|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 16:13:56 GMT -5
Post by Dominus on Dec 16, 2010 16:13:56 GMT -5
I have been for some time thinking of running a James Bond style game for my RL group. Unfortunately I am not sure how to run a game like this. I really like the atmosphere of the James Bond novels and would like to have it take place in the late fifties/early sixties. That much is pretty easy.
The main problem is how to have a group of players all take equal part in a story that is really only about one man. I know I could make it about a group of secret agents, but that seems to take away some of the mystique of the lone secret agent against the world. I'm afraid if I have a team of secret agents it will just be silly, like Mission Impossible.
Has anyone here run a James Bond game? How did it go? Any suggestions?
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 16:19:41 GMT -5
Post by raynorn on Dec 16, 2010 16:19:41 GMT -5
I did not run James Bond but I have run games with a heavy influence from Bond.
NOTE: This is my humble opinion.
1) It works best as a one on one game 2) Give the character a system with some player narrative control Ex FATE.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
Post by Dominus on Dec 16, 2010 16:51:44 GMT -5
I did not run James Bond but I have run games with a heavy influence from Bond. NOTE: This is my humble opinion. 1) It works best as a one on one game 2) Give the character a system with some player narrative control Ex FATE. Why the narrative control?
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 17:19:01 GMT -5
Post by raynorn on Dec 16, 2010 17:19:01 GMT -5
I did not run James Bond but I have run games with a heavy influence from Bond. NOTE: This is my humble opinion. 1) It works best as a one on one game 2) Give the character a system with some player narrative control Ex FATE. Why the narrative control? Because it works well with the Ace up the Sleeve of 007. Giving the player a moment to say, OK I am in the trap - here is how I get out. Narrative systems allow such an escape to be run smoothly and in a cinematic fashion.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 17:35:53 GMT -5
Post by comicfan on Dec 16, 2010 17:35:53 GMT -5
This is what I would do. Have the players play spys of different nations (British SIS, American CIA, French DGSD etc.) Make sure whatever country their character's from was in NATO during the fifties and sixties. Then have them go on missions where they seem to constantly bump into each other. All of them have different objectives, but they are all in the same location.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 17:51:48 GMT -5
Post by takewithfood on Dec 16, 2010 17:51:48 GMT -5
I was going to suggest something similar to what comicfan did: the player characters are all agents, each from a different organization, only they're working together for some common goal.
The fun part comes when you talk to each player in private (preferably without even letting the rest of the group know that you're having these conversations) and give each player a side goal or objective that they must complete, such as betraying another nation's agent, stealing something dangerous instead of just destroying it, etc. It would be super cool if each player thought they were the only one who had something up their sleeve.
~TWF
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 18:06:03 GMT -5
Post by comicfan on Dec 16, 2010 18:06:03 GMT -5
That actually sounds like a cool idea TWF.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 18:19:14 GMT -5
Post by WildKnight on Dec 16, 2010 18:19:14 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of the Spycraft system, which gives you all kinds of options for letting agents pull off the authentic James Bond movie mojo. My only problem with it from that perspective is that Bond typically has exactly the gadget he needs for any given situation (even if he frequently uses them in a manner different from its seemingly intended purpose). In Spycraft, agents have to kind of guess at what they'll need during the gearing up phase.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 16, 2010 20:04:46 GMT -5
Post by malice on Dec 16, 2010 20:04:46 GMT -5
If you're clever about it you can make a STORY about one person while making the GAME about everyone. The fact is there are almost no heroes in the world like the ones we enjoy stories about. The super spy is a myth, and real spies have a team of amazing professionals backing them up - frequently that team is made up of other spies. It's just like a standard roleplaying party: There are ROLES. Another thing is that James Bond was an awesome character, but a more realistic character would've probably yielded better stories because he would've needed more people. You don't watch James Bond because of the deep storylines, you watch James Bond for the character. Your players will probably give you the solution to your problem. It's unlikely that all of them want to play James Bond. My first game on this board was "Superspies" and we had one player who wanted to play like James Bond, one player who wanted to be like Giles from Buffy, one player who just wanted to snipe people with a custom rifle, and me who just saw that no one had Leadership and figured a team oughtta have it (I got put in charge, which was a bit of a surprise). Either way we all designed characters we defined as spies, but none of our spies looked alike. I never wanted the spotlight, and you can bet our invisible teleporting sniper sure as hell wasn't looking for attention, we were there to hurt people. That's two James Bonds out of the running by choice. As