skills. When enough skill APs are earned, the skill in question advances a level, regardless of the character's overall APs and level. Reception In the January–February 1984 edition of Space Gamer (Issue No. 67), W.G. Armintrout compared Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes to Top Secret and Espionage! and concluded, "Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes is one of the best-presented role-playing games I've ever seen, and if it isn't seriously in contention for a Charlie at Origins I'll be surprised. It should be understood that the game is supposed to be 'fun'. This means it often plays like: 'Make a saving roll to avoid the giant anaconda' or 'Make a saving roll to dodge the charging tiger'; on the other hand, getting involved in even a minor gunfight is a good way to get killed. MSPE is the simplest game of this bunch, yet I find it intriguing. It seems more open-ended than the other games: Utilizing MSPE rules, you could play out such varied adventurers as Murder on the Orient Express, The Dogs of War, or the exploits of James Bond. The rules are excellent, promise to be well-supported, and can be a great deal of fun if you don't take your gunfights too seriously." In the January 1984 edition of White Dwarf (Issue #49), John Sutherland found the rules to be badly organized, and attempted to cover too much, with the result that little of substance was revealed. Sutherland gave the system an overall rating of only 4 out of 10, saying, "These rules try to offer too much and end up providing very little. The game concept is good, but the execution is poor... The immense area of diversity that should be available from Agatha Christie to James Bond, is absent. By casting the net too wide, the author captures nothing." Nick Davison reviewed Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes for Imagine magazine, and stated that "MS&PE is an unsuccessful attempt to graft too many ideas together. Although it is certainly cheaper than other comparable RPGs ... no introductory scenario is included with the book." In the November 1984 issue of Dragon (Issue 91), Ken Rolston criticized the lack of background material, saying, "There is little help on specific institutions like the CIA and FBI. Economics is glossed over (a practical decision, given the time period addressed), and in general there is insufficient support for campaign-level role-playing." However, Rolston