PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Game crafting: spies, intrigue, and other black ops



dramatic flare
2015-10-19, 10:29 PM
i recently ran an intrigue game and it was fun. Maybe. Kind of. There are definite lessons I learned on where I succeed and fail as a game master and what I need to improve. Perhaps my biggest concern was that the game didn't ever get an engaging as I aimed for. Part of that was my fault, I think, in that I failed to give the players the full opportunities to engage themselves with the setting an intrigue campaign deserved, and part of it was lack of time to create a full stable of memorable NPCs with which to interact with.
I digress.


What I have had a hard time finding in my searches since that game are good sets of ideas for things to do. Investigations (find out the who, what, when, how), searches (find the macguffin), and thieving (take the macguffin from someone else) are all pretty straight forward. Assassination is also logical. But I know espionage involves so much more than that, while I can think of the idea "false flag operation", or "insider trading" I can't seems to find good examples of how to execute (or encourage players to execute) these activities. Or what these activities should be. I would enjoy some inspirational events or roleplay discussion (even roleplay experience with this) as a resource I can tap as I move forward.


My other problem was how to encourage nondirect (i.e. nonviolent/character damaging) player versus player action. Part of my intrigue attempt was to give the players noble houses to work for, feed information to, get help from, and interact with. One of my very first side-jobs I gave them all was "figure out who the other players work for." Again, I feel like it was my fault for failing to frame it right, but only one player even really tried.
Now I think I now how to improve this, which is another world building thing I'm stealing from one system and then just autoapplying to all because it makes so much sense. These two things are 1: the character questionnaires from Dread, and 2: asking players about pieces of the world and letting their answer be true. (for example, "Player 1, how big is the city? Okay, what are most of the buildings made out of then? Wood? are there lots of forests nearby? Right then, player 2, where is the duke's keep located in the city? huh, does the keep wall connect to the city wall at all? No? Oh, there is no city wall. Okay, player 3..." etc) I believe utilizing these tools will vastly improve the players engagement because the setting will be one they made, and therefore one they have a little bit of care for.

TL;DR
What sort of inspirations do you have for an intrigue game? Have any good stories?

What are good methods of encouraging non player-character damaging forms of pvp roleplay?

Drynwyn
2015-10-19, 11:23 PM
A lot of this is setting-dependent. Make sure there's a clear, intelligible reason why espionage, rather than outright war, is being used- usually, this is because a higher power (an emperor, a coalition of some sort, etc, etc) wants to keep the factions in question from outright fighting, but accepts a certain amount of espionage as inevitable.

Additionally, really make the PC's feel like their intelligence gathering is having a major effect- find a way for them to see intense consequences for their success or failure (preferably the former). A carefully positioned rogue can be worth a whole squad of mid level wizards.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-20, 01:48 AM
Did you see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?449753-Hints-for-Running-a-Game-involving-Espionage)?


What are good methods of encouraging non player-character damaging forms of pvp roleplay?

You realize that "pvp" and "non player character damaging" are diametrically opposed to one another.

Anywho, running a false flag requires that you know your enemy's potential enemies. The whole point is to setup the two parties against one another by pretending to be one of them and making an aggressive move against the other. The way to do this depends entirely on knowledge of both parties.

An example: There's been a tense peace between a mafia family and a triad syndicate for a few months. You work for a yakuza clan. You could run a false flag by intercepting the payment for a major drug deal being conducted by the triads, having killed the couriers, and instead of just keeping the cash, you tip off triads that it was a mafia hit squad that intercepted the payment and plant the money in the home of one of the mafia's low level bosses or in his vehicle just before a time when you know those triads are gonna come looking. With a bit of luck the peace will break between those groups and the gang war that results will weaken both groups so your clan can move in and push them both out of the territory.

You can replace the gangs with whatever nations' intelligence services or militaries you like and either leave the drug deal or change it to an arms deal or an exchange of intelligence or prisoners or whatever. Ultimately the point is to pit potential or real enemies against each other so that they'll be easier to deal with in the aftermath or to distract them while you run some other operation(s).

Insider trading is just acting on classified info for financial gain or using the same as the basis for sowing disinformation for market manipulations.

