GCG

Back to gaming! Here are a few mini-games (1-3 pages of rules each) that I made over the years that you probably haven't seen. Use these or their ideas at your leisure.

Intensity
This is a quick 1-page RPG resolution system based mostly on Sorcerer, In A Wicked Age, and Agon. The basic idea here is that players can determine how invested their characters are in an action, which raises both their chances to succeed and their risk in taking the action. Comes with 3 pages of examples.
http://www.berengad.com/public/intensity.pdf

SCAPE
The Scenario Create and Play Engine is based in large parts on Apocalypse World, crossed with Primetime Adventures and Love in the Time of Seid. It only has 2 pages of rules, but it requires some design work before play: you basically create GM moves in general and specific ones for the Issue of each character (so if your character has a Dark Secret, one of the failure moves would be "someone becomes suspicious"). My group and I played a 6-session game of this and it worked really well (but we're also very familiar with AW and PTA).
http://www.berengad.com/public/Scape.pdf

War Dice
Finally, if you're in the mood for a lightweight tactical game, try this. Units are represented by formations of 6-sided dice (2x1 for spearmen, 4x4 for a dragon...), which are rolled to determine their resilience. Attack from the front, and you'll have to overcome the sum of a column. Flank them, and you are up against the sum of the row. And if you've got a sniper, take out individual dice. 3 pages of rules plus 3 different Factions (Dragon Folk, Lich Queen's Army, and The Horde) with units, abilities, and heroes.
http://www.berengad.com/public/war_dice_v1.pdf

https://plus.google.com/u/0/108038044720614707645/posts/S16yixvLgS8

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117301572585814320386/posts/BTRhMCBQj1V

Every day until I am done, I will be putting up a free, direct download link to one of my eBooks. At some point I will probably take these down, at which point you will have to write and ask to get a free copy.

Today the game is Clover.

http://www.tao-games.com/?p=35

"Clover is a game about an adventurous five year old girl and her life and her friends. Her name is Clover.

To play the game, you must devote an some time to play it with your friends. In playing, you imagine this girl and her friends in their lives, asking questions and saying what they say and what they do. There is no way to win. You just play because the experience is fun. So don’t play it with anyone mean.

This game is a fantasy, and in playing it we are imagining the idyllic childhood we never had. It doesn’t seek to realistically portray the life of a five-year old girl. Please do not mistake the two."

Please share widely.

Non credo ci sia bisogno di aggiungere altro

Scusate se mi permetto di aprire un topic dedicato, ma mi stavo iniziando a perdere. Riassumo quanto deciso fin'ora.


Useremo la regola dei Trait Bonuses:
considerato che il tratto si segna alla fine di una character scene, non vedo che utilità potrebbe avere tirare un dado in quel momento ^^

cito dall'altro topic:

http://www.gentechegioca.it/smf/index.php/topic,6913.msg153404.html#msg153404

pagina 146:

Citazione

Trait Bonuses
If you want traits to be a little more relevant for play, and you’d like to link that into a reward structure, you can expand the way traits work in the following way.
When you play a character scene and mark a trait, there are two different ways to do so. First, if you didn’t really bring out the trait in the scene, mark it with a check. This is the regular mark, used for a reroll. But if you brought out the trait in the scene and used it to make the story in the scene more interesting, mark it with a star instead. When you unmark a starred trait, you get a bonus die to add to your reroll.

In addition, if you can tie the trait into your description of whatever action you’re taking when you unmark the trait, whether it’s a checked or a starred trait, you also earn a bonus die to the reroll.

This more involved mechanic allows traits to become more important, both in the story and in their mechanical impact. Make sure your group agrees on whether you’re using this added mechanic before you start a session.

[...]

http://www.animaprimerpg.com/main/docs/Anima_Prime_CC_04-07-2011.pdf
pagina 45:

Citazione

After your roll, if you have a trait marked from a character scene, you can “spend” (erase) the mark in exchange for rerolling your failed dice (1s and 2s). You need to describe how the trait figures into your current maneuver. Roll the failed dice and figure out dice gained as before, adding them to your total.

[...]

Ho chiesto a Cristian su g+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105054573135086601732/posts/2tFKCTwJDYu
La sua risposta:

I didn't write that optional rule as well as I could have. The idea is that it's no longer required to say how the trait matters in the moment; instead, it's rewarded when you do. So yes, you can end up with two bonus dice if you described it in the character scene as well as when using it.