long as you're not manipulating the events of the game to make one player seem more significant to the mission than the others, it doesn't matter if the newspaper tells that they were the only one there. You know any spies? Seen any lately? I was going to suggest something similar to what comicfan did: the player characters are all agents, each from a different organization, only they're working together for some common goal. The fun part comes when you talk to each player in private (preferably without even letting the rest of the group know that you're having these conversations) and give each player a side goal or objective that they must complete, such as betraying another nation's agent, stealing something dangerous instead of just destroying it, etc. It would be super cool if each player thought they were the only one who had something up their sleeve. ~TWF Ever played Paranoia? I ask because you just described it. My first time playing Paranoia: Player A's mission is to kill everyone in the party Player B's mission is to kill our NPC guide Player C's mission is to destroy our ship My mission is to look for artifacts Second time playing Paranoia: Player A's mission is to kill "the Man" and usurp authority Player B's mission is to save the world My mission is to look for artifacts The first game was basically a nightmare. I had to go about my passive mission roleplaying that I was clueless while the entire party tore each other (and me) apart around me. I got killed in crossfire twice. In the second game I was so freaked that my mission consisted of the same crap it did the first time that I went psycho and started murdering my teammates like teamkilling was my job. I'm not saying "roleplayed" psycho, I'm saying for a couple hours one night the line between friend and foe blurred for me and all I could do was throw grenades at them and laugh maniacally. The "secret missions" were decided by chance, you roll for your secret society and after that the GM does some stuff (I assume more rolls). I was kind of amazed that I went after my team like that. I actually enjoy PvP, but I attach conditions. I prefer that everyone be on the same page, either PvP or co-op, and I actually prefer that it not be a surprise. If I'm playing a four-player party in D&D I want to fight monsters WITH my team I don't want to fight my team. But after that first game where I was supposed to play dumb while being slaughtered I just needed to find fun at all costs I guess. Normally I'm utilitarian about it, but after being the absolute loser one game I lost my moral bearings.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 17, 2010 19:19:59 GMT -5
Post by Dominus on Dec 17, 2010 19:19:59 GMT -5
What you suggest Malice is basically what I am trying to avoid. I don't want a diverse group of individuals who somehow manage to get along and form an elite team. I find that somewhat unbelievable and I would this game to be more serious. Which leads back to the original problem of how to have multiple players in a game that is only suited for a single type of character. It's a noodlescractcher.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 17, 2010 20:09:56 GMT -5
Post by malice on Dec 17, 2010 20:09:56 GMT -5
I don't want a diverse group of individuals who somehow manage to get along and form an elite team. I find that somewhat unbelievable and I would this game to be more serious. Wow, we clearly have to very different perceptions of reality. "Diverse group of indivduals who somehow manage to get along and form an elite team" is usually what has been responsible for change in the world. People are diverse. They often work together. It makes stuff happen. If you are determined that there isn't room in the game for more than one person then I struggle to understand why you want to subject a group of people to it. If you want to run a solo game or just write a short story then you should do it, but if you really don't see how more than one person can play then you should arrange for a solo adventure that operates separately from the group. However if you want the other players to be involved make a parallel storyline that you run them through in the normal time slot and occasionally have "crossovers" where the solo guy is involved. There really aren't that many true stories of just one person being amazing and man-handling the world.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 29, 2010 21:19:53 GMT -5
Post by Dominus on Dec 29, 2010 21:19:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure what I was thinking. This could totally work. Now I just need to find a good system to use. Something that allows players to successfully perform actions without having to rely on the luck of the dice would be preferable.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 29, 2010 23:49:29 GMT -5
Post by malice on Dec 29, 2010 23:49:29 GMT -5
Lol, I feel like you're having me on but sarcasm translates so poorly in text I can't tell if you're serious or joking. Assuming you're serious, are you just sick of MURPG or have you decided against as a system? I can tell you from experience this system can accomodate spy games just fine.
|
|
|
OO7
Dec 30, 2010 12:55:33 GMT -5
Post by Dominus on Dec 30, 2010 12:55:33 GMT -5
No, I think I am serious.
As to the system, I like MURPG, but there are so many other systems out there I imagine there is probably something designed specifically for spy games. I believe there was even an actual James Bond game released twenty or so years ago, but I have never tried it.
|
|
|
OO7
Jan 2, 2011 9:22:24 GMT -5
Post by Brainstem on Jan 2, 2011 9:22:24 GMT -5
d20 Modern, I think, would work well.
|
|