Modern and Spy Games: Classes

One of the more interesting things about Top Secret were its three "character classes": investigator, confiscator, and assassin. There was no concept of a "James Bond" style class in this system, and I remember one of the Dragon Magazines actually writing up a "superspy" class for that reason - and all of a sudden all my game's players felt massively uncool.

Ah, TSR, stop creating classes to fix problems or chase the cool. To be honest, the game was destroyed by the official 007 RPG, so they were probably throwing poison darts at the wall and hoping people would stay if they tried to fix things.

Mission Impossible

One of the problems is the game was more Mission Impossible than it was James Bond, and I feel that made a better model for "party based play." You look at 007 - and that guy is a loner. He works alone, does things alone, and is a one-spy army. How well does that translate into group-based play? I don't think too well, because really, are we going to send 001 through 005 on one mission all the time? It weakens the premise, makes the concept of a superspy seem ineffective, and runs counter to the mystique of the gentleman or suave female superspy.

The older Mission Impossible model, where every mission needs a "team of specialized experts" fits the party play model much better. As long as everyone has something to do and the game just isn't combat. Yes, in this game it was fun to sneak into bases and cause trouble, talk to contacts, and play the supercool spy - but combat was fun just like combat was fun in D&D. You could stat-build, gun design, toss grenades, and martial arts your way into a night of modern dungeon crawling constant gunfire fun. I know that is not Mission Impossible but that is what we did.

One of the problems with Top Secret were the classes really didn't do much else than provide an XP chart for leveling. They gave a $25 mission bonus for certain mission if you were the right type of character, but not anything else. You could earn XP doing other agent's mission types. Your XP went into raising ability scores, and that was really the few bonuses of leveling (except for fate/fortune points).

My B/X Spies Game

If I were making a B/X spy game with classes, the classes would do things, give me some thief-like percentage abilities to do cool stuff and cause trouble. I would rethink the class trinity too, as assassin was way too fun, investigator got to shuffle through file cabinets, and confiscator only showed up to work the forklift and drive the truck away. If you were doing more single-person superspy I would go classless and let players develop the spy of their dreams through character advancement.

If you were doing team of experts I would go more along the types of characters in the older team-based shows: mastermind, muscle, gadgets, face, thief, and doctor. No assassins and no soldiers! Too much fun, and honestly, why have a class that is essentially a fun magnet? Spread combat responsibilities out to everyone, and give their classes special combat abilities. You need to push back on the special forces commando classes too, since once you get the military involved you lose the "average citizens doing cool things" mystique of the game.

Everyone gets the same combat modifiers as they level up, just what they do in combat is influenced by their classes. Masterminds fight smart, muscles twist you into pretzels, thieves are sneaky, and so on.

This game is a fantasy of the everybody being able to walk out of the office and normal lives, and into international intrigue. Not walk out of the office and join Seal Team 6. Frankly that sort of "commando not spy" thing has put a shadow on 007 in many of the films in my feeling, as what 007 does shooting up military bases and playing Top Gun is just...no, it doesn't feel right to me. The fantasy is broken and that is a superhero with guns and explosions like Arnold or Stallone.

Plus, with those five classes, I would have a hard time deciding what to play - which is a cool thing. Doctor would need some interesting powers to knock people out, give buffs and immunities, target weak spots, administer mind-altering substances, and other cool medical and science powers, psychology and hypnosis, because they feel the weakest.

I would play that. It supports party play, gives role protection, and lets everyone participate in combat and gives their class unique abilities to use. No one is left out. The game keeps a "combat is fun" feel while keeping out-of-combat options open and powerful.

MSPE

Yes, I am bringing up MSPE, the game often forgotten in the Top Secret vs. 007 battle. This game gets a lot of the solitary movie hero tropes right for a classless system. You level up, and work on skills to specialize. You can do teams or solo heroes, and it supports solo play a lot better than either of the games. Combat is not as fun because it is deadly, so you are going to get a lot of interactions, sneaky stuff, skill use, and social encounters - which fits the genre of movies from 1930-1980 a lot better in my feeling.

Sam Spade isn't walking into every bar with twin 0.45 pistols and blasting his way in and out to talk to a contact. You could do that in this game, but really? Okay, do that if it is fun for you.

Also, the way this game treats skills is way better than either 007 or Top Secret. Skills gain XP through every use, track XP per skill, and level independently of the character's level. You can't be a shooty combat-oriented Sam Spade, gain a level, and improve investigation skills you have never used. If you want a high-level non-combat skill - you have to use it. This encourages roleplaying, sneaky stuff, non-combat stuff, social encounters, and skill use in general.

This also modifies adventure design, as referees need to put in non-combat skill opportunities into the adventure rather than just lining up combat encounters to fill the night's session time. What is involved in completing a mission? What tasks need to be done? What skills will be needed? Can players make their own approaches, change things up, apply their skills effectively, and come up with creative solutions on their own? 

Are the varieties of challenges varied, or should they be given the situation and group's play preferences? You may want a combat-focused game, and that is fine. You may want a social-oriented game, and that is cool too. The game supports this, and the characters develop along the play style and adventures the group goes through. You may want a balance, or a mix of two or three styles of play.

The questions of single superspy and "team of experts" is solved as well, since the game supports both. This is less done "in the rules" as the B/X and TSR model enforces, and more goes into the "build as you play" classless design in games like Skyrim - you develop your character as you go instead of making an initial class choice and getting better in a limited set of abilities. If you want a James Bond, pick and level up the skills that would make a character like that. If you want a Mission Impossible team, that can be done too by specializing the character designs.

Also, unlike 007 and the original Top Secret (I know about the updated Kickstarted edition), this game has survived the years in its original old-school form. You can still buy it, buy adventures for it, and experience the game as it was played back in the day.

Classes in a Modern Era?

I prefer classless systems for modern and sci-fi games. People change, their roles change, and once you get into the game world you can feel your class doesn't have much of a use based on your play style. If you are the only player playing a charismatic face class, and the other five players at the table are all combat freaks - yeah, you are waiting for the gun smoke to clear to smile and charm the people still left alive. You could feel like you aren't contributing anything to the team, your class makes you weak at the primary group focus, and you are pigeon-holed into being the "expert the group drags around."

Plus, classless and build-as-you-go lets your game and players change. If Sam Spade picks up piloting and wants to be a South Seas smuggler and airborne two-fisted adventurer like Indiana Jones - run with it! They will have that PI background, but their new skills will support the fun the campaign morphed into. No new characters need to be created, and characters will pick up the skills they need.

Another point with systems that force you into a role, is that I feel there are times they limit your choices as a player, and as a referee for that player. If a class is a sneaky-thief type, you need to put in sneaky-thief parts or the player will feel like the choice they made was bad. The group may make choices that limit sneaky-thief opportunities.

If a player in a classless system acquires sneaky-thief skills - no matter what they do - those are now an option used to solve problems for that player instead of a requirement. The skills you choose will be influenced by your play style, and you will assemble a tool-box of unique abilities to handle the situations the referee comes up with. To me, in a modern setting where things change rapidly and characters need to be jack-of-all-trades, this is a much better choice for player agency and freedom that a system that enforces strict classes.

But again, all of the above is modified by player and group preference. It may be that you like strictly defined classes in modern settings because those give you direction and the special powers you like. More power to you! But as a referee, I need to understand that with special classes I need to provide opportunities for them to shine and feel like they are contributing. Also, as a player, I need to be aware that the group's choice may be sidelining some of my fellow players. This is unavoidable in some situations, but if it happens all the time the group needs to be aware this is happening and work to make it better for everybody.