[Cold City] Operation Holle-Kehle

[Jason Morningstar]

First session of Cold City with the Durham 3 last night - me, Clinton, Remi, and Andy.  Yes, that's four - we invited Andy to join us because Cold City won't really work with two players.  Plus he's really nice.

So we've got Dr. Louis Trepper, a frail French psychologist interested in the mechanics of fear, Nicholas Bartlett, a dangerously amoral American ex-OSS "Cowboy", and Sergei Denisovich Yezhov, an obdurate and poker-faced MGB tool - or is he?

Cold City's core mechanic is very similar to Sorcerer, and I spent some time going back and forth with Malcolm, so I felt I had a good handle on it.  We're probably playing for three sessions.

We started the game with a bunch of STs (Specialeinsatztruppen, Special Purpose Troops, basically science zombies) in a bombed out sewage treatment plant.  I had envisioned a straight-up monster hunt, but Clinton and Remi both had reasons to recover technology from the heads of the walking corpses, so it wasn't as pyrotechnic as I had envisioned - they were never in any danger, really, and the whole scene came off a bit lackluster.

I'd made up some memoranda, giving each of them some specific goals from their own chains of command, and we all agreed to keep these to ourselves, even though player character hidden agendas are known to all.  This added a little frisson of mystery and distrust which was very pleasant.  I gave these out during a briefing, in which they were assigned to recover some arcano-tech junk from a pair of unscrupulous American black marketeers, Haensel and Mueller.  These guys were real dudes yanked from the steaming pages of history.

There's a second thread, which involves a British RPA officer named Feld who is killed in a mysterious way, ostensibly by people he owed money to.  There are dark hints of debt and badness, but nothing concrete in session one.

The characters immediately form lines of trust - it's France and Russia against America.  Remi, playing the American Bartlett, goes off and makes contact with Guido Zimmer, an aristocratic ex-SS officer who helped broker the German surrender in Italy in May 1945 (another real dude).  They do some verbal sparring and make enemies of each other.  That'll return next session with a vengeance.

Clinton and Andy, whose characters share socialist common feeling, shake down a STASI officer they met earlier and get the dirt on Haensel and Mueller, and the shenanigans begin.  There's some wheeling and dealing, threats and counter-threats, and Dr. Trepper convinces the Russian to actually leave the hangar where they are negotiating with the black marketeers for a few minutes.  Trepper tries to turn the pair to work for French intelligence.  He arranges a clandestine meeting and promises them money.

Bartlett tracks Mueller down himself later, and we learn that they served in OSS together,  Remi wastes no time and beats Mueller senseless, prepared to kill him if he doesn't spill what he knows abotu secret technology.  He wins a huge conflict and Mueller caves.

Two thirds of the way through the session all three characters are working their own angles, lying to each other, and calling in dodgy favors.  Trust is fraying.  At some point the RPA digs up a ducted fan flying saucer buried beneath the tarmac of RAF Gatow, a little morsel Mueller gave up to save his life.

The game went fine, but it wasn't spectacular.  The system didn't help us, really, which was a problem.  Most successes were slight (one over the opposition), so few consequences came into play.  Clinton's Dr. Trepper had exactly zero dice in most physical conflicts (Action 1, plus a negative trait), which was awkward.  I found myself talking more and rolling less.  I don't like arbitrarily assigning challenge as the GM, and in any unopposed conflict I have to do just that.  Trust didn't come into play mechanically very much.  I'll be thinking about ways to correct these issues for next week.  I'm hoping the rest of the crew will weigh in with their impressions. 

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

Idea, off the top of my head ... use lots of so-called unopposed rolls, against lots of dice. Maybe even standardize the latter at "always either one or six dice" or something like that. Mechanically, the effect would mean lots more consequences.

This suggestion runs a little counter to my own habits. Like you, I prefer character-character based rolls even when the characters are far away from one another, and one is using a contact-type skill to influence a political decision while the other is facing killers in an alley.