Ciao a tutti

qui in trentino si stanno muovendo le cose per fare una "due giorni" in autunno (i dettagli sono ancora da definirsi, potrebbe essere una Ludicaego indie "doppia", oppure una "GiocaRovereto"...). Intanto, vorrei informarmi meglio su quali date siano più appetibili. Io ho individuato tre periodi: metà settembre (tipo, due settimane dopo GnoccoCON e prima del LARP Symposium), metà ottobre (due settimane prima di lucca) o verso il 20 novembre ( tre settimane da lucca, due da ArCONate).

Come periodi andrebbero bene? ci sono altre CON e/o eventi programmati in autunno di cui dovrei sapere (khana mi pare volesse fare qualcosa a settembre)? Quante settimane di distanza da lucca è meglio prendere in considerazione? due settimane prima sarebbe sufficiente?

Grazie ^^
Pat

semplice semplice: ne sono previsti quest'anno? qualcuno si sta muovendo in questo senso?

Ciao a tutti

Condivido con voi alcuni pensieri che ho avuto riguardo a quei giocatori che tendono a giocare sempre lo stesso (tipo di) personaggio. Ad esempio io :s

Io distinguo due casi in cui avviene: se è fatto volontariamente e consciamente, o se lo si fa senza accorgersene.

Nel primo caso, posso portare qualche esempio mio. Ho a lungo giocato a D&D (e altri giochi e gdr fantasy), e ho quasi sempre fatto il master. Ma quando facevo un personaggio, era sempre un elfo mago. Volevo giocare un elfo mago, e tutti i personaggi che giocavano erano così. Si distinguevano forse in alcuni aspetti l'uno dall'altro, ma erano sempre elfi maghi. Pensandoci, sono arrivato alla conclusione che il mio problema era che non riuscivo mai a giocare quel tipo di personaggio in maniera soddisfacente. Non per problemi miei o di qualche altra persona in particolare, ma semplicemente perchè le campagne non duravano mai più di qualche sessione (alcune anche una sola).
Per estensione (e altro esempio), mi capita ogni tanto di avere un concetto di personaggio che mi piacerebbe tanto giocare, e di fare personaggi simili a quello. Ad esempio qualche tempo fa ho riletto Ragazze Lupo, un romanzo su una adolescente complessata a londra, che è anche la figlia minore del signore dei Licantropi. Dopo aver letto quel libro avevo una gran voglia di giocare un personaggio grosso, feroce, cattivo, forte.
Pensandoci, facevo (consciamente) personaggi "tutti uguali" per due motivi: innanzitutto perchè non riuscivo a giocare quel personaggio in maniera soddisfacente, non riuscivo a "completare" un personaggio di quel tipo. Il secondo motivo era semplicemente perchè avevo voglio di fare quello in quel periodo (e si collega credo al primo motivo: una volta fatto un ciclo di gioco soddisfacente con un dato pg, credo che la necessità di giocare un pg di quel tipo sia soddisfatta).

