[Cold City] Operation Holle-Kehle

[Storn]

My great grandmother survived Dachau.

She was a mathematician and a jew, although brought up Lutheran... married to a Baron who was a physicist, who was totally a prussian christian.  Therefore, she was safe from the culling.    The Baron refused to work on the bomb.  He died of a broken heart in 1943 as he was a die hard pacifist.  The next night the Gestapo arrived at the door and carried my great grandmother to the ovens at Dachau.

Except, she was his secretary and all his notes on atomic theory were in shorthand code. Notes she had transcribed for him. The germans made her translate it, reams and reams of the stuff.  She had only a week of translating left when the Russians rolled through the east gate.

I never met her.  She died before I was born.  This is from a taped interview of my grandmother while floating down the Rhone by a grad student of history.  I never knew this story until I saw that tape about 4 years ago.

My grandmother didn't fall far from the tree.  She married my grandfather, also a german,and a mathematician.  They met in England during the Blitz.  Oddly, it was one of the happiest times in their lives.  Despite being bombed repeatedly by their own countrymen.

WwII has some really fucked up stories...

This was totally off topic.... but since i"m about to go into a campaign of Cold City... it has been foremost in my mind.

[Remi Treuer]

I don't really have anything to add, my main gripe about the session came from a decision I made that wasn't in keeping with the tone we were setting, and a related outburst on my part which I'm ashamed of. However, most of my family on my paternal grandfather's side died in the Holocaust, as well. I don't think I've said more than this to Jason or Clinton, but both of them were very, very clear in saying that we would probably be dealing with Jewish (it's a proper noun, guys!) zombies, and asked if that was OK with me. I am, and am prepared to face this as part of the setting, but I really appreciate that I'm gaming with people who would be that considerate of what is, on my part, a fairly personal subject.

That's all I have to say.

[Andy Kitkowski]

I don't really have anything to add, my main gripe about the session came from a decision I made that wasn't in keeping with the tone we were setting,

I think simply playing more will also help iron out more kinks.

and a related outburst on my part which I'm ashamed of.

Hey dude, I don't remember anything like this. What were you referring to here?

-Andy

[Remi Treuer]

Clinton was going to leave my Trust at 1, after I had revealed all my (pertinent) information, including the location of the Saucer under the tarmac. After I had done this I realized I had no material reason to do it, it worked against my assignment, and when Clinton was like, "I still don't trust you," I kind of exasperatedly said, "WHAT?!? I spilled my guts to you!" and he raised his Trust in me. It didn't feel right, and thus I'm ashamed. I should have taken my lumps and played harder towards gaining trust instead of whinging about it.

And that's what I'm going to do next session. Also, I feel like I have a bit of groundwork for a tense relationship with Dr. Trepper next session, now that we've drunkenly revealed stuff to each other. (which was an excellent suggestion for a last scene from Mr. Nixon)

[Jason Morningstar]

Second session last night and the game is picking up - it felt, as Remi put it "like a first session ought to feel".  Having just watched Germania Anno Zero, I tried to hammer home the desperation, and had kids begging for cigarettes, sad German women willing to do anything for a handful of ration coupons, and a tidal wave of human misery coloring every scene where I could.  I'd made it my goal to put a lot of pressure on their personal agendas while giving them an opportunity to work as a team and build trust if they wanted.  So there was a set-piece involving the exploration of a newly-discovered Nazi lab deep beneath Anhalter Bahnhof that had been sealed since '45, a creepy place with an active but trapped Incursor.  The whole point was to introduce the alienness of Incursors, put the characters at some risk, and give them a chance to get creeped out and work together.  It worked just fine.  We even got ridonkulous and turned out the lights to make it scarier.  Their trust in one another skyrocketed.

To hit personal agendas I just pushed back, introducing the things they cared about in ways they would have issues with.  The Russian wanted to meet up with his brother - I introduced an MGB handler with whom he was tasked with returning said brother to Soviet custody.  The American wanted to stay in Berlin - I had him reassigned to Dayton, Ohio by the dirty American RPA-GC being manipulated by evil nemesis Guido Zimmer.  The Frenchman wanted to find out what happened to Sophie, his lost love - He found out, and he wasn't happy about it.  Clinton's going to have to change his personal agenda, in fact, and I think it's going to go in a dark direction for him.  This is a little problematic, since he'd expressed a desire to have a redemptive story arc for Dr. Trepper, which is now largely out the window.  I see a way forward, but my handling of his personal agenda amy have been a little heavy-handed.

