I was visualizing a game based on espionage. Graphics are irrelevant. It could be web based. As a player, you enter a campaign. Other players enter the same campaign until some maximum number of players has entered. Espionage type game #1: Each player is randomly assigned to a faction or organization. You are informed of the identities of all the other players which belong to the same faction. Your goal is to determine which factions all of the players in the campaign belong to. Some of the techniques you may employ (assuming you have setup the situation) are: 1) Conversation with any of the other players. 2) Interrogation of other players. 3) Eavesdropping on other player''s conversations via ''bugs''. 4) Tracing other player''s actions while attempting to be unnoticed. 5) Bargaining or trade of information. Espionage type game #2: There is some treasure located at some undisclosed virtual location. The player, along with all of the other players are attempting to be the first to claim the treasure. There are clues which may lead you to other clues or the treasure itself. You may employ espionage tricks on your fellow players to gain an advantage. Some tools which may come in handy are a surveyor''s scope. Use of this will require a partner. You will have to build a cooperating relationship with other players, and each of you understand that in the end, there can be only one claimant of the treasure. The ideas above are meant to encourage a ''psychological'' aspect to games, where the strategy is to get into the mind of your fellow competitor.

Hellooo? Does this sort of multi-player espionage hold no promise?

Patience. This deserves a thoughtful answer rather a knee-jerk response.

Obviously there would need to be some value to exposing one''s affiliation. Either some action that would indicate what my affiliation is or some trade-off that makes it profitable. Otherwise I''d simply never tell anyone.

Obviously the game would be best multiplayer, but that would make interrogation difficult. Since it''s a game, there is no real incentive to tell the truth even under ''interrogation''.

The only solution I can see is to formalize how people interact, which reduces the degree of interpersonal interaction.

The only other thing you could do is step in and force the game to reveal the secret, which is bad. the players are no longer playing against each other as much as against hte hard-coded rules.

Eavesdropping and tracing also run the problem that conversation has I would need a motivation to reveal or expose myself to others or even the environment of the game when I thought no one was watching.

I think you''d need to have some good mechanics to pull this off.

The second is idea is better since there is an overt goal, but specifying only one claimant for the treasure might not be a good artificial restriction. Maybe.

quote: Original post by JSwing

Obviously there would need to be some value to exposing one''s affiliation. Either some action that would indicate what my affiliation is or some trade-off that makes it profitable. Otherwise I''d simply never tell anyone.

Ah, but through other spy methods, your identity has possibly already been determined. If you are then asked, and give the wrong answer, you may be setting yourself up for harm in the future. But by annswering, your answer may be heard by a ''bug''. It needs work , I know.

quote:

Obviously the game would be best multiplayer, but that would make interrogation difficult. Since it''s a game, there is no real incentive to tell the truth even under ''interrogation''.

It would only be multi-player. A battle of wits, so to speak. If you have carelessly enabled yourself to be captured for interrogation, then you may indeed tell the truth, else harm may befall you. ''Harm'' of course, being hit points.

quote:

The second is idea is better since there is an overt goal, but specifying only one claimant for the treasure might not be a good artificial restriction. Maybe.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I appreciate the comments.

Partly because of what JSwing was talking about, and partly because of the nature of the topic, I''d recommend that you cast the player as a spymaster with assets (in multiplayer) rather than a spy himself.

Why? It''s easier to work in the elements you''re interested in, and you don''t have to lose the personal element. For example:

Eavesdropping - If you have NPC agents that you rely on to collect intel and perform missions, eavesdropping can be a both a mission and a map hazard. You could order them to place bugs, and the location from which they operate could determine if their communications are intercepted.

Comms - Eavesdropping won''t be valuable without a good communication ruleset. Comms must be vital. I''d recommend making comms necessary in order to give agents orders and receive data from them. If you make orders similar to scripting / waypoints, then intercepting another player''s next move will be vital.

Interrogation - Agents have to know things for this one to work. If you torture or drug an agent, he should be able to reveal map locations, agent orders (script / waypoint), and expose other agents.

Multiple Info Points - A big part of spy work is actually figuring out what the heck is going on. For this, you need to double check your sources. Info from one source may be wrong, or even intentionally tainted.

Missions - These would be the actual moves that get you closer to victory. Assassinations, kidnappings, infiltration, secret meetings. This is the stuff of spying!

Victory - I like the idea of exposing the other agents in multiplayer, but I wouldn''t make this a victory condition itself (a bit too drab). Instead, think about large scale campaigns: Overthrow / prevent the overthrow of a country. Steal a weapon (the treasure hunt you talked about). Support / foil a war effort.

Obviously, what I''m talking about would be closer to a strategy game, but you could personalize the NPC agents, make moves as if in a grand game of chess, and come to know and outwit / confound your enemy spymasters.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

This is probably a bit ambitious but...