L'altro caso invece è più sottile, ed è una cosa di cui mi sto rendendo conto ora. Faccio un esempio di cosa mi è successo di recente: qualche settimana fa ho giocato una demo del Mondo dell'Apocalisse con Ezio come MC. Ho fatto un operatore, un broker di affari in un piccolo villaggio-oasi in mezzo al deserto. Gentile, giovane, carismatico, dallo sguardo che ispira fiducia, con le mani in pasta dappertutto e che non si fa problemi a sporcarsi le mani se serve (ma questo non lo dice in giro). Ad un certo punto (non ricordo per quale motivo, forse per le St, forse per una discussione post-giocata), esce la domanda: Qual'è la più grande paura di Wilson? E la risposta è: restare solo. Lui ha un piccolo impero, con gente fidata al suo servizio. Tratta bene tutti, e in genere la gente lo rispetta. Ma non ama nessuno, e non ha veri amici. Conosce le persone solo in maniera superficiale (per quali motivi probabilmente l'avremmo scoperto giocando).
Flash foreward all'altra sera, pitch di AiPS via hangout, col Vellu come produttore. Nel mondo moderno viene creata una realtà virtuale (DreamNet) accessibile attraverso una specie di diadema supertecnologico mentre si dorme. Io faccio "quello che contrabbanda diademi". Sono un padre di famiglia, tecnico informatico, sento mia figlia (il pg di Giulia) solo di rado, e vivo da solo. Nel mio magazzino incontro i miei clienti a cui contrabbando diademi (quasi come uno spacciatore). Il mio problema: "non riesco a coltivare legami". Lui ha contatti con tante persone, sia "online" (in DreamNet) che dal vivo. Ma sono persone che conosce in maniera superficiale, magari perchè sono suoi clienti, non ha nessuno che gli sia davvero vicino. E il suo lavoro non gli dà il tempo di coltivare amicizie o relazioni profonde. è, fondamentalmente, un uomo solo. E lì mi rendo conto: cacchio, questo personaggio ha tantissime cose in comune a Wilson (anche se non sono lo stesso personaggio).
Perchè è successo? Sinceramente non ho ancora trovato una motivazione: forse sono io che sono così? Quelli sono aspetti miei personali che, volente o nolente, fluiscono nei personaggi che gioco? (deltronde non è la prima volta che mi sento dire "Hai di nuovo fatto un personaggio come [nome di un mio altro personaggio, solitamente un qualche tipo di capetto]", oppure "Questo tuo personaggio è proprio pattoso"). Oppure semplicemente in questo periodo ho bisogno di giocare, di esplorare, un personaggio che ha questa caratteristica? Una volta giocato in maniera soddisfacente un personaggio simile (e sviscerato questa tematica), ci sarà qualche altro aspetto ricorrente nei miei pg?



Ecco, questi i miei pensieri e le mie riflessioni a riguardo.
Lascio qualche spunto di riflessione/discussione:
A voi è mai capitato? Avete avuto periodi in cui giocavate sempre la stessa tipologia di personaggio? Se si, a cosa era dovuto, cosa vi spingeva a farlo? Lo facevate consciamente? Se no, come reagivate quando ve ne accorgevate?

Segnalo un post di luke crane che sta girando in queste ore, in cui parla della sua recente esperienza con il "vecchio" dnd (non mi addentro ulteriormente nel discorso perchè non sono sufficientemente informato)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5

(oltre al post, c'è anche un lungo commento di Crane che approfondisce ulteriormente il suo discorso)

We've been playing D&D at BWHQ for the past four months. Our group consists of me plus six players: two ladies, four gentlemen. The players have a range of experience with D&D: from none at all to grognardia to having worked on the brand.

We're using the Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert books. Only myself and one other had played this particular edition previously. And I'd only played Cook Expert when I was a lad. I still have that book. Very sturdy, though it has suffered from much abuse at my hands.

The game began as an experiment with +Thor Olavsrud to understand how "original" D&D was played. Thus we set out to play as close to the rules as possible. While this edition is indeed old—published in 1981—it is a far cry from OD&D. It is, by my count, the fifth edition of D&D (editions being: OD&D, three Holmes editions, then Moldvay). I chose this edition over the Gygax/Arneson and Holmes editions because it contains a defined set of procedures that I could follow, not just for the subsystems, but for the entire structure of play: character creation, the adventure, parley, combat, advancement and recovery. I felt  I could play this best as written and thus get closer to how it was intended to be played.

In order to ensure our experience was in line with what the original designers intended, I made sure we used their published adventures. Moldvay edition is the genesis of "Basic" D&D. Thus the B series of modules are ostensibly built for this version of D&D.

We started at the beginning: B1, In Search of the Unknown.

The set up is thin: monsters infest an abandoned secret fortress. I think we all, players and me as GM, found the geographic design of this dungeon arbitrary. It was a collection of rooms on a sheet of paper, not the secret fortress as advertised. I'll admit that I was finding my feet with the game and thus did a poor job running this module. But it lacked a compelling narrative or internal logic. The players duly raided away, but after the third wave of character deaths, they had a dawning realization that this endeavor was pointless. They quit Quasqueton after exploring 80% of the dungeon in three sessions, at the cost of about six deaths: They vowed never to go back.

And then I discovered that B1 was designed for the Holmes Edition of D&D and so perhaps that's why it lacked a little of the cohesion of the later Moldvay edition.

Next we played B2, Keep on the Borderlands. This is a curious module. It skirts the conceit of Basic D&D— only dungeons, no wilderness, no town—by giving a map of the keep/town and small wilderness area. And like B1, this is because B2 was designed for the Holmes edition, and predates Moldvay's publication by a year.

