The next round of basic moves for my James Bond hack (tentatively entitled “Agent World”). Comments and suggestions are welcome!
Intro
“While you’ll find traces of Jason Bourne, Black Widow, Evelyn Salt and Ethan Hunt in these pages, the primary inspiration for this game’s fiction is James Bond. I’m a big fan of the newer Bond movies, but these rules will steer you more toward Connery than Craig. If you’re not interested in glamorous celebration of hyper competence and sexuality, this might not be the game for you.”
Get Violent
When you get into a serious fight, roll+deadly. On a 10+ all 3. On a 7-9 choose 2. On a 6- there are complications; you’re hurt or captured or some other nasty thing the GM comes up with.
– You finish it quickly
– You don’t draw too much attention
– You avoid getting roughed up yourself
This move doesn’t trigger every time you draw a gun or raise your fists. In many cases, your talent and training will make the outcome of a scuffle a forgone conclusion. Conversely, the GM may rule that the opposition is overwhelming even for someone of your ability. In both cases, the move doesn’t trigger and no roll is made – the GM just describes what happens in the fiction and you’ll have a chance to react to it. This move is for those occasions when the exact outcome of the fight is in question.
Chase
When you reach the climax of a chase, roll+sharp. On a 10+ you get away (or catch your target). On a 7-9 something goes wrong; the GM will offer you some irreconcilable goods or the lesser of some evils. On a 6- you get caught (or your quarry escapes).
Remember that this move triggers at the climax of a chase. If fictional circumstances dictate an early conclusion, it’s quite possible no roll will be necessary.
Beautiful Foil
When the mission depends on an asset you’ve developed through sex appeal, roll+suave. On a 10+ all 3. On a 7-9 choose 2. On a 6- choose 1.
– They are willing to betray their boss
– They already have the information you need
– They don’t get compromised
This move is not about developing the asset, that simply happens or doesn’t happen based on the game fiction. This move triggers when you need the asset’s help.
Contact
When your local contact helps you find something or someone critical to the mission, roll+connected. On a 10+ choose 3. On a 7-9 choose 2. On a 6- choose 1.
– They get you what you need
– They take you where you need to go
– It isn’t a trap
– They survive the encounter
This move doesn’t help you find a local contact, it just determines how effective your previously developed contact is when you need them (and whether they’ll be around to help you again in the future).
Just where I want you…
When you’ve been captured and the bad guys have you at their mercy, describe how you turn the tables at the last second. If you do it by…
…clever planning or exploitation of your environment, roll+sharp.
…convincing them to let you go, roll+suave.
…getting rescued by allies, roll+connected.
On a 10+ choose up to 3. On a 7-9 choose 2. On a 6- choose 1.
– You find out something important about the villain’s plot
– You don’t get left behind
– You don’t reveal anything important
As with all of the moves, this move only triggers based on the narration you provide. It also assumes you’re at least temporarily at the villain’s mercy – after all, that’s when they’re most likely to gloat and reveal part of their master plan.
Gadgets
At the beginning of each mission, swing by Q branch and roll+connected. On a 10+ hold 4. On a 7-9 hold 3. On a 6- hold 2. During the mission you can spend your hold, 1-for-1, to have exactly the gadget you need to solve the problem at hand.
Only one agent on the team gets to make this roll for each mission. Note that you can only use the hold generated by this move if you describe the gadget and how it solves the problem.
.
Interesting idea! I always wanted to see a modern day hack and this might just do it. Let me know if you need a playtester.
This is so damn cool. And I’m really interested by the idea of making the basic moves so specific. It seems to me like there’re these swathes of play that are defined by the negative space of the basic moves rather than something more immediate, like the AW moves.
Looks good. I’m writing this at work (shh!) and am writing thoughts as they come to me.
Chase
The 7-9 result sounds like you don’t achieve your goal (capture or escape). A mixed result should always fundamentally be a success, unless you’re really messing with the structure of AW moves. Maybe reword it to something like “On a 10+ you get away (or catch your target) without any trouble. On a 7-9, you get away (or catch your target), but something goes wrong…”
Beautiful Foil, Contact, Just where I want you…, and Gadgets
These moves work, but as you’ve listed a 6- result, it looks as if choosing one option is the only thing that happens on a miss. Is that the case, or does the GM get to make a move as well (as usual)? If the latter, I think that needs to be made clearer. Like “On a 6-, choose 1 in addition to whatever else the GM says.”
