Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2006-12-07 06:38 am
subplotkudzu) wrote2006-12-07 06:38 am
Entry tags:
TTCARPG
Many years ago I tossed around this idea in A&E and recent thoughts on the translation of Caper Movies to games has me thinking about this. Before we go any further, go watch the Brosnan/Russo remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, or decide that you don't mind spoilers.
As you know, the movie is designed as a cat and cat game (it's not cat and mouse because the two main characters are equally competent) between two incredibly skilled people. There are other characters noodling around on the sidelines (specifically Leary's wonderful turn as the put upon NYC cop) but basically its Brosnan vs. Russo. Those are the PCs.
Both PCs are so skilled that anything they try succeeds...except when they're directly opposing the other. Brosnan's heist goes flawlessly. Russo is able to easily discern the outline of his caper, and interrogate the other non-English speaking thieves. Brosnan stymies the authorities once Russo makes him a suspect. etc. etc. The only real conflict is the communication and games between the two PCs.
There's a reason why they can't just shoot each other. Violence is verboten, because it would be illegal, unprofitable and wouldn't get either side what they want. The conflict is purely cerebral and social.
That cerebral and social conflict is set around both sides having victory conditions that are apparently intractable - he stole the painting, she wants it back - but really do have room for a negotiated settlement - he's actually just doing it to keep from being bored, but refuses to just hand it over because of that whole jail thing. The movie could end with one side or the other winning, or it could lead to a negotiated truce. The characters have to be prickly and well played enough that the players don't find a mutual set of victory conditions in the first 10 minutes.
In play, I see this as 2 players ad a GM acting as referee. Rough character concepts are laid out (businessman thief, insurance investigator) and then the acting party makes his first step in a private session with the GM. The GM then has a private session with the responding player, who can get gobs of information on what happened. This can go on as a back and forth for some time similar to the chess variant where neither side can see the other's pieces (damn my failing memory!) before the two players and GM are in the same room - at which point the GM sits back and lets them verbally spar. Then back to the back and forth until they're in the same place again, and so on.
Some GMs with players who firewall well (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
whswhs I'm thinking of you) might dispense with the individual meetings, while others (such as the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
labcats) might do all of this as pick up discussions on the subway or in restaurants. Still, the goal is to have the GM's job limited to the rest of the world and information funneling while the PCs spar. It's certinaly not a traditional game, but it has it's uses - not just to recreate Thomas Crown, but any cop vs thief movie from Heat to Die Hard.
As you know, the movie is designed as a cat and cat game (it's not cat and mouse because the two main characters are equally competent) between two incredibly skilled people. There are other characters noodling around on the sidelines (specifically Leary's wonderful turn as the put upon NYC cop) but basically its Brosnan vs. Russo. Those are the PCs.
Both PCs are so skilled that anything they try succeeds...except when they're directly opposing the other. Brosnan's heist goes flawlessly. Russo is able to easily discern the outline of his caper, and interrogate the other non-English speaking thieves. Brosnan stymies the authorities once Russo makes him a suspect. etc. etc. The only real conflict is the communication and games between the two PCs.
There's a reason why they can't just shoot each other. Violence is verboten, because it would be illegal, unprofitable and wouldn't get either side what they want. The conflict is purely cerebral and social.
That cerebral and social conflict is set around both sides having victory conditions that are apparently intractable - he stole the painting, she wants it back - but really do have room for a negotiated settlement - he's actually just doing it to keep from being bored, but refuses to just hand it over because of that whole jail thing. The movie could end with one side or the other winning, or it could lead to a negotiated truce. The characters have to be prickly and well played enough that the players don't find a mutual set of victory conditions in the first 10 minutes.
In play, I see this as 2 players ad a GM acting as referee. Rough character concepts are laid out (businessman thief, insurance investigator) and then the acting party makes his first step in a private session with the GM. The GM then has a private session with the responding player, who can get gobs of information on what happened. This can go on as a back and forth for some time similar to the chess variant where neither side can see the other's pieces (damn my failing memory!) before the two players and GM are in the same room - at which point the GM sits back and lets them verbally spar. Then back to the back and forth until they're in the same place again, and so on.
Some GMs with players who firewall well (
whswhs I'm thinking of you) might dispense with the individual meetings, while others (such as the labcats) might do all of this as pick up discussions on the subway or in restaurants. Still, the goal is to have the GM's job limited to the rest of the world and information funneling while the PCs spar. It's certinaly not a traditional game, but it has it's uses - not just to recreate Thomas Crown, but any cop vs thief movie from Heat to Die Hard.