[Cold City] Operation Holle-Kehle

[Jason Morningstar]

Too much TSOY in my diet, sorry about that.

OK, actual play example:  Captain Bartlett storms into Colonel Crossley's office and lays into him for reassigning him to a stateside base.  Remi indicates it is his intention to intimidate him, and Bartlett's a sociopathic nut-job.  I concede that yes, indeed, Crossley is going to be intimidated.  There's no Influence conflict there, although we both feel like there should be, just because it's a rare opportunity for an Influence roll. 

Dr. Trepper is monkeying around with a Nazi arcano-tech artifact that directly relates to his agendas.  Can he figure out its function?  Of course he can, because that is more fun than a brick wall, but we do a Reason roll anyway.  We've never had actively contested Reason rolls, and I'm not sure how they would come up in play. 

[Remi Treuer]

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?

Yes, it made the game more fun for me, because now we have a base from which to start betraying each other. Before we were just sticking the knives into empty (both thematically and mechanically) relationships. Now that we've bonded a bit, opened up, and played hard with each other, it will be that much better when circumstance or characters forces us to play against each other.

Meta-gaming is going to get in the way of trust no matter what, especially in a group that will drive their characters as hard as this one. We're gonna screw each other, we (as players) are going to witness the screwing 'at the table', and that's tough to separate out from 'character knowledge'. It becomes a game of 'what tiny thing can I find that was suspicious so I can justify the lack of trust'. That's where we started last week.

So I decided to metagame the trust-building, as well. Now we all have solid (3-4) trust levels, which were earned in-game, and I think by angling for more trust, we found ways that were satisfying in-game to act that would build that trust.

So yeah, concentrating on building trust has connected me more to the game.

[Malcolm Craig]

Too much TSOY in my diet, sorry about that.

OK, actual play example:  Captain Bartlett storms into Colonel Crossley's office and lays into him for reassigning him to a stateside base.  Remi indicates it is his intention to intimidate him, and Bartlett's a sociopathic nut-job.  I concede that yes, indeed, Crossley is going to be intimidated.  There's no Influence conflict there, although we both feel like there should be, just because it's a rare opportunity for an Influence roll. 

Dr. Trepper is monkeying around with a Nazi arcano-tech artifact that directly relates to his agendas.  Can he figure out its function?  Of course he can, because that is more fun than a brick wall, but we do a Reason roll anyway.  We've never had actively contested Reason rolls, and I'm not sure how they would come up in play. 

Cool. Yeah, I see what you're saying, so here's a recent AP example from my own experience:

The characters are at the S-Bahn station near the Anhalter Bahnhof. Huddled under the iron piling which hold up the S-Bahn line a group of down and outs. Two characters (both female) approach one down and out on the edge of the group. he his huddled in a tatty, ancient greatcoat and barely illuminated by the wan light filtering down from above. The characters want to know if the man has seen anything unsusual, particularly related to dogs, in the recent past. He's quite scared of them, especially as they are French and British and he's recently returned from a Soviet POW camp, traumatised by his experiences. he's also addicted to something (the characters surmise morphine).

Anyway, the scene is set. The characters (one active and one supporting) set the following stakes:

"We want the man to tells us that he has seen strange stuff going on and what that strange stuff is." It is decalred that they are using unfluence, trying to persuade the man to give the information willingly, teasing it out of him.

On the flipside, the man will only give up the information for payment. He wants to get something out of this transaction, rather than just helping out these two unknown women (he is using influence as a resistive attribute, steeling himself against their queries and determined not to be taken for a ride). So, if he is victorious, he will give some info, but the characters will be compelled to give him money or goods in return. If the characters are victorious, they get the info they want (on the strange goings on).

In short, the characters were successful and got the info out of the down and out. That's pretty much how the scene played out.

As far as Reason conflicts go, I've often found players using it in conflicts where one side may be using Influence, but they decide to adopt a reasoned, logical approach to the debate or argument, rather than the tack taken when someone uses Influence.

Hope this makes some kind of sense. I'll try to recall other, more precise examples of Reason being used in conflict.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Jason Morningstar]

Session three was last night and we had fun.  Interestingly, the characters have vascillated between free agency and team work - they started out apart in part one, came together in part two, then split up again in part three.  By all accounts they'll return to teamwork for the conclusion next week.