We still had dice issues - successes, with only a few exceptions, were slight. 

It's difficult to integrate non-Action conflicts - I found us playing through Instinct conflicts without rolling dice, and there was only one Reason conflict at all, if I recall correctly.  Maybe this is my weakness as a GM. 

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The Frenchman wanted to find out what happened to Sophie, his lost love - He found out, and he wasn't happy about it.  Clinton's going to have to change his personal agenda, in fact, and I think it's going to go in a dark direction for him.  This is a little problematic, since he'd expressed a desire to have a redemptive story arc for Dr. Trepper, which is now largely out the window.  I see a way forward, but my handling of his personal agenda amy have been a little heavy-handed.

I want to talk about this while being constructive, as I think it's instructive for others.

First, I can continue my personal agenda, but not for too long: "Continue to uncover where Sophie was taken by the Germans and either find her alive, or pay respect to her remains." I still can pay respect to her remains. Here's what did bother me, though: I had nothing about my personal agenda in the game up until one scene, where with no conflict at all, it was taken from me. That seems really out of my reach. I think I tried to give other options earlier: I collected a bunch of papers from the Nazi lab, and I acted very interested in Zimmer, hoping he would have information.

The key to narrativist role-playing, I think, is asking what a character will do to achieve his goals. What lengths will one person go to? By eliminating the ability to succeed, you eliminate the ability to see where a character will go to succeed. If Sophie had been in desperate trouble, or maybe she had become, say, the wife of Guido Zimmer, or even the wife of my boss, well, that would have left me with choices as to how to pursue her. (My character was in love with her.) As it is, I can either complete my task easily (hold a funeral) or go all dark and try and use evil Nazi tech to raise her from the dead, but that's just wallowing in depravity, and I'm sick and tired of every game being about being debased.

I can tell you where I will take this, and hopefully, it will work out. I will find out who killed her (I know a Russian did it, recently) and will decide if vengeance is worth it. I will fight to send her remains home to France, and I will search for her child, as I established in my character background that she was a single mother. If I find the child, I will raise it. And I want Louis to find another outlet for his overly romantic notions. There's two women in his life that need saving right now: Varina Meyer, the poor German lady who is a passable look-alike for Sophie, but possibly just a simple lady, and Emma Szabo, who is smart and beautiful and in need, as she is pregnant and the father is dead, but is possibly a war criminal. All of this should give me enough to have an interesting story with lots of choices, and not end up a huge weirdo, which is what I'm trying to avoid, and is what all the pressure in the game seems to be pushing me towards.

[Jason Morningstar]

I'm glad you can see positive directions for your guy, and I can definitely support that.  One of my motivations for the big reveal of Sophie, dead, was to see how you'd handle the temptation to bring her back to a semblance of life, which is totally within your grasp.  I think on some level we miscommunicated about your overall intentions for Dr. Trepper, and I apologize for that. 

[Andy Kitkowski]

I had a great time and found more outlet for my character.  I think playing a revised "I'm Going To Make Your Character Awesome", including "How can I make your character awesome"? was totally needed to cut through some stuff and get us all on the same page of sorts and not flying off in all directions.

Also, I'll just throw this on the table: Retconning? I never have a problem with it, and I don't think a macho attitube need to be taken against it or anything, but if it's a direction that Clinton wasn't interested in going down (or didn't favor it as much as Another Route) then retconning the assassinated person to have been someone else only undoes like 3 minutes of play and might make people more happy.

As it stands, that outcome is ripe with drama for MY dude ("WTF have I done???" When he realizes what that person meant to him), but I'm totally willing to go in another direction if that's what Clinton wants.

Aside (out of curiosity): Do you guys ever retcon? I have this impression that it would be something Never Done, kinda in a macho improv sense (like getting the "Hard Game" at ComedySportz, or the Hard Idea from the audience at the improv-melody-thing). Is that accurate or am I totally misreading?

