This is the start of something very, very good.  I'm so excited to see the post-feedback version!

First Impressions:

How the text is structured, and therefore how the game is structured, is so perfect for a le Carré novel it's chilling.  Centering play around a relationship map / concept board is both functionally interesting and spot on for the genre.

The part where you write the secret part of your relationship, and, if there's nothing, you just rewrite it so that no one knows which relationships are obvious or not???  "...this is a duplicitous world, and everyone expects others to have secrets."  CHILLS.

It feels like you might be able to get some mileage out of breaking the Roles & Motivations into separate files for both presentation and gameplay?  So that the core of the games teaching-text only mentions them in broadstrokes?

Questions:

Like everyone else, i was unclear on what the cards were doing.  On my later read-throughs it becomes clear they're just there to mark things, but my first impression made me think that marking your traces, etc. was setting up for some kind of ranking? or seeing which card is higher?  Super excited to see where this mechanic ends up, after the contest.

What happens when the "Betrayal" Motivation is exposed in play?  Does that mean, in the fiction, the player is revealed to be a double-agent right there?  That feels like it would end the game, right?

I really wan to know how the Meta-Commentary Ritual Phrase Questions work in actual play.  Right now they seem like a fantastic idea, but I worry that, in actual play, having these questions asked in-character might accidentally mask their real intentions.  Someone might just answer the question in-character and forget they're being prompted to alter their play style or input.

Favorite Bits:

The first time I read through this, I listened to the OST for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, by Alberto Inglesias.  So that will stick with me forever.

The structure of the game, both as an in-fiction conversation and an out-of-game conversation is excellent.  The beautiful prose setting the scene, coupled with the sparseness of the Hanging Room being something you can *easily* recreate in your home or at a con, is brilliant.  You set this up so that having just little nub pencils, some scrap papers, and a beat up deck of cards puts you *right in that space.*  So good!  Part of me wants to see that taken to the next level.  It wouldn't take much to have this whole game laid out as a series of papers that look like official documents, and are wrapped up in a manila folder.

The balanced way of executing the epilogues is clever, too.  A story-heavy group can just assign what feels best for their character, where a more competitive group could angle their narratives so they don't have to pick last!  :D  they're also perfect descriptive without being prescriptive.  So keep that, going into the next version.  It's gold.

Very impressed, very excellent way of interpreting "maps."  Super cool.

I haven't had the chance to play The Hanging Room, so please do take that into account.

That being said, first and foremost, the game is absolutely brimming with atmosphere. While Le Carré is explicitly called out and referenced (and especially the Tomas Alfredson film version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), it is done in a way that gives the players a lot of leeway in defining the setting and specifics, and feels like a loving homage to the gritty, morally gray espionage stories that I love. The roles, relationships, vignettes and the ending are all incredibly well in genre, and I applaud the way this is all pulled off with a really good ear for what tone the narrative aims to be.

The framing of the narrative as flashbacks after the operation is brilliant. The way it forces the narrative to be tight and contained, the way it encourages conflicting viewpoints, hidden truths and outright lies and the way it ends, it is all incredibly in keeping with the best spy stories.

I also really like the idea of making connections on a board. As someone said, it would be super evocative to play using a cork board with pins and bits of red string...

Not having played the game, I feel very hesitant to say much about the rules. I really like the actions and everything seems geared to make for a good play experience. There were some things that didn't become clear to me on my first (admittedly, quick) read-through but which have already been commented on and clarified in the other comments. I know that for me personally, on my project, the time-frame and character limits of this competition both felt a bit restrictive this time around, and I think this game might also benefit (as I'm sure all games here would!) from a little clarification with regards to some rules. Examples of play would maybe also help, but of course, in the character limits given here weren't a possibility.

My gut feeling on a read-through is that some things in the rules could maybe be tightened up a bit and clarified, but it would take some playtesting for me to really see which parts this applies to.

So to conclude: This is an impressive piece of work, and I would love to see this game further developed. I also love the way you left yourselves the possibility of modular design with the operation types. Another possibility for further development could be to have different sets of settings that give some details about context, different factions etc.

All in all, a very strong entry, and as a fan of this specific type of spy story, I'm really glad to see people working with innovative games in the genre!

Ciao Alberto e Flavio!

Avete creato un’idea veramente bella di gioco e, per amor di chiarezza, mi sono segnato il nome di LeCarré per leggere almeno un suo romanzo. Ammetto di non conoscerlo, come anche conosco poco James Bond, ma durante la lettura mi sono riferito mentalmente ad alcune parti dei film “Mission Impossible” e, a tratti, anche a “I tre giorni del Condor”. Spero di non esser andato troppo oltre tematica.

