![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Caper Games and "an Invitation..."
Jan. 26th, 2010 07:45 pmI have had enough time, I think to digest the outcome of the first CFalk game (and have sent out the basic data on the second) and feel capable of discussing it here for comment.
First off, my goal is to mirror the feel of the Mission Impossible TV show, which poses certain problems. I know from past experience that it takes about 4-5 hours of game timer to capture a 1 hour television episode. The problem here is that A LOT of the Mission Impossible plotting occurs off screen - we see Jim Phelps (or Dan Briggs if you're a classicist) get the outline of the mission, he selects the team and then they discuss the outline of the plan (obfuscated enough to keep the audience guessing). We never actually see them, ya'know, plan. Secondarily, asking the players to develop the entire plan gives them more agency then they are comfortable with (at least some of them) - they have an Objective and know that subtle strategies work in this setting better than violent ones, but otherwise they're on their own, which can be disconcerting if you're not used to it.
To resolve these problems I opted for dividing the game into two parts: the actual play, and a pre-game epistolary PBEM in which the PCs get the basics of the episodes objective and a time frame in which they can do research, share the outcome of that research, plot, plan, develop one or two strategies and get a sense for the obstacles each carries. This would take a lot of time in table play, but since they have two to three weeks of PBEM time that isn't an issue. This lets us, in play, do the 'dinner party' scene and skip directly to the finalizing of the plan. Plus, it gives us all a lot of lovely in character notes and letters to keep CFalk's epistolary feel without mandating that anyone keep a journal. Finally, since people are directly posing questions or research to me I can support their decision making without reducing their agency - there is plenty of time for me to point out that one plan or another is not supported by the facts on the ground without being caught up in table momentum or groupthink, so the players hopefully have less fear on their plotting. I expect that will have to do less of that as the sessions go on.
( behind the cut is the first invitation )
These have to be pretty carefully crafted, since I have to operate with certain ground rules for this to work: the information in it must be accurate and complete enough for the players to have a starting point (if I say that Tarkmann would let Liserl go under x circumstances but kill her if Y occurs, the players have to trust that); it has to suggest some genre appropriate courses of action (such as faking Schiffren's death) and discouraging non-genre appropriate ones (the indirect contact agents exist solely to make clear that killing Tarkmann will not solve the problem) without explicitly disallowing either. The second to last paragraph must absolutely and clearly state the objective to avoid confusion; and it has to give the players potential hooks for investigation and planning in the epistolary stages. It's harder than it looks. I'll discuss how this one played out tomorrow.
First off, my goal is to mirror the feel of the Mission Impossible TV show, which poses certain problems. I know from past experience that it takes about 4-5 hours of game timer to capture a 1 hour television episode. The problem here is that A LOT of the Mission Impossible plotting occurs off screen - we see Jim Phelps (or Dan Briggs if you're a classicist) get the outline of the mission, he selects the team and then they discuss the outline of the plan (obfuscated enough to keep the audience guessing). We never actually see them, ya'know, plan. Secondarily, asking the players to develop the entire plan gives them more agency then they are comfortable with (at least some of them) - they have an Objective and know that subtle strategies work in this setting better than violent ones, but otherwise they're on their own, which can be disconcerting if you're not used to it.
To resolve these problems I opted for dividing the game into two parts: the actual play, and a pre-game epistolary PBEM in which the PCs get the basics of the episodes objective and a time frame in which they can do research, share the outcome of that research, plot, plan, develop one or two strategies and get a sense for the obstacles each carries. This would take a lot of time in table play, but since they have two to three weeks of PBEM time that isn't an issue. This lets us, in play, do the 'dinner party' scene and skip directly to the finalizing of the plan. Plus, it gives us all a lot of lovely in character notes and letters to keep CFalk's epistolary feel without mandating that anyone keep a journal. Finally, since people are directly posing questions or research to me I can support their decision making without reducing their agency - there is plenty of time for me to point out that one plan or another is not supported by the facts on the ground without being caught up in table momentum or groupthink, so the players hopefully have less fear on their plotting. I expect that will have to do less of that as the sessions go on.
( behind the cut is the first invitation )
These have to be pretty carefully crafted, since I have to operate with certain ground rules for this to work: the information in it must be accurate and complete enough for the players to have a starting point (if I say that Tarkmann would let Liserl go under x circumstances but kill her if Y occurs, the players have to trust that); it has to suggest some genre appropriate courses of action (such as faking Schiffren's death) and discouraging non-genre appropriate ones (the indirect contact agents exist solely to make clear that killing Tarkmann will not solve the problem) without explicitly disallowing either. The second to last paragraph must absolutely and clearly state the objective to avoid confusion; and it has to give the players potential hooks for investigation and planning in the epistolary stages. It's harder than it looks. I'll discuss how this one played out tomorrow.