Just where I want you…
The trigger says “When you’ve been captured…”. Is that meant to be taken literally? Does the move only trigger when the PC has been captured, and is handcuffed to a weight in a shark tank or strapped on a table with a laser pointed at them? Or could it trigger when the PC is in a dead end alley surrounded by goons?
Also, the move doesn’t explicitly say that you escape. I don’t know if this is a problem, but “turning the tables on them” is very broad. Is the move intended to always get the PC free? If so, I think that needs to be explicit.
Gadgets
It makes sense that only one PC could get equipment from Q branch, but that makes whoever gets the hold a one person problem solving machine. That doesn’t feel very fun. This feels like it belongs in a playbook rather than being a basic move. Anyone can make the move, but as only one person per mission can do it, the player with the highest Connection is going to be doing it. Possibly exclusively.
What does irreconcilable goods mean?
I like the spirit of these moves. Instead of making then general enough that they always trigger, you made them optional which has allowed for more specific outcomes.
Was this a deliberate design choice?
Great stuff! Thanks!
Christopher Stone-Bush:
The intro to the moves section has this description, which might clarify some of your questions:
Each move will tell you what happens based on your roll, but the general guidelines are as follows. If your roll+stat total is:
10+: Complete success. Things go just the way you want them to.
7-9: Partial success. Make the choices as called for by the move and expect the GM to riff on the results (usually based on choices you didn’t make).
6-: Failure. Make any choices called for by the move and expect the GM to insert some serious complications.
Regarding Chase:
Irreconcilable goods = multiple things you want but can only have one of.
Lesser of some evils = a bunch of things you don’t want but have to choose one of.
I think you and Stuart McDermid are making the same point that it’s needlessly complicated as currently written. I’ll clean that up.
RE: Just where I want you…
I’d personally take the trigger quite literally, but I can potentially see it happening in a situation like the alley you mention. The key is that it needs to be a situation where the villain feels comfortable enough with his or her position to not worry about gloating and revealing something important.
RE: Gadgets
Good point. My intention was for anyone on the team to be able to make use of the gadgets by describing what they need and having the person who rolled erase the hold from their playbook – the limitation is in place to prevent a team of 3 agents getting 12 hold! I’ll clarify the intent for the next draft.
Stuart McDermid that’s exactly what I’m going for. I feel like capturing the spirit of the genre requires that the protagonists succeed at most tasks based on the game conversation rather than the result of a roll. The moves trigger only in very specific circumstances that are appropriate to genre tropes.
I know lots of games do this, but my intent is to build a set of basic and GM moves that are built around it happening rather than leaving it vague.
Kaillan Reukers I envision the negative space as the place most of the game conversation lives for this particular hack. In many ways it’s the opposite of the bloated monstrosity of rules I created for my Ars Magica hack. (Don’t get me wrong, I love Wizard World, but the design intent was completely different).
Knowing that the introduction makes it clear that a 10+ is success and a 7-9 is success at a cost does help clear some things up, Jared Hunt. But it also raises a few questions.
Like for the move Beautiful Foil.
What happens if I get a 7-9 but I don’t choose the first option? The asset has the info I need and won’t be found out by the bad guy, but do I get the information? By not choosing the “willing to betray their boss” option, I’m not sure, since them giving me the info I need sounds like they are betraying their boss.
Or the move Contacts.
What happens if I only choose the last two options on a 7-9? It’s not a trap and my contact survives, but do I still get what I need? I haven’t chosen the get what/where I need option, so I’m kind of confused.
The general rules say a 7-9 is a success, but some of the moves seem to require certain options be chosen for that success to happen. Not choosing those options implies that success doesn’t happen, which I’m struggling with.
Interesting…
What you’re describing is exactly what I had in mind:
In the Beautiful Foil example, by choosing that they have the information and don’t get compromised, you’re saying you’re ok with not getting the information now – which means you’ll potentially be able to set up a new situation to get it later.
In the Contact example, you’re choosing to preserve your contact but forego this particular situation and hope for something better later on.