With good players any game can run itself and Cold City is no exception - everybody had powerful motivations and I just tried to either help challenge or help resolve those.  Thus Trepper got a cold-ass lecture on the exingencies of intelligence work and also killed the man he thought responsible for the death of his beloved Sophie (wrong!), Yezhov found his brother (and more than he bargained for), and Bartlett made his move to become King of the Berlin underground. 

Worth noting - Clinton's play experience suffered a little because he resolved his personal hidden agenda - again.  So first it was "find Sophie and either keep her safe or honor her remains", which he did.  Then it was "Punish the dude who killed her", which, to Trepper's knowledge, he also did.  Andy's Russian sold him a bill of goods and persuaded Trepper to kill his MGB handler - convenient for everybody, and a satisfyingly awful scene.  But it leaves Trepper a little directionless at present.  Personal agendas can change fast.

Another thing - Remi won a conflict with nine successes. This is sort of an atom bomb level of victory.  He'd shepherded his resources toward a conflict that was critically important to his guy, and it turned out great, but the possibility of an upward success spiral became apparent.  In play it was really cool - his intention was "I want to own this guy" - this guy being Guido Zimmer, ex-nazi underground kingpin and all around dangerous creep.  So what do nine successes mean?  I decided to take it literally.  Zimmer revealed himself as a deeply kinky submissive and accepted Bartlett as his literal master.  So this scary villain suddenly becomes a complete and utter tool.  I think it was a good move.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Worth noting - Clinton's play experience suffered a little because he resolved his personal hidden agenda - again.  So first it was "find Sophie and either keep her safe or honor her remains", which he did.  Then it was "Punish the dude who killed her", which, to Trepper's knowledge, he also did.  Andy's Russian sold him a bill of goods and persuaded Trepper to kill his MGB handler - convenient for everybody, and a satisfyingly awful scene.  But it leaves Trepper a little directionless at present.  Personal agendas can change fast.

It suffered a little because I've had, at my count, two marginal successes (no consequences) and two successes with 1 consequence each total the entire game. This is an epic level of failure.

It's not as bad as I make it sound, though. I've had the opportunity to go to the abyss two or three times in this game, and have avoided it. Maybe that's Trepper's real ambition: "I will not let myself or my friends fall into the abyss." He's proven himself as a man who can stare it in the face, and walk away, except for the time he choked a man - and even in that scene, we don't know if Trepper would have killed him. Yezhov killed him before we could find out. I appreciated that, as it leaves my character as a moral pillar, which is weird, yet fun to play.

[Malcolm Craig]

Worth noting - Clinton's play experience suffered a little because he resolved his personal hidden agenda - again.  So first it was "find Sophie and either keep her safe or honor her remains", which he did.  Then it was "Punish the dude who killed her", which, to Trepper's knowledge, he also did.  Andy's Russian sold him a bill of goods and persuaded Trepper to kill his MGB handler - convenient for everybody, and a satisfyingly awful scene.  But it leaves Trepper a little directionless at present.  Personal agendas can change fast.

It suffered a little because I've had, at my count, two marginal successes (no consequences) and two successes with 1 consequence each total the entire game. This is an epic level of failure.

This is really interesting. Do you consider it an epic level of failure on the part of the character or on the part of the system? I'm seeing quite a few instances here of the slight success (and how common it appear to be) being a cause of disatisfaction.

Another thing - Remi won a conflict with nine successes. This is sort of an atom bomb level of victory.  He'd shepherded his resources toward a conflict that was critically important to his guy, and it turned out great, but the possibility of an upward success spiral became apparent.  In play it was really cool - his intention was "I want to own this guy" - this guy being Guido Zimmer, ex-nazi underground kingpin and all around dangerous creep.  So what do nine successes mean?  I decided to take it literally.  Zimmer revealed himself as a deeply kinky submissive and accepted Bartlett as his literal master.  So this scary villain suddenly becomes a complete and utter tool.  I think it was a good move.

