SpyCraft 3.0: Setting, Action Dice, Dials

[mathey]

I just listened to the "This Just in...From Neoncon" podcast with Alex and Pat and was pleased to hear all the talk about SpyCraft 3.0. It also made me wish I'd had the cash to be there for the events Crafty and other people had going on. Three things mentioned during the 15 minutes or so of chat piqued my interest in particular:

1. Implied Setting. As I understand it, with 3.0's renewed focus on Espionage adventure, 3.0 will reference some setting assumptions ala 1.0's use of the non-specific Agency in the rulebook.

2. Action Dice. It sounds like they plan on making Action Dice more up front and center in 3.0, with some more narrative options for both players and GMs to tinker with.

3. Dials. It also appears we're going to get more control options for tweaking gear, combat, and possibly some other aspects of gameplay. They specifically mention having three settings on a dial for combat realism/lethality, with one extreme being your cinematic over-the-top action setting and the other extreme being George Smiley-land. The middle setting is presumably somewhere in between.

The podcast, if you missed it, is here: http://www.thisjustinfromneoncon.com/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/THIFC_Episode_07.mp3

So, my thoughts on these things:

The Implied Setting makes sense, if only as to get players and GMs on the same page regarding what SpyCraft 3.0 is about. I wonder how much or little it'll involve, though. Is there a "default" setting with its own factions or are we talking more along the lines of broad assumptions about the characters and their GM-created allies and enemies? Also, would 1.0 Departments be making a comeback in some shape or form? I kind of liked them for all their strangeness; they made some concept building easier for the more literally minded amongst us.

I'm all for more emphasis and trumpeting of Action Dice. My players always liked 'em, I always liked 'em, and I imagine most SpyCraft fans of any edition liked 'em. I really liked the talk about AD buying retro-active "we planned ahead" flashbacks in the fashion of Leverage. That could solve some of my own players wishy-washiness when it comes to cunning schemes. I also think collecting all their potential uses in one place early on in the book is a good idea - its a major feature of the rules and something you want players thinking about from the get go.

The Dials are welcome and, as the podcast notes, probably necessary if you want to encompass the range of spy games people will want to try. I did some genre customizing in the past with 2.0 Campaign Qualities, but having options right alongside the relevant ruleset sounds like a smart idea. I'm curious to see what the gear Dial settings are. I imagine they might also have High/Medium/Low like Combat? High being "lots of gear and gizmos", Low being "just the basics".

Anyways, good to hear Crafty is getting coverage and everything I hear about 3.0 makes me eager to get my mitts on it.

[Desertpuma]

Been waiting for news on SC3. Sounds Awesome!

[aegis]

Me too, especially now that Leverage RPG is out. I love the show, the book seems nice, but I'm not feeling the Cortex Plus system is tailored for that kind of high action cinematic genre. I really can't wait to try this with SC 3!

Anyway, thanks for the interesting reflexions mathey!

[Crafty_Alex]

So, my thoughts on these things:

The Implied Setting makes sense, if only as to get players and GMs on the same page regarding what SpyCraft 3.0 is about. I wonder how much or little it'll involve, though. Is there a "default" setting with its own factions or are we talking more along the lines of broad assumptions about the characters and their GM-created allies and enemies? Also, would 1.0 Departments be making a comeback in some shape or form? I kind of liked them for all their strangeness; they made some concept building easier for the more literally minded amongst us.

The implied "setting" of SC3 at this point is pretty light-handed - that means no automatic factions out the gate, but rather giving the players something to be grounded about: that they are spies; that there are large organizaitons that occasionally threaten the world with nefarious plots; that what they do can and does matter to the fate of said world. Some folks have mentioned Fantasy Craft's very high level of flexibility puts the onus upon the GM to make world decisions prior to characters being made (as in, are there gods or magic?), and that made it harder upon them. A light touch here focusing upon the very core facts needed to give everyone a firm ground to start from seems best.

On departments, I don't think you'll see them in the same way they were presented in Classic Spycraft; Origins remain one of our game's keystone features. However, you will probably see some slightly more "literal" Talents and Specialties that clearly model key espionage archetypes, roles, and characters (outside of classes, of course). Some starting build packages may also appear for those more literally minded gamers

I'm all for more emphasis and trumpeting of Action Dice. My players always liked 'em, I always liked 'em, and I imagine most SpyCraft fans of any edition liked 'em. I really liked the talk about AD buying retro-active "we planned ahead" flashbacks in the fashion of Leverage. That could solve some of my own players wishy-washiness when it comes to cunning schemes. I also think collecting all their potential uses in one place early on in the book is a good idea - its a major feature of the rules and something you want players thinking about from the get go.

Exactly. Like we said in the podcast, Action Dice are one of the coolest parts of Spycraft but they have always been woven into various parts of the text and the actual footprint in text is small, relatively speaking, so it can be easy for the player skimming the product to miss them the first time or forget about them during play. Emphasis and boosting of the mechanic is only logical.

The Dials are welcome and, as the podcast notes, probably necessary if you want to encompass the range of spy games people will want to try. I did some genre customizing in the past with 2.0 Campaign Qualities, but having options right alongside the relevant ruleset sounds like a smart idea. I'm curious to see what the gear Dial settings are. I imagine they might also have High/Medium/Low like Combat? High being "lots of gear and gizmos", Low being "just the basics".