In B2, the characters sortie out from the eponymous Keep to the Caves of Chaos. I want to be careful not to spoil this adventure, so I won't give specifics. Suffice to say, at the Caves they must root out a deeply entrenched, and rather extensive, infestation of monsters and servants of Chaos. I think this module's design is genius. It evokes exactly what this era of D&D is about: exploration and puzzle-solving. The puzzles are geographical, social, magical and physical in nature—on a variety of scales, from tiny objects, to map-wide. Exploration serves to reveal information that serves in solving the puzzles. The design is simple in execution, but surprisingly subtle. One solution opens one possibility and closes the others. When we played, it was easy to make the Caves feel alive. It feels as if Gygax designed this module and then Moldvay reedited D&D to evoke the experience of playing Keep on the Borderlands.

Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic.

Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!

After their rousing conquest of the Caves of Chaos, we moved on to B3, Palace of the Silver Princess. I chose this module for their next adventure out of many possibilities because: 1) it seemed like something they could tackle without getting shredded 2) it is short 3) it has narrative motivation/cause 4) they're locked in the dungeon 5) Tom Moldvay shares an author credit. I thought those were a good set of features, different from the part-time-day-worker mercenary feel of Keep on the Borderlands.

However, after the gold-standard of Keep, I was sorely disappointed in this scenario. The logic is thin. The puzzles are poorly conceived. The traps are simply cruel and don't make too much sense in the larger ecology of the castle. The map of the castle is pure nonsense as well. If it is a palace, it's rather dank and claustrophobic. If you have to get downstairs, you have to go through the Court Magician's lab. He must love that.

I know some of you will disagree with me on this assessment. And I know this module has a troubled and storied history, but I hoped in vain that Moldvay would elevate it the way he elevated the Basic edition. Alas, he did not.

Regardless of the dungeon's quality, my crack team of adventurers busted the scenario open with a Charm Person spell in session 2. Much to their credit, and my frustration, while they had the solution of the adventure in their power, they continued to explore. Unfortunately, the adventure didn't measure up to their expectations and their exploration only lead them to worse traps and more hideous monsters, without granting a better understanding of the problem they faced.

At one point, they tried to rest upstairs, but were rudely interrupted multiple times. Their desired eight hour rest period turned into a 14 hour bout of exhaustion and flight. That broke them. After that, they went for the goal, and true to form, bashed through the final encounter with nary a hit point lost.

Despite my feelings about B3, I decided to use it as a platform to build their world on. Their characters advanced to level 4 and so it was time to leave the red book and head for the blue: Expert set. After careful research, I discovered the most excellent module, B10 Night's Dark Terror. I modified that scenario slightly, placing Haven (from B3) at the center of its action. I let the group stay at the Palace to learn new spells and weapon mastery (from the black Master book). I let them bank their gold there. And I set up Princess Argenta and Ellis as their patrons. In this newly built world, constructed of a few patchworks of wilderness, towns and dungeon locations, they had done good, word had spread, and now their services were in demand. In fact, I let them choose between B10 and combined campaign of X1 Isle of Dread and X6 Quagmire. They boldly took up the Princess's cause in the form of B10, with only the vaguest promise of reward. I'm proud of them. They did it because they had a lust for adventure, not for empty promises of reward.

I'm nervous about the transition to the wilderness style of adventure, since the beautiful economy of Moldvay's basic rules are rapidly undermined by the poorly implemented ideas of the Expert set. However, this module is so beautiful and detailed, I think all will be well. We already had our first river journey and fight on the deck of a ship. I think I was more excited about the change of venue than the players were.


After more than 16 sessions of play, I think this is a magnificent game. The previous editions have seeds of the hobby, seeds of greatness in them, but this edition is not only a game with digestible procedures, but it is a fully realized vision. A new vision. A vision of a monster-filled world, riddled with dungeons, ready to be plumbed by desperate heroes. It created a perilous world with death lurking around every corner in the form of this dangerous, unforgiving game.

During some of the darker moments of the game, when curses flew and lives ended, my players turned to me and said, "Don't worry; don't feel badly. It's not you. It's the game."

What a tremendous thing to say.

I realized at that moment that this group had done something all too rare in my experiences with roleplaying games. Rather than bending the game to our predilections, we bent our collective will to the game. We learned it, and it taught us. It taught us how to play it, but it also taught us lessons. And though it can be cruel, there is a savage logic operating underneath it's Erol-Otus-drawn skin. Something that we could grasp, even if it hurts a little. Once we divested our modern notions of fantasy—of Dungeons and Dragons, even—and subjected ourselves to its will, we leveled up. Suddenly, we were sharing a hobby; we had discovered something new and our motley crew was better friends for it.