-Andy

[Jason Morningstar]

I think we've done very minor retconning, but not much, and not often. 

Andy, thanks for reminding me of another motivation for having Sophie on the slab - reincorporation.  Last week Andy's Russian asked the MGB to "kill a random member of the French intelligence community", which they enthusiastically did.  It brought you and Clinton into indirect conflict, which seemed awesome when I thought it up, but may not play out so amazing in actual fact. 

I'm totally open for rewinding if it'll make the game better.  I've got nothing invested in any particular outcome; I'm just trying to push all your buttons.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Andy, thanks for reminding me of another motivation for having Sophie on the slab - reincorporation.  Last week Andy's Russian asked the MGB to "kill a random member of the French intelligence community", which they enthusiastically did.  It brought you and Clinton into indirect conflict, which seemed awesome when I thought it up, but may not play out so amazing in actual fact. 

I wouldn't retcon a thing. The fact that it emotionally grabbed me, like I, Clinton R. Nixon, was actually really pissed off, is an awesome and good thing. It makes the story between Andy's character and mine great, as I've just given him the thing he's wanted (the location of his brother) and he's just destroyed my life's quest.

[Malcolm Craig]

We still had dice issues - successes, with only a few exceptions, were slight. 

It's difficult to integrate non-Action conflicts - I found us playing through Instinct conflicts without rolling dice, and there was only one Reason conflict at all, if I recall correctly.  Maybe this is my weakness as a GM. 

Sounds like an awesome second session.

Perhaps it's not a weakness, just a particular style of play, wherein the group as a whole prefers to move these conflicts along without rolling at all? Actually, I don't see that as a weakness at all. However, I can see how it would lead to a lack of character evolution in mechanical terms, as consequences would rarely enter into the situation. Strangely, Influence and Reason conflicts seem to occur fairly regularly in my own games.

When you say that trust skyrocketed, what happened in order to make this happen? Was it purely through characterisation and conversation, or was it as the result of conflicts (or a combination of the two)? Am always keen to find out more about how and when different groups change trust, the frequency they do this and the effcts it has on their play.

The key to narrativist role-playing, I think, is asking what a character will do to achieve his goals. What lengths will one person go to? By eliminating the ability to succeed, you eliminate the ability to see where a character will go to succeed. If Sophie had been in desperate trouble, or maybe she had become, say, the wife of Guido Zimmer, or even the wife of my boss, well, that would have left me with choices as to how to pursue her. (My character was in love with her.) As it is, I can either complete my task easily (hold a funeral) or go all dark and try and use evil Nazi tech to raise her from the dead, but that's just wallowing in depravity, and I'm sick and tired of every game being about being debased.

I can tell you where I will take this, and hopefully, it will work out. I will find out who killed her (I know a Russian did it, recently) and will decide if vengeance is worth it. I will fight to send her remains home to France, and I will search for her child, as I established in my character background that she was a single mother. If I find the child, I will raise it. And I want Louis to find another outlet for his overly romantic notions. There's two women in his life that need saving right now: Varina Meyer, the poor German lady who is a passable look-alike for Sophie, but possibly just a simple lady, and Emma Szabo, who is smart and beautiful and in need, as she is pregnant and the father is dead, but is possibly a war criminal. All of this should give me enough to have an interesting story with lots of choices, and not end up a huge weirdo, which is what I'm trying to avoid, and is what all the pressure in the game seems to be pushing me towards.

I think this is brilliant. I wholeheartedly support the notion of characters in Cold City being human, having human reactions and emotions and not turning into debased weirdos. There is (I have noticed) the temptation (for various reasons) for characters to go in a certain direction, a direction which is sometimes troubling. Which is why I find a response such as this very heartening. So, is this a direction the character will go in or, as Andy suggests, is it worth retconning in order to provide a more satisfactory outcome? Personally,  find both of them fascinating and would love to see how either potential line panned out.

So, in short, I'm thrilled the game seems to be going so well for you guys. It's highlighted a lot of great stuff for me, both in terms of the positive aspects of the game and in a constructively critical manner, which allows me to evolve and improve the game as a whole.