9 successes? Good heavens! Anyway, I think the choice made is a good one. Even at the ultimate level of success noted in the text (5 successes), it's still a powerful thing, allowing you to go beyond what you initially set out and really  get stuff that's out of the ordinary. Did this level of success alter the game for you in any way at all?

Cheers
Malcolm

[Jason Morningstar]

Remi's dominance of Guido Zimmer didn't alter the game especially, although in the back of my mind I'd imagined a big reveal that won't be possible now that they've got a man on the inside who knows pretty much everything - no big deal.  It opens up other, funner possibilities.  The mechanical concerns are bigger - he's topped out on positive consequences that he can roll back into future conflicts, which he will invariably win. 

[Clinton R. Nixon]

It suffered a little because I've had, at my count, two marginal successes (no consequences) and two successes with 1 consequence each total the entire game. This is an epic level of failure.

This is really interesting. Do you consider it an epic level of failure on the part of the character or on the part of the system? I'm seeing quite a few instances here of the slight success (and how common it appear to be) being a cause of disatisfaction.

Only on the character's part, and just the luck of my dice. I have some honest concerns with the system, but they aren't big and aren't that worrisome, really.

[Jason Morningstar]

We had our fourth and last session of Cold City last night.  It was really just the tail end of the story arc, about two hours of play, wrapping up a lot of loose ends and bringing all the characters to their (bloody) conclusions. 

Of note:  The final betrayal featured Andy and Remi each rolling upward of 25 dice, which was a little ridonkulous.  We had to ask Clinton's cat, Violet, for the d10 she was playing with to beef up our numbers.

I had some trouble with representing environmental hazards.  There were these two guys who'd been hacked by the Nazis into screaming machines (see title of post) and could emit a 190 decibel sound, louder than a gun fired at one meter, almost loud enough to be turned into pure heat.  And the players successfully beat the scream to "keep their shit together".  After that, I wasn't sure how to include it in future conflicts - I couldn't assign a penalty die like I'm used to in TSOY. 

Various bits were dissatisfying, like Clinton's character never succeeding at anything, ever, but we played by the rules as written and wrapped up our tale. 

[Malcolm Craig]

Only on the character's part, and just the luck of my dice. I have some honest concerns with the system, but they aren't big and aren't that worrisome, really.

Well, it's always good to hear what peoples concerns are, provides good learning points for the future. If you'd like to let me know what they are, that would be great.

We had our fourth and last session of Cold City last night.  It was really just the tail end of the story arc, about two hours of play, wrapping up a lot of loose ends and bringing all the characters to their (bloody) conclusions. 

Of note:  The final betrayal featured Andy and Remi each rolling upward of 25 dice, which was a little ridonkulous.  We had to ask Clinton's cat, Violet, for the d10 she was playing with to beef up our numbers.

25? really? Good heavens! I'm intrigued by such a high number of dice needing to be rolled, enevr having come across such a situation myself. How did that come about? I've been attempting to work out in my head how such a pool could be created (maximum attribute, doubled for a hidden agenda, pklus betraying two toher characters who trust you at 5, plus 5 positive traits, but that seems a little extreme!).

I had some trouble with representing environmental hazards.  There were these two guys who'd been hacked by the Nazis into screaming machines (see title of post) and could emit a 190 decibel sound, louder than a gun fired at one meter, almost loud enough to be turned into pure heat.  And the players successfully beat the scream to "keep their shit together".  After that, I wasn't sure how to include it in future conflicts - I couldn't assign a penalty die like I'm used to in TSOY.

As I'm only marginally familiar with TSOY and penalty dice, how would that work in play? Is it a simple matter of removing dice from the pool of a given players to represent the hazards encountered by the character?

Various bits were dissatisfying, like Clinton's character never succeeding at anything, ever, but we played by the rules as written and wrapped up our tale. 

It's certainly come through that there were dissatisfying elements in this game, that's for sure. What was the feeling around the table at the end of the game?

Cheers
Malcolm

[Clinton R. Nixon]

25? really? Good heavens! I'm intrigued by such a high number of dice needing to be rolled, enevr having come across such a situation myself. How did that come about? I've been attempting to work out in my head how such a pool could be created (maximum attribute, doubled for a hidden agenda, pklus betraying two toher characters who trust you at 5, plus 5 positive traits, but that seems a little extreme!).