That sounds about right. Our 2 demo adventures we've been running have used the Medium ("Dangerous") and Low ("Deadly") combat options out of the gate, which have been appreciated by pretty much everyone who've played with them. We've found just putting these basic dials to On during play has encouraged a fairly dramatic increase in espionage focused roleplaying, where intrigue and evasion - not combat - become the greatly preferred options for solving problems. For GMs, they will be a very powerful tool for setting the tone of your game right out the gate.

Gear wise, I think you're on the right track. Pat and I both feel tying gear implicitly to class has proven a bitter pill for many gamers to swallow, and we're also aware that too much gear can jam up the flow of a game (particularly when the party gets gear mid-mission). We're looking for ways for the gear-head players to have their cake just as much as the guy who wants to run the Bond- or Bourne-style game where gear is a very secondary part of the character's adventure.

[Sletchman]

It all sounds very nice so far.  Am I right in assuming these combat "Dials" are just a tightening up and simplification of a few campaign qualities - Deadly setting being stuff like Gritty, Bloodbath, and Fragile, and the opposite end being stuff like Blockbuster?

If so I think this is a great idea - my own group has a selection of qualities that we use together as a "lethal game mode", and I think letting a GM look at the book and just answer how deadly they want combat to be quickly and easily will be a great thing for groups new to Spycraft.  Some of the guys who GM for my own group don't even use campaign qualities, and I think having a really simple required choice would bring campaign modulation more into the foreground - and it's one of the things that really seperates Crafty's products from the pack.

If I'm wrong, feel free to divulge more about Spycraft 3 to set me straight.

[Nepenthe]

Now I'm just wondering if this would help with my Chuck addiction. Of course, it wouldn't be the same without Yvonne S, and I'm sure some of y'all remember what happened the last time I had a hottie in my gaming group.

[jolt]

Will there be a dedicated setting 3.0?  First ed. had Archer and 2.0 had WoF (which I assume is gone now); anything specific for 3.0?

jolt

[mathey]

The implied "setting" of SC3 at this point is pretty light-handed - that means no automatic factions out the gate, but rather giving the players something to be grounded about: that they are spies; that there are large organizaitons that occasionally threaten the world with nefarious plots; that what they do can and does matter to the fate of said world. Some folks have mentioned Fantasy Craft's very high level of flexibility puts the onus upon the GM to make world decisions prior to characters being made (as in, are there gods or magic?), and that made it harder upon them. A light touch here focusing upon the very core facts needed to give everyone a firm ground to start from seems best.

Makes sense to me! I think the espionage genre has a narrower bandwidth than fantasy, even allowing for the distinction between Austin Powers and George Smiley. They both work for agencies, they both combat opposition organizations, and they both have bad teeth. The assumptions both work under are much closer than what may be shared between Conan and Frodo. Its more a matter of Tone than archetypes, setting, or formula, I suppose.

you will probably see some slightly more "literal" Talents and Specialties that clearly model key espionage archetypes, roles, and characters (outside of classes, of course). Some starting build packages may also appear for those more literally minded gamers

Nice! I know my players would appreciate some hand-holding when it comes to modeling particular "types". Even if you can't manage to squeeze starting builds into the book, I find it a lot easier to advise them when building to concept if the Origins do what they say on the label.

We've found just putting these basic dials to On during play has encouraged a fairly dramatic increase in espionage focused roleplaying, where intrigue and evasion - not combat - become the greatly preferred options for solving problems. For GMs, they will be a very powerful tool for setting the tone of your game right out the gate.

I'm looking forward to this and the other dials. I may be a bit of an outlier, but I think I'd like to try both extremes of the spectrum, albeit in different campaigns.

[Sletchman]

I'm looking forward to this and the other dials. I may be a bit of an outlier, but I think I'd like to try both extremes of the spectrum, albeit in different campaigns.

I can guarantee that before SC3 has been out for a year, my group will have tried every extreme we can think of.  It's what we do.

[Crafty_Pat]

Will there be a dedicated setting 3.0?  First ed. had Archer and 2.0 had WoF (which I assume is gone now); anything specific for 3.0?

Still working out how we'll be approaching settings in Third Edition.

World on Fire is not gone - not quite yet. I'm just about to start the end run on the last of those products, and you'll see them (relatively) soon. No, that doesn't mean you should expect them Monday, or for several Mondays following - just that they're close-ish.

[Desertpuma]

I'm guessing that Pat has certain endings in mind for certain characters in WoF but that the not everything is firmly established. ... I'm guessing but then I write a lot too.

[Crafty_Pat]

I'm guessing that Pat has certain endings in mind for certain characters in WoF but that the not everything is firmly established. ... I'm guessing but then I write a lot too.

I've found that it's rarely a good idea to completely settle on storyline points before you drop those last few words onto the page, but in this case I've had the end of the main storyline outlined in skeleton form for some time. The hardest part of closing out this particular title hasn't been deciding where the pieces should fall, but how to also pay the setting off for fans of the RPG, who look for and need dramatically different things from the products.

I have to be true to the "big names" from the card game and the GMs and players wanting to use or interact with them as NPCs (well, those that survive anyway). Simultaneously I have to bring the broader narrative home (which in itself isn't easy given that it was conceived to run across a base set and seven expansions) and leave things open for future gaming with your characters at the center of the action.

It's familiar territory - I've done this a few times before - but every project brings its own unique challenges, and this time is no different. I'll hopefully be cataloging some of the more interesting ones on our blog and over at our Facebook page as I drag this unruly monster across the finish line, so watch those two for details as the pieces come together.

I'm really looking forward to the final push now, more by the day actually. It's the end of an era - and the dawn of a new one. Rebirth is in the air, on and off the page. Good times.