Thanks
Malcolm

[Malcolm Craig]

I wouldn't retcon a thing. The fact that it emotionally grabbed me, like I, Clinton R. Nixon, was actually really pissed off, is an awesome and good thing. It makes the story between Andy's character and mine great, as I've just given him the thing he's wanted (the location of his brother) and he's just destroyed my life's quest.

And that answers the question in my last post to a tee! Thanks Clinton.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Jason Morningstar]

The principal problem is that a guy like Dr. Trepper, who is optimized for Reason and Instinct, doesn't get a chance to gain consequences in the areas of his strength, and rarely positive ones at all.  Remi's guy Bartlett is also buffed up in Instinct, IIRC.  I think I have a difficulty identifying conflict moments for those attributes.  Reason conflicts feel like they need to be created and are rarely opposed. 

[Remi Treuer]

Malcolm,
I very conciously said, "I'm going to work hard to trust you guys, and earn your trust" at the the beginning of this session. Last session it felt like we were cutting each other's throats at every turn, and thus the trust wasn't coming into play. I was being open with information, and, when it turned out my commanding officer, a creature of a black marketeer, was trying to ship me out, actively tried to recruit Clinton and Andy's character's to my cause. This will make the knife-sticking far, far more brutal and satisfying when it comes down to it (if it does), but it also made the mission more fun, because we were all following each other around, trying to figure out what the heck was going on.

Jason,
Bartlett's buffed in Action. I won that Instinct roll against the kid by luck (I had 2 dice!). I did buff Reason after a big success earlier, but that was temporary. I also had a helluva night last night. I don't think I lost a single conflict, whereas Clinton and Andy both took a ton of damage from the Incursor. I worry that because Action conflicts are so easy to frame, it's easy for me to go into situations where I can just fall back on physicality, and it's more difficult to do that with Reason or Instinct.

Overall, I had a great time, and am on much more solid footing when it comes to what I should be doing and how to interact with the other characters.

[Malcolm Craig]

Malcolm,
I very conciously said, "I'm going to work hard to trust you guys, and earn your trust" at the the beginning of this session. Last session it felt like we were cutting each other's throats at every turn, and thus the trust wasn't coming into play. I was being open with information, and, when it turned out my commanding officer, a creature of a black marketeer, was trying to ship me out, actively tried to recruit Clinton and Andy's character's to my cause. This will make the knife-sticking far, far more brutal and satisfying when it comes down to it (if it does), but it also made the mission more fun, because we were all following each other around, trying to figure out what the heck was going on.

Excellent, this is really great to see. Very seldom have I seen an explicit setting out of trust like this, especially when it comes to postively gaining and giving out trust. So, it appear that this made the entire experience much more satisfying for you (looking at botht he trust situation and the overall game session). Would I be correct in thinking this?

Jason,
Bartlett's buffed in Action. I won that Instinct roll against the kid by luck (I had 2 dice!). I did buff Reason after a big success earlier, but that was temporary. I also had a helluva night last night. I don't think I lost a single conflict, whereas Clinton and Andy both took a ton of damage from the Incursor. I worry that because Action conflicts are so easy to frame, it's easy for me to go into situations where I can just fall back on physicality, and it's more difficult to do that with Reason or Instinct.

Overall, I had a great time, and am on much more solid footing when it comes to what I should be doing and how to interact with the other characters.

Just to correct a few inaccuracies that have cropped up: it's Influence, not Instinct.

I think you're right that it's easier to frame a scene where Action is the dominant attribute in a conflict (e.g.: a physical conflict whith the opposition). However, I'm interested in finding out more about why Influence and Reason-led conflict scenes seem to hard to frame. Is it felt that this difficulty is an artifact of the mechanics, where Action is very easily described ("It relates to all physical actions") and Influence ("It relates to intimidation, seduction, persuasion and so forth") or Reason ("It relates to intellectual ability, reasoning, wisdom and so forth") are much more nebulous and harder for participants to get a grip on in terms of what they can do in a scene containing conflict?

Cheers
Malcolm