This slim red volume emerged before us as a brilliant piece of game design that not only changed our world with it's own bright light, but looking from the vantage of 1981, I can see that this game changed THE world. This world of dark dungeons and savage encounters slowly crept out into ours, from hobby shops to basements, to computer labs and movie screens. And we're all better off for having adventured in it, even if the game isn't played quite the same anymore.

+Matt Snyder What have I learned? The core lesson is as I stated: Make no assumptions. Put aside your biases and play the game.

I also feel qualified to talk about D&D for the first time in my life. I have gone deep into this monster. I've read all of the early editions: Gygax/Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer and Gygax AD&D.

I'm still processing what's happening in the group. The group is often engaged, but not at the level I'm accustomed to with Burning Wheel. Interactions with the system are simple and brief. Either a die roll or two, or the selection of an expendable resource. The engagement via the caller and mapper is also very high. There's a little character play, but nothing as intense as what I'm used to. But the decisions are so fraught with peril, I have nightmares later that night (as does another one of the players). We call it PTSD&D.

I've learned that it's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless.

I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."

To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.

So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text. It's easily ignored, but power corrupts and all that. The game is fantastic, but it is not perfect. I didn't talk about its lumps in my Ode, but it has plenty.

As for design specifically…the game seems easily hackable. And it is, in the same way a hotrod is customizable. You can tune the engine, try different tires and even change the chrome, but you can't take it off-road. This game is a hotrod. It is built to explore dungeons. As soon it moves away from puzzle-solving and exploration, the experience starts to fray. There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. Heaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution. Might as well knife fight.

The hacking is endorsed by the game. There's a rule in the DM section at the back of the book. It tells you how to make a call on the fly, then after the session, come up with a rule and propose it to the players.

House Ruling is thus enshrined. I'm fascinated by this. The core game is rock solid, but there are little niches you can modify while maintaining the experience. We modified how firebombs work, for example. I'm sure most people make much heavier modifications more rapidly—because they think they know better than the game. I want to read all of those house rules. In fact, I think WotC should embrace House Rule culture. I think they should publish that slim volume and then create a central repository for everyone's house rules. I'd page through it for hours.

I could ramble on about this game for hours. This post is a paean to the game, but I have more designer thoughts running around my head: Charisma as über stat, functional alignment, encumbrance is awesome, the caller is the best rule I used to hate, mapping is a metagame, bored players, the poor fighter, and why this game is so fucking addicting.

Also, changed the ending. Split the last paragraph into two and rewrote a couple of sentences. My last two points were muddled. Hopefully they're clearer now.

One thing I confirmed (that I've always previously suspected): FUCK NOSTALGIA. FUCK IT UNTIL IT IS DEAD. For me, I need to experience games so i can internalize them. As soon as I feel that haze of nostalgia drifting through me, I know my critical faculties have failed me. Getting the chance to pierce the veil of nostalgia and look at this game with fresh eyes has been a poignant reminder not to pretend nostalgia is knowledge.


Counter to that sentiment is an equally dangerous one. Now that I have undertaken this experiment, I have that terrible urge to claim to know the true D&D.

D&D has mutated into quite a beast in its lifetime. Everyone who plays it claims to know the truth. The best way to play. I think it's one of the strengths of the game.

So now that we've gone back and played 1981 D&D we are better D&Ders than 1982 and onward! Right? Maybe. But probably not.

D&D isn't one thing anymore. It's a broad canopy covering a lot of lesser flora and fauna. This old tree that we've climbed is just one part of it. Getting a feel for how the game was played in 1981 certainly helps me see the current iterations more clearly. And it helps me identify design decisions made in this edition and others. I can see how those decisions have ramified through play, through the culture, through multiple editions.

But, as much as I'd like to lay claim to it, I have not found the one true way. It's a great game, and I encourage you all to play, but it is merely one game out of many.

Ieri sera ci siamo trovati per fare il pitch della prossima serie che andrò a giocare in Avventura in Prima Serata (eh sì, mentre la gente si butta sui nuovissimi e sbrilluccicosi MonsterHearts, DeD &co, gente "indietro" come me deve ancora giocare la sua prima serie di AiPS...)