In both cases the “success” is keeping the asset available rather than achieving the goal immediately.
Does that make sense?
For Contacts, not really. The move’s trigger is “When your local contact helps you find something or someone critical to the mission”, so I would assume that “success” means finding that someone or something critical to the mission. Which doesn’t appear to happen if I only choose options 3 and 4. Not finding the thing I’m looking for doesn’t feel like a partial success to me. Changing the first two options to something like “you aren’t tailed” or “the local police don’t get involved” makes more sense to me.
Beautiful Foil is fuzzier. The trigger is “when the mission depends on an asset” which I read as “things are going to go very bad unless you have this asset’s help” maybe even to the point of the mission being a failure. Not getting their help again doesn’t feel like partial success.
The asset being willing to betray their boss is open to a lot of interpretation. But since it’s the only option that seems to imply the asset is willing to help you, that’s how I’m reading it. It seems like the combinations are A) they help you and have the info you need, but get killed B) they help you and make it out alive, but don’t have the info you need, or C) they have the info you need and survive, but don’t help you.
Is giving you the information you need betraying their boss? I’m not sure. I think I would be less confused if the first option was changed to something like “They are willing to help you.”
Yeah, I think having “They are willing to help you” as the first option would clear up any potential confusion for the Beautiful Foil move. That will often mean they betray their boss, but not necessarily. I’m also going to change it from “have the information” to “have what you need” so it’s a bit more broad.
It also sounds like you’re saying the option to choose not to be fully successful on a 7-9 is a design problem. Is that accurate?
Oh no. Sorry. I don’t think that the player should be completely successful on a 7-9 result. Not at all. A 7-9 should always be a success with complications/cost or a partial success. What I was having an issue with was how it seemed like the player didn’t get any kind of success on a 7-9 unless they chose certain options.
I see. That’s fair.
Maybe rolling choices 1 and 2 into a single choice would be a good start. Though it would still be possible to choose not to get what you need/where you need to be if you choose only 2 & 3… Though I still like having that option out there in case the contact is someone really important to the agents – preserving them could certainly be considered a partial success in some circumstances.
I’m also thinking “you maintain the relationship” instead of “they survive the encounter” as the final choice. That leaves it a bit more open in case the GM wants to have the asset turn on the agents instead of dying.
What about this:
Beautiful Foil
When the mission depends on an asset you’ve developed through sex appeal, roll+suave. On a 10+ all 3. On a 7-9 choose 2. On a 6- choose 1.
– They are immediately willing to help you;
– They have the information/gear you need;
– They don’t get compromised.
If you don’t pick option 1, you”ll have to convince them to help. If you don’t pick option 2, they’re useful, just not as an info dump. If you don’t pick option 3, their boss finds out they helped you.
I really like what you’ve done with very cool and specific basic moves. I especially love Gadgets! I only have one thing to say. Your violence move takes too much away from the player and give too much to the MC. There is not a reason to have a move have a “I don’t even want you to roll option.” If the MC is going to provide you with a challenge i.e. something to be punched in the face. You DESERVE as a player to roll. EVERY TIME. Don’t take that power from them. Giving the MC power to say, “My NPC is better than you so you don’t get to roll,” is antithetical to things powered by the Apocalypse. The MC needs to be clever with how he provides the players with opposition. If you don’t want a particular NPC to be thwarted… then you’re playing against the player. You’re not letting the player be THE Double 0 Agent, or THE Black Widow, or THE whatever he/she is. I think it’s important to remember that what the apocalypse engine does… MORE THAN ANYTHING is help the MC provide good story with challenging decisions. Giving the MC carte blanche to say NO ROLL FOR YOU is preventing the MC from allowing the player to be a badass (which should NEVER happen) and preventing him from thinking of a more clever answer to the players actions. “I see you have defeated me Mr. Bond… but I am only a pawn in this game…”
You MIGHT want to split your violence move into two moves with triggers like, “when you aim to takedown a target without them knowing you’re there…” and possibly, “When you face a threat head on…” Then you can provide different difficult choices for 7-9 depending on the trigger. One you certainly care about being seen. Then other you might not. That way you have a different move for fighting Jaws head on and for taking down a random bad guy as you sneak into the compound of Dr. Evil.