An example: you've gotten away clean with copies of documentation that says intel is about to launch their first commercial quantum processor. This means that intel is about to have a sharp upswing in their stock value but they've been keeping this info very hush hush. You buy up as much stock as you can afford well ahead of the official announcement and make BANK when the stock sky rockets. Bam, basic insider trading.

Better still, there was time for you to spread a couple rumors that one of intel's rivals is closer than they are and that intel has over-committed to another project that looks like a dead-end, artificially deflating the value of intel stock before you buy up as much as you can and rake in even -more- bank as a result. You might even have sold off some inflated stock from the rival company you told people was ahead of intel so that you won't lose any of the money you put in that company *wink*

Of course, this sort of thing may or may not be illegal in a fictitious setting.

goto124
2015-10-20, 03:04 AM
Make sure there's a clear, intelligible reason why espionage, rather than outright war, is being used- usually, this is because a higher power (an emperor, a coalition of some sort, etc, etc) wants to keep the factions in question from outright fighting, but accepts a certain amount of espionage as inevitable.

Fewer people dying and/or getting injured? Less resources used to fight huge wars?

dramatic flare
2015-10-20, 04:02 AM
Fewer people dying and/or getting injured? Less resources used to fight huge wars?

Those seem rather altruistic (no offense to you or your wonderful suggestions), which especially with intrigue might certainly be involved but are only tangential to the actual goal, such as "not being surprised when the inevitable invasion begins."

aiya, Panthera wrote me a lot. Mind if I break it down?


Did you see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?449753-Hints-for-Running-a-Game-involving-Espionage)?
Yes but not the recent few. That post actually helped inspire this one, because while his is where I'm going mine is more focused. I suppose I could have just posted this there, but I didn't want to hijack his thread.


You realize that "pvp" and "non player character damaging" are diametrically opposed to one another.
Not necessarily. It, much like intrigue campaigns, involve a lot of grey area. As an example, player A sets up a plan with NPCs x and y to steal the Macguffin from the duke. Player B discovers the plot somehow and wants to curry favor with the duke, so he sets himself as an extra guard on the night of the stealing. he handily helps capture NPCs x and y and curries his favor while player A is foiled.
In so doing, the players are playing against one another, but not killing each other.


Anywho, running a false flag requires that you know your enemy's potential enemies. The whole point is to setup the two parties against one another by pretending to be one of them and making an aggressive move against the other. The way to do this depends entirely on knowledge of both parties.

An example: There's been a tense peace between a mafia family and a triad syndicate for a few months. You work for a yakuza clan. You could run a false flag by intercepting the payment for a major drug deal being conducted by the triads, having killed the couriers, and instead of just keeping the cash, you tip off triads that it was a mafia hit squad that intercepted the payment and plant the money in the home of one of the mafia's low level bosses or in his vehicle just before a time when you know those triads are gonna come looking. With a bit of luck the peace will break between those groups and the gang war that results will weaken both groups so your clan can move in and push them both out of the territory.

You can replace the gangs with whatever nations' intelligence services or militaries you like and either leave the drug deal or change it to an arms deal or an exchange of intelligence or prisoners or whatever. Ultimately the point is to pit potential or real enemies against each other so that they'll be easier to deal with in the aftermath or to distract them while you run some other operation(s).
Would it be considered false flagging if you created a fake third party to pin it on, such as a nonexistent but plausible rebellious mafia cousin? Inject a little bit of paranoia in the opposition?


Insider trading is just acting on classified info for financial gain or using the same as the basis for sowing disinformation for market manipulations.

An example: you've gotten away clean with copies of documentation that says intel is about to launch their first commercial quantum processor. This means that intel is about to have a sharp upswing in their stock value but they've been keeping this info very hush hush. You buy up as much stock as you can afford well ahead of the official announcement and make BANK when the stock sky rockets. Bam, basic insider trading.

Better still, there was time for you to spread a couple rumors that one of intel's rivals is closer than they are and that intel has over-committed to another project that looks like a dead-end, artificially deflating the value of intel stock before you buy up as much as you can and rake in even -more- bank as a result. You might even have sold off some inflated stock from the rival company you told people was ahead of intel so that you won't lose any of the money you put in that company *wink*

Of course, this sort of thing may or may not be illegal in a fictitious setting.