Ci siamo trovati con l'intenzione di fare un pitch in tutta calma, io (produttore) e jessica, giacomo, stefania e vincenzo. Ci abbiamo messo quattro ore, e questo è il risultato:

Le serie (videogiochi, libri,..) e gli elementi che abbiamo elencato sono:
Chuck -> personaggi con una doppia vita
Justice -> La manipolazione dei media
The Vampire Diaries -> fazioni opposte, ma nessuna è realmente "malvagia"
Deus Ex -> esplorazione di un grande cambiamento e le ripercussioni sulla popolazione
Ragazze Lupo -> elementi soprannaturali, ma solo come pretesto e sfondo per la storia

****************

Titolo della serie: Pandora

Premessa: La serie è ambientata ai tempi nostri, in europa. Un'organizzazione segreta ha liberato dei demoni nel mondo, e ora cerca di  per "riparare ai danni" usando le persone possedute che riescono a controllare il proprio demone. I personaggi sono persone comuni che sono state possedute da un demone, ma che hanno mantenuto la propria lucidità. Vengono incaricati dall'Organizzazione di formare una squadra operativa per andare a cercare e combattere gli altri demoni. In ogni puntata i protagonisti saranno mandati in una diversa città europea, e dovranno conciliare la loro vita segreta da agenti-posseduti con quella comune.


Il Cast:
James Smith (Vincenzo) - Impiegato bancario, è alla ricerca di suo figlio scomparso quando è stato posseduto da un demone. è posseduto da Sentenza, un demone che fa sì che nessuno possa mentirgli, ma anche lui deve sempre dire la verità. Si sente responsabile per quello che è successo al figlio e lo vuole ritrovare. Il suo problema è la paura di fallire, il voler essere sempre perfetto.
Tratti: Impiegato bancario - Matt, mio figlio di 8 anni - Il mio demone Sentenza
Nemesi: il demone che ha rapito-posseduto Matt
Set personale: lo studio in cantina, dove raccoglie informazioni su suo figlio

Sydney Fox (Jessica) - Politica emergente, donna in carriera e di successo. Il suo problema è il non riuscirsi a fidare degli altri, la diffidenza che la tiene lontana dalle persone derivante dall'essere una donna tra uomini, e dal lavorare in politica. Il suo demone le permette di creare illusioni (come se questo la aiutasse a conquistare la fiducia degli altri...).
Tratti: Illusioni - Politica emergente - Clark, il direttore del TG
Nemesi: Frederick Backon, il rivale in politica
Set Personale: "il pensatoio", il suo luogo di riflessione

Katherine McCall (Stefania) - Studentessa goth appassionata di occulto, lei il suo demone se l'è evocato da sola. è una ribelle, delusa dal mondo e dalle persone, e si è rifugiata nel mondo dell'occulto per evadere dalla realtà. Il suo problema è il rifiuto e la delusione nei confronti della società. Non fosse che il suo demone la rende irresistibilmente affascinante, quindi difficilmente riesce a stare da sola...certo, a parte quando passa le notti al cimitero.
Tratti: Esperta di occulto - Roger, il mio demone - Lo spirito di uno sciamano che ho evocato al cimitero e che mi fa da guida
Nemesi: Vicky, la cugina cheerleader
Set Personale: il cimitero

Robert J. McCall (Giacomo) - Padre di Katherine, di lavoro fa il becchino. è benestante e abita in una grande villa, ma è solo assieme alla figlia: la sua famiglia sembra perseguitata dalla sfortuna, e tutti i loro parenti sono morti (e sepolti nella cripta di famiglia). Questo l'ha reso iperprotettivo nei confronti di sua figlia (è il suo problema), la quale non apprezza tali attenzioni. Il suo demone trae potere dal divorare i cadaveri, e gli permette di comunicare e controllare gli insetti.
Tratti: Emotivamente freddo - Controllo degli insetti - Padre Ray
Set Personale: La cripta di famiglia

Set: gli scenari della serie si alterneranno tra i luoghi di vita comune dei protagonisti a Dublino (dove ha sede l'Organizzazione), la sede stessa, l'aereo (stile Criminal Minds) e le varie città europee in cui si svolgeranno le missioni

Incipit: la serie inizia con la convocazione dei protagonisti per formare una nuova squadra operativa per l'Organizzaizione.



A domani il pilota ^^