I’ve been designing my own Apoc Hack and I’ve worked really hard on the basic moves. You have a delightful set of moves that are perfect for the kind of story you’re telling. Well done!
Eh, I’ll respectfully disagree Brian Poe. I think the intent is pretty clear, thanks to that explanation paragraph.
“This move doesn’t trigger every time you draw a gun or raise your fists. In many cases, your talent and training will make the outcome of a scuffle a forgone conclusion. Conversely, the GM may rule that the opposition is overwhelming even for someone of your ability.”
I’m assuming the GM is still told to “be a fan of the players’ characters”. You’re a well trained agent, so nameless mooks aren’t going to pose a serious threat. But other agents just as well trained as you are another matter. That’s when the move would kick in.
Christopher Stone-Bush I don’t think I explained myself well. I don’t care about the nameless mooks… it’s the OTHER possibility that I believe is contrary to the apocalypse engine. If I can say that you are in over your head and you can’t possibly beat this guy that encourages GM’s to not be more clever with playing to find out what happens. You’ve already decided that I can’t beat that guy. You aren’t playing to find out what happens in that case. You aren’t looking at the NPC’s through crosshairs. You’re protecting too much.
EDIT:
Now that I think about it a little more… denying a move because I put a mook in your way that is barely a speedbump for you is bad GM’ing as well. LET there be possibilities for complication. LET there be times to shine. I think if a GM says, ” There’s a guy there… he’s not a threat… you wanna take him down? Ok?” What a boring encounter. Why even bring it in to the game.? Make EVERYTHING count… so make the move encourage that to be the case.
While I agree that the potential for abuse is there, I don’t think it’s a problem. Not being able to trigger this move because the enemy agent is just that much better than you is no different than saying Hack & Slash doesn’t trigger because the PC’s sword can’t cut through the inch-thick metal scales of that dragon, or that Kick Some Ass doesn’t trigger because you have nothing that actually deals harm to a ghost.
I suppose that GM fiat always exists. The rules however shouldn’t include fiat as a part of them. That’s just my feeling.
Christopher Stone-Bush hits exactly on target – if the GM is following the principles as outlined (essentially “be a fan”) the Get Violent move will work exactly as intended.
Brian Poe the moves and style you describe are completely valid approaches, but they don’t capture the genre in the way I want.
Whipped up a playbook in case anyone is interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l42voaqagp9ymk6/Agent%20World%20Playbook.pdf
I like the overall layout and design. I like the purely fictional nature of the Agent’s abilities, though I feel there is some overlap between some of them. I like the new wording on the moves.
Mixed feelings on the silhouettes. You’re going for a serious Bond vibe here, right?
Yeah, Bond was very much the original inspiration. The silhouettes are from a big batch of stock photos I bought a while ago with no specific purpose. Now I guess I have one!
Which bits of overlap caught your attention?
The silhouettes look fine. I was asking because the female ones are kind of cheesecake-y. If you go for the older James Bond inspiration, then it fits.
There wasn’t a lot of overlap, but here were the ones I noticed:
– “use of small weapons” and “hand-to-hand combat techniques”
Actually, now that I read them really closely, that’s the only one. 🙂
Yeah, it’s remarkably difficult to find stock art that isn’t blatantly chainmail bikini 🙁
I chose the images at the bottom of the page because they seemed to be in strong, active positions. The one in the header is super-cheese, but I hoped the others balanced it out. I can accept that I may have missed the mark…
The one in the bottom right is active, while the one on the bottom left is in a “show off” pose. But it’s not a giant deal, and yeah. It’s brutally hard to find non cheesecake stuff.
One small nit-pick. I keep looking for stat array choices and the number of abilities I can check off.
The default stat array is
1, 0, +1, +2. Each 6result earns a check for the stat. Once you check all three boxes for a stat, it increases.The number of traits is based on the number of agents on the team. Single agent – choose 5; two agents – choose 3 each; three agents – choose 2 each.
I hadn’t intended to print that on the playbook…
looks slick man! Keep up the good work!
There’s no rule that says those things have to be included on the sheet. My image of a playbook is “character sheet and worksheet combined”, so I assume all the info I need to make my character will be right there. Again, it certainly doesn’t have to be that way.