There was a wave of dice coming off an Action roll with a few successes. The way you can spend positive consquences for more dice in your next roll builds upon itself. Remi would often have 5-10 successes, which meant his next roll would start at 9-14 dice. Doubling that for a hidden agenda (which may well be wrong, now that I think about it, but the book doesn't address this that I know of) means you'll have 18-28 dice. (Even if it's wrong, you'd have 13-18 dice.)

[Jason Morningstar]

How it works in TSOY doesn't really matter, the point is that there is a mechanism for increasing or decreasing objective hazard.  I wasn't sure how to do this in Cold City.  Should I just give myself more dice in every conflict because of the hell-throat was screaming?

After finishing the fourth session, my overall impression was that the setting of Cold City is brilliant, but that the mechanics don't always help support it.  It's possible, likely even, that we were playing wrong, but I was unsatisfied by the way the dice worked and the outcomes of straight conflicts most of the time. 

Marginal successes were extremely common, and they are the hardest to narrate.  We had, if I recall correctly, three successes the entire game that involved more than a two die advantage.  We'd roll and groan at another partial success, usually in the GM's favor. 

Reason conflicts were difficult to frame and didn't occur very much - we tended to be deep into an organic conflict where Reason decision points had been roleplayed over before realizing it.  This particularly hurt Clinton, who'd built a cerebral character.

[Malcolm Craig]

25? really? Good heavens! I'm intrigued by such a high number of dice needing to be rolled, enevr having come across such a situation myself. How did that come about? I've been attempting to work out in my head how such a pool could be created (maximum attribute, doubled for a hidden agenda, pklus betraying two toher characters who trust you at 5, plus 5 positive traits, but that seems a little extreme!).

There was a wave of dice coming off an Action roll with a few successes. The way you can spend positive consquences for more dice in your next roll builds upon itself. Remi would often have 5-10 successes, which meant his next roll would start at 9-14 dice. Doubling that for a hidden agenda (which may well be wrong, now that I think about it, but the book doesn't address this that I know of) means you'll have 18-28 dice. (Even if it's wrong, you'd have 13-18 dice.)

Before moving into this any further, could I ask if you guys were:

a) Doubling the basic attribute that was used when a Hidden Agenda came into play?

or

b) Doubling the entire dice pool when a Hidden Agenda came into play?

If it were (b), then this may explain the surprising size of dice pools encountered. However, I can think of some rare occasions when very large pools may result out of (a).

Cheers
Malcolm

[Malcolm Craig]

After finishing the fourth session, my overall impression was that the setting of Cold City is brilliant, but that the mechanics don't always help support it.  It's possible, likely even, that we were playing wrong, but I was unsatisfied by the way the dice worked and the outcomes of straight conflicts most of the time.

Marginal successes were extremely common, and they are the hardest to narrate.  We had, if I recall correctly, three successes the entire game that involved more than a two die advantage.  We'd roll and groan at another partial success, usually in the GM's favor. 

Reason conflicts were difficult to frame and didn't occur very much - we tended to be deep into an organic conflict where Reason decision points had been roleplayed over before realizing it.  This particularly hurt Clinton, who'd built a cerebral character.

The things that in particular that have come out of this thread for me (in relation to the mechanics) are:

i) A need to look at the role of the Negative Trait and how it functions in the game

ii) Slight successes and their coomon appearance in some games (I say 'some' based purely on personal experience running my own games, where they do not appear with undue regularity). However, this is a point that has been hgihlighted by more that one group, so deserves consideration

iii) The framing of non-Action conflicts and how this is done. Whilst Influence may be relatively easy to frame, it seems that Reason offers the greatest challenge and can provide a point of disatisfaction for characters with a strong bias towards Reason.

I am, however, very glad you liked the setting elements of the game. I'd like to thank all of you (Jason, Remi, Clinton and Andy) for taking the time to post about your thoughts and experiences, it really is very much appreciated and goes a long way to helping with the future development of Cold City.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Jason Morningstar]

Malcolm, it was "a" that we did in play.  Maybe Remi can do a breakdown of how his dice were assembled.

And you are certainly welcome!  We had a good time overall.