Il regolamento scritto è molto schematico e lineare, ma il gioco nel complesso mi è sembrato poco fluido alla sola lettura e credo ci sia bisogno almeno di una partita per approfondire meglio.

Alcune idee che avete utilizzate le ho trovate molto furbe e intelligenti, per un gioco che si rifà alle storie di spionaggio. Dalla gestione delle mappe (interessante il volere impostare il “luogo” dell’obiettivo della jam, come “le relazioni”), all’idea delle relazioni segrete tra pesonaggi, alla costruzione degli scenari. Quest’ultima parte, poi, permetterebbe di approfondire ulteriormente molti aspetti del gioco o, addirittura, di approfondire la singola “agenzia” in gioco. La possibilità di creare più scenari collegati mi stuzzica e mi farebbe piacere capire se avevate pensato ad una strada del genere, o preferireste slegare le singole partite.

Mi è piaciuta molto anche la scelta di definire i ruoli con una domanda positiva e una negativa. Soprattutto l’aspetto più negativo è interessante perché aiuta a far capire gli altri giocatori dove si vuole andare a parare. Usata come guida nella partita, la creazione del personaggio risulta in questo senso molto più profonda di quello che sembra.

Ho un dubbio sulle vignette: Potrebbe servire una sorta di timeline durante la partita, per tenere traccia di quello che accade? Oppure per come è pensato il gioco, non serve perché gli eventi risulterebbero comunque pochi?

Grazie di aver inviato il gioco!

I will always love a game that lets you build a murderboard, and that's what the overlapping truths and lies remind me of here. I'm interested that the maps don't really refer to geography, too, but to structuring of information. Given it's hard to spend time with each other and physical items you have me wondering if it's possible to play this over online node graph sites, or mind map software? (I've played some excellent Microscope on Miro, as it goes.)

I'll echo the thoughts about playing cards that others have said; it feels like there's a lot of information on a card that isn't being used (rank, suit, difference from the card it's played on). If you just had a limited stack of index cards, that would provide the same limit on resources you mentioned earlier, perhaps? But I like your blackjack idea more; lots of little clues or two big ones, risk of endangering yourself if you overshoot, that sort of thing.

The Le Carre tone is strong; I like the way you could slot in other mission types easily; it's good. Thank you for the game!

Hey, thanks for the submission. With the big caveat that I haven’t actually played the game, just read it, here’s my review. 

Theme

I think The Hanging Room hits the theme really well. The use of two maps that both offer a glimpse into the actual mission was a great way to address the theme of the jam. I also felt that it was a good amount of complexity: only two maps, but the fact that players can make true or false claims about what happened adds complexity.

Maps

It does seem like play is quite focused on the maps. The game did fall a bit in the category of the maps representing the fiction, rather than being the fiction.

Elegance

The design felt a bit like a more secret-focused Fiasco. I thought the design was pretty straightforward and understandable. However, even after reading some sections a few times, I still didn’t fully understand the use of the deck of cards. I really liked the modularity - it would be straightforward to add elements to many of the lists without breaking the game. Same with adding a new operation type. That is a great feature and leaves a lot of room to build on the game after the jam. It’s a great reminder to me to build modular systems when designing, especially for jams.

My main design question is: what motivates players? From my reading there is no winner, advancement, or principles to play to. That’s my main gripe: as a player, what am I supposed to do? Strictly play to my motivation? What mechanically motivates me to play to that? It goes back to Jared Sorensen’s third question: how does your game encourage or reward players enforcing the theme or goal.

Tone and style

The writing is great. It was clear and really made me imagine being a character in a high-tension spy movie or novel. The choice to evoke le Carré instead of Ian Fleming was smart!

Easy to understand

I thought the rules were relatively easy to follow. There were a few areas that I thought could be clearer. Part of that might be a cultural thing, but I prefer where games make clear, cut and dry rules, rather than leaving it up to the player. One example is “one single action or interaction” (pg 8): this rule could be interpreted differently. Maybe add a time suggestion? Under a minute? Additionally, I think I would need to play to understand how the creating and revealing of secrets really works. I got a bit confused trying to understand Traces.

Overall, I liked it! I would definitely like to play it.

I have to say, a summary of the rules and/or of the game flow could have helped me understanding the rules, even because English is not my mother tongue, and the rules are a bit convoluted.

But! I like it. I like how you make the map of the mission on the way and how it's formed by truths and lies. If it was a movie, there would be multiple flashback scenes with different angles and prospectives.

I think I have not understood the conflict mechanics, with the playing of cards: it's about the highest number? Specific cards are required to do particular action? Maybe I missed some rules. but I don't find this aspect.

Nice the ending part, the choice made in reverse order make it interesting and full of tension for the player, I think