I guess I'm thinking about the role of Demonic Influence in Dogs in the Vineyard, which are basically the same as the (badly-named) "difficulty" dice in some Sorcerer rolls. I found that Vincent's tweak, which was to give it a name the characters would call it and to standardize its amount based on events in the situation, got rid of the whole "unopposed" conundrum. In other words, the answer to the very reasonable question, why roll?, is, because bad luck is perceived as a conflict-of-interest by the characters.

Whereas instead of Demonic Influence, here it could be "the Cold" (ask Clinton what that means in spy terms) or political ambiguity or something else setting-specific. You could even use it as an add-on to character-based rolls, just like Demonic Influence in Dogs.

Best, Ron

[Malcolm Craig]

The game went fine, but it wasn't spectacular.  The system didn't help us, really, which was a problem.  Most successes were slight (one over the opposition), so few consequences came into play.  Clinton's Dr. Trepper had exactly zero dice in most physical conflicts (Action 1, plus a negative trait), which was awkward.  I found myself talking more and rolling less.  I don't like arbitrarily assigning challenge as the GM, and in any unopposed conflict I have to do just that.  Trust didn't come into play mechanically very much.  I'll be thinking about ways to correct these issues for next week.  I'm hoping the rest of the crew will weigh in with their impressions. 

The very same issue of zero attribute conflict came into play during a game (for seven players, which was something of a challenge) I ran a couple of days ago. The cirucmstance were exactly the same: characetr had 1 in Action, plus a negative trait that affected physical action, the logical extension of this beingt hat his attribute must be zero in a conflict. Surprisingly, this was actually the first time this issue had reared its head, so I was pondering how to resolve it.

The simplest solution would be to explicitly state that you roll a minimum of one die in any conflict, but this feels somehow unsatisfactory. A more sensible approach might be a re-working of how negative traits are used. Joshua Newman and Steve Dempsey suggested an alternative method of using negative traits, which brings them in in the same manner as positive traits, but if the negative trait die is highest, it affects the outcome.

There have been games I've run where the consequences come thick and fast. While there have been game I've run which replicate the situation you found yourself in: large numbers of slight successess leading to minimal consequences. So, a question for you Jasion: did this outcome from the ssytem negatively impact the enjoyment of play around the table? If the answer to this is yes, then it's something I'd like to address. The views of the other participants would be great in this as well.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Jason Morningstar]

So, a question for you Jason: did this outcome from the system negatively impact the enjoyment of play around the table?

I'd say yes, if only a little, because characters didn't change very much.  In addition it is something of a challenge to agree on acceptable "slight" successes - it's far easier to deal with granting a regular or extraordinary success.  For example, Dr. Trepper shot an ST in the leg to immobilize it, getting a slight success.  Did he only slow it down?  Did he hit it elsewhere?  How does this advance the story?  Ultimately it had the same impact in play that a complete success would have had. 

Thanks for your thought, Ron, it's a good one. 

[Jason Morningstar]

Oh, and as a note, Malcolm, I just decreed that you always had a single die as a minimum, which fixed Dr. Trepper's problem.  Not a perfect solution but the most obvious one in the moment.

[Jon Hastings]

Oh, and as a note, Malcolm, I just decreed that you always had a single die as a minimum, which fixed Dr. Trepper's problem.  Not a perfect solution but the most obvious one in the moment.

You could borrow the rule from Sorcerer that any penalties that drive a score below 1 turn into bonus dice for the opposition.  So, if you have a score of 1 and a negative trait, you'd roll your one die, but your opponent would get a bonus die.

[Jason Morningstar]

Clinton brought that up, Jon, and actually chafed a little at the non-Sorcerer bits of the Cold City mechanic, but I really wanted to play it as written, as I understood it, at least at first. 

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I had a lot of fun in this session - I'd rate it below "Deep in the Blue," but above most other first sessions we've had as a group.