...Man, all that makes me think I should read the Count of Monte Cristo again.
Thanks for the ideas.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-20, 04:32 AM
Those seem rather altruistic (no offense to you or your wonderful suggestions), which especially with intrigue might certainly be involved but are only tangential to the actual goal, such as "not being surprised when the inevitable invasion begins."

It's not altruism, it's pragmatism. Wars cost money, a -lot- of money. With a standing army the training of soldiers is expensive so you don't want to lose any more than you have to since they'll need to be replaced to maintain military strength. With conscripts you're weakening you economy by putting workers on the battlefield and that weakening becomes permanent when they die.

If espionage can win the war before it starts or, otherwise, prevent it from starting it keeps a lot of strain off of the government's coffers. War does, however, make a great distraction and unifying force for a distressed population in order to buy a government time to adjust internal infrastructure and/or weaken the populace so as to avoid an uprising.


aiya, Panthera wrote me a lot. Mind if I break it down?NP



Yes but not the recent few. That post actually helped inspire this one, because while his is where I'm going mine is more focused. I suppose I could have just posted this there, but I didn't want to hijack his thread.

Fair enough.



Not necessarily. It, much like intrigue campaigns, involve a lot of grey area. As an example, player A sets up a plan with NPCs x and y to steal the Macguffin from the duke. Player B discovers the plot somehow and wants to curry favor with the duke, so he sets himself as an extra guard on the night of the stealing. he handily helps capture NPCs x and y and curries his favor while player A is foiled.
In so doing, the players are playing against one another, but not killing each other.

But ultimately things must come to a head. One player or the other eventually has to lose unless the campaign is ended prematurely. Unless the loser is willing to tuck his tail and disappear (retiring the character) bloodshed becomes necessary at some point.



Would it be considered false flagging if you created a fake third party to pin it on, such as a nonexistent but plausible rebellious mafia cousin? Inject a little bit of paranoia in the opposition?

You could, but it would likely be much less effective that way. You'd have to successfully establish such a fake group for enemy intelligence to find, at least on paper, and even then it could eventually lead back to your organization because of the paper trail. If you commit personnel then you've kind of defeated the purpose of running a false flag and simply created a front.


...Man, all that makes me think I should read the Count of Monte Cristo again.
Thanks for the ideas.

I kinda remember the movie.... anyway, happy to help.

goto124
2015-10-20, 04:51 AM
It's not altruism, it's pragmatism. Wars cost money, a -lot- of money. With a standing army the training of soldiers is expensive so you don't want to lose any more than you have to since they'll need to be replaced to maintain military strength. With conscripts you're weakening you economy by putting workers on the battlefield and that weakening becomes permanent when they die.

If espionage can win the war before it starts or, otherwise, prevent it from starting it keeps a lot of strain off of the government's coffers. War does, however, make a great distraction and unifying force for a distressed population in order to buy a government time to adjust internal infrastructure and/or weaken the populace so as to avoid an uprising.

This was what I meant, but you phrased it better than I did.

For the last point to work, the war shouldn't destroy the infrastructure of the country, or at least not draw so much money and effort (on troops, weapons, armor, etc) that the cons outweigh the pros. IMHO, an outright war wouldn't be good for such as purpose, but some sort of unrest would.

Kelb_Panthera
2015-10-20, 05:11 AM
For the last point to work, the war shouldn't destroy the infrastructure of the country, or at least not draw so much money and effort (on troops, weapons, armor, etc) that the cons outweigh the pros. IMHO, an outright war wouldn't be good for such as purpose, but some sort of unrest would.

This is mostly true and I did leave out a few details. Such a move would need to be coupled with a good propaganda campaign to convince the people it was a just and necessary war. The desired unification is between various non-government groups and factions within the populace and of the general populous with the government.

It needs to be a calculated move because the unification of the people could backfire horribly if the government is unable to adjust its infrastructure and the people aren't sufficiently weakened by the loss of life in the war, especially if the war is lost without the government's disolution. Uprisings are a real pain and can lead to a nigh lawless land if they're middlingly successful and/or poorly directed.

Politics is a complicated, messy, crazy affair. Logic can be applied to a certain extent but there's a certain artistry to it as well beyond the simple management aspects.