(I''m talking about a 1st/3rd person game here rather than a strategy here). If you scaled up the no. of players a bit (to 32 for example), you could have gangs with a heirachy of command. This way you can be an agent, who''s jobs are the ones you said: espionage, assasinations etc. The "boss" is still 1st/3rd person, and to command his agents he has to speak to them in person (in the same room/area as them). All this communication inside the gangs gives meaning to the espionage.

I''m not sure how deaths would be handled here. I kind of get the idea that you don''t die in your original plan here. Maybe agents can respawn but if the boss dies, he leaves the game and the gang loses (or the agents can join other teams? or they fight to decide a new leader? interesting posibilities...). However it''s done it gives an incentive for the gang to protect their leader from assasinations.

As for NPCs, I''d suggest you use them purely to give information, they''re just pawns in the big game

I like the hidden treasure idea. You could have loads of scenarios as Wavinator said.

I think it could make a great game.

Everything here is of course just ideas which need to be fleshed out. Like Wavinator was saying, spying involves a number of different activities.

Visualize an abandoned farmhouse. You have agreed to meet here at 4:00 PM everyday to trade information with another player. You''re not even sure of the identity of the other player (spy), but you believe your clandestine meetings are furthering your intelligence gathering, while simultaneously building a possible ally, or pretending to be an ally to the other player anyway.

Another player has possibly noticeed these meetings between the two of you, and has placed a bug in the farmhouse. Later, you detect the bug, and wonder how long it has been there. You have strong suspicions on who is listening with the bug. Do you call off the meetings? Do you continue with the meetings like always? Do you continue with the meetings, but attempt to feed false information to the eavesdropper? Do you inform the individual you have been meeting with? If so, where and how? Have you established a set of keywords to indicate something is amiss, perhaps a simple an innocent statement?

Later, you remove the bug. You have determined the agent you have been meeting with has been withholding valuable information, and ratting on you. You arrive early to the farmhouse, and setup an ambush. If done correctly, you are then in a position to interrogate the other agent.

On decoys: A player should be able to leave messages for other players. messages may take on the form of coded documents, hand written signs, maps, or a token item left behind. These could be genuine messages, or simply decoys for enemy agents to find.

I believe if death occurs, you''re out. Period. You may enter a new and different campaign. Not only does this insure you will be very careful, but it insures fairness. You possibly had vital information as a player, and you cannot enter the same campaign again of fair terms.

Regarding the hierarchy mentioned, I had thought of this too. I''m just not sure how it work. But it has interesting possibilities. As a player, you have gathered intelligence, and you must covertly get this information back to the top via a chain of spies. Although you could better operate with more information, you essentially are only going to be given on a ''need to know'' basis, lest you spill your guts.

Double agents: think of the possibilities on this one.

Opinion: It''s better to have each of the players at the same level of the hierarchy during play. Between rounds there might be mysterious organizations or individuals higher in the food chain, but otherwise keepingit even would be easier on the designer and the players.

bishop_pass: The setup you describe is engaging and exciting. It sounds like a fun battle of wits.

I like Wav''s suggestions of a layer underneath the players so that you have some room to make solid game mechanics without directly constraining the players..

But if I put on my designer hat for a minute, I still don''t quite see a whole game here yet. The only measurable token you have so far is knowledge of player allegiance. You''ll need some other form of exchange to avoid overly short or lopsided games, I think.

Perhaps an example would be better. Take the board game Clue. There is a single victory condition. The each player is trying to get information, and at the beginning the information is spread amongst the players, no single one having a complete set.

It''s similar to the game you describe, if much simpler.

But the key to Clue is that players trade pieces of information. The rules explicitly enforce this interaction. It''s pretty much the core game mechanic (ignoring the moving around on the board for a moment).

This is what is currently missing from your description. What drives the interaction? What controls are there to make sure a player doesn''t simply lie his head off? What happens to a player that refuses to participate - does the game simply stagnate?

Hope that made more sense...

quote: Original post by JSwing

This is what is currently missing from your description. What drives the interaction? What controls are there to make sure a player doesn''t simply lie his head off? What happens to a player that refuses to participate - does the game simply stagnate?

These are all good questions. If I had all the answers, I doubt I would have posted this topic to begin with.

One of the reasons I stressed such a simple win goal was to not confuse a manufactured plot with the goal. I was seeking more pure gameplay. I am not entirely against a plot, but I wanted to insure players playing against other players, not against some contrived plot. Likewise, I wanted to insure that a player could enter a new campaign and play again against a new set of adversaries. If plots are involved, then possibly, they become stagnant, unless new plots are constantly being manufactured.

NPC''s that perform some of the ''dirty'' work is a workable idea. But I would want to get away from the ''attempting to create a believable NPC'' syndrome. Once again, I am more interested in the pure ''battle of wits'' between players. I see NPC''s working if employed simply as tools which attempt to carry out ''black bag'' jobs and then filing a report back to you. Of course, possibly the report could be intercepted.