The system was functional, although I can't help but pick at systems these days, and it had plenty to pick at. The negative trait + attribute of 1 thing is an obvious one, but it wasn't a big deal. My character (who was shot badly by Germans in the war and now has a pronounced limp and walks with a cane) should outright fail at, say, chasing people. The trust mechanic went a lot better than I expected though. As written, you can use it as much as you want, and it's a renewable resource. We did not, however, overuse it.

Ron - I'm with you on "the Cold." The term got used several times, especially at my character's pivotal moment. He's worked his ass off trying to flip these two assholes to French intelligence and then only one shows up for their meeting, and then, after I put the screws to him, rebuffs me. (I rolled 10 dice vs his 4 and lost.) I found myself way out in the cold, and hated it (that is, as a character. As a player, I saw the potential for the future.)

So, a question for you Jason: did this outcome from the system negatively impact the enjoyment of play around the table?

I'd say yes, if only a little, because characters didn't change very much.

I had the opposite reaction as Jason: this is a very good thing, in my opinion. I was worried we'd have to deal with consequences all the time, and having it restricted to only a few scenes made them way more interesting to me.

----

As far as in-game content goes, I very much enjoyed the lines of intrigue part of the game, and Haansel and Mueller were fun to play with. The weirdo-tech was not so grabby for me, which was not how I expected to react to the game at all. I think the weirdo-tech will be more fun in the future, though, as it's personallized. My favorite scenes were all ones were things shifted between player characters, though. I had an early scene where I lied to Haansel and Mueller, and betrayed my friends; and then I had a final scene with Bartlett where I got drunk and spilled some of my secrets.

I'm really looking forward to next session, particularly exploring my personal agenda more (Trepper owes his life to a woman, Sophie, who was later taken by the Germans, and is searching for her body, dead or alive) and also unexpectedly winning in a physical conflict (although his body's broken, Trepper was an officer in the French Resistance, and was no slouch.) I'd really like to see a happy resolution for Trepper and Sophie, but I'm afraid she'll be dead, or worse, all jimmied up with Nazi weirdo-tech.

[Malcolm Craig]

Whereas instead of Demonic Influence, here it could be "the Cold" (ask Clinton what that means in spy terms) or political ambiguity or something else setting-specific. You could even use it as an add-on to character-based rolls, just like Demonic Influence in Dogs.

Best, Ron

Like Jason I find this an interesting thought in terms of a) solving what appears to be a slight mechanical issue and b) potentially adding to the atmosphere of the game. I may introduce the concept of 'The Cold' into a game to see how it works out and see what the players think of it.

Thanks for the thoughts Ron.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Malcolm Craig]

Oh, and as a note, Malcolm, I just decreed that you always had a single die as a minimum, which fixed Dr. Trepper's problem.  Not a perfect solution but the most obvious one in the moment.

Jason: Agreed. This was the solution I implemented during Sundays game, but it struck me as temporary and unsatisfactory, something I'll need to think on further.

Clinton: I'm glad the session did prove to be enjoyable for you. After your enthusiasm at Gen Con, I would have been left  with the feeling that I had misled you in some way, hand the game not proved to be an enjoyable experience.

The negative trait issue does seem to be a recurring theme that is coming out of many play groups, so obvisouly it's somethingt hat needs to be addressed in order to make it less jarring and more satisfactory in play. The Newman/Dempsey Suggestion (as I've just christened it) involves bring negatives in as a bonus die, but of a different colour to the rest of the pool. If that die comes out as highest, then it has a consequence for the character (if on a success, that trait cannot be flipped to positive, on a failure, you take 2 or more consequences). These are slightly vague thoughts at the moment, but what is really coming through loud and clear is that this is one issue in the game that really needs addressed.

Hidden Agendas, especially personal ones, are the reall driver for me in the game. I love seeing players exploring and using them, even in one off games where there is no extended use of the agendas beyond a single session. Will be good to hear how things work out with Sophie...

