to feel the game is serving them, emulating their genre, and giving them the tools to make their vision a reality - whether it includes armor or wits, weapons or lies.

We've already proven this approach can work with a lot of what you've seen in Fantasy Craft, and one of the biggest reasons to make Spycraft Third first and foremost about espionage - not the only one but certainly a biggie - is to allow us to focus on emulating that genre, with all its myriad styles and idiosyncrasies.

So thanks for starting this thread - it's currently hitting at the very heart of what Spycraft Third will be, and all your valuable feedback will help make that a reality.
Logged

Patrick Kapera
Crafty Games
www.crafty-games.com

UPDATES/PRESS INFO
Mailing List: http://bit.ly/14FJIw7
RSS: www.crafty-games.com/needtoknow
Facebook: www.facebook.com/craftygames
Twitter: www.twitter.com/Crafty_Games
YouTube: www.youtube.com/craftyhomeoffice

In game terms, reality is b
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!