Thanks for your thoughts on the game.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey all: I had fun in this game as well, but I too felt that getting a "Success" (not a partial success) was a pretty damn hard thing to get, statistically. One side or the other has to get REALLY cold dice (or just low rolls on 1-3 dice) to get those full successes. 

Otherwise, I felt that a lot of the setup was incredibly awesome. Jason did some real homework in laying down the scenes, and I could feel Cold War Era Germany come alive around me as we ran through a broken sewage treatment plant, black market, etc.

However, once we finished the "cinematic in media res intro" bit, it started to feel like the AMBER RPG but in a Cold War setting. That is, the players (not just the PCs) are out to get each other, looking for openings to grab resources and backstab (but uncharacteristically being open about it, and also rolling with it when things go south: As what happened when I pretty much said to Clinton, "I'm destablizing the French Intelligence community in Berlin, is that cool?" and Clinton said "Cool. That's what I want to happen." Awesome. That usually doesn't happen in these kinds of games).

I feel a little like we ended the session in a place that the game intends for us to go, but not dwell in; namely, the backstabby place. Kinda like the Mountain Witch, I see that there's gonna be "the quest" or "the mission(s)", and along the way we'll be doing some potentially backstabby things, but if we put more focus in the long run totally on the backstabby and not at all on the quest, then we're probably playing AMBER (or Spione).

I think, related to that point, the reason that we haven't put much use into the trust mechanics is because we really haven't had in-game opportunities to trust each other yet: At the beginning, we did an in media res situation where we were hunting zombie jews in the tunnels of an abandoned sewage plant; there, we had reason to trust each other (though it was too early int he game to do so meaningfully).  Unless we come together again on a Big Op of some kind, we're going to basically going to be shelving the trust mechanics.

I don't think that's really going to happpen, though; It was the first session and all, and we really got in there and set up some awesome conflicts, NPCs, and lines of conflict. So in the next two sessions, it's probably time to get us in a situation where we're forced to work together for a time. Maybe later, when there is more trust, start turning up the heat a little bit: We start receiving specific mission orders to harm or thwart the people that we're built trust with.  I think that will play out over the course of the next few sessions.  But if we all elect next session to, as players, focus more on the individual missions and backstabbery and stuff... well, we'll definitely have a fun time of it, but we'll probably want to shelve Trust and just operate in a "sorta Cold City, sorta PTA" zone, with some good AMBER interfighty play thrown in there.

I can't wait for the next session, to see where things go. I love the Nazi arcanotech stuff, but more than loving that I'm loving the idea of a 'party' together chasing it down half the time, the other half doing the "backstabby" stuff. I'm kinda thinking we need to start building a foundation if we want to enjoy tearing it down.

-Andy

[Jason Morningstar]

Dude, those weren't zombie jews. Just to, you know, make it clear.

[Andy Kitkowski]

Ahhh, crap, sorry: It was the tattooed arms that threw me off. It really squicked me out (in The Good Way). We'll probably find more about them in the next session, which I'm very much looking forward to.

Thanks!
-Andy

[Jason Morningstar]

I made the guy a French POW who'd been interned in Dachau, hoping to push Clinton's nationalist buttons. 

I'm really glad you guys are enjoying the game. 

[Malcolm Craig]

Dude, those weren't zombie jews. Just to, you know, make it clear.

Yeah, this gave me a bit of a moment when I read it, but I see know there was a bit of misinterpretation at work. French POW at Dachau, eh? I'll need to let you have a look at some background material I'm working on for the game, it may be of interest to you.

Anyway, yes. Glad to see people are enjoying the game. Some interesting thoughts there, Andy, about the state of play, especially to do with the 'backstabby' nature of the game and the place in which this puts the characters. To my mind, if it does end up very backstabby, there's still a place for trust in terms of betrayals, but I can see the hidden agendas being greater drivers in that situations, rather than outright trust itself.

Cheers
Malcolm