[Cold City] - Character Creation (revised) & Consequences

[Malcolm Craig]

Following on from this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17325.0

I've re-jigged the character creation process somewhat, taking into accout comments, feddback and ideas from a number of people. I certainly feel that characters now have more scope for conflict between themselves as well as greater opportunities for development as play goes on. Any further feedbakc on this would be appreciated, particularly as regards the system for inter-party trust and the consequences arising from conflict in play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All characters in the game are agents engaged in the Underground War. First off, the player must choose a nationality. Most commonly, this will be either American, British, French or Russian. On occasion, they may be from one of the other Allied nations or possibly German or Austrian (quite a few of whom are employed by various covert agencies).

Nationality

In 'Cold City', no two players should have characters of the same nationality. For one reason, the Reserve Police Authority (RPA) is a multi-national force and likes to have as broad a spread of representatives in its teams as possible. Secondly, this feeds into the concepts of trust and national stereotyping (and the changes to this) that are explained later in this chapter.

Character name

Pick a name for your character, one that you like and one that you think fits. After all, this is how you will be referred to throughout the game, so you should be comfortable with it!

Occupation and background.

All characters are, by default, agents of the RPA. However, this covers quite a lot of ground and characters can have pretty much any background that they choose. Given the fact that WW2 only ended five years ago, it's reasonable to expect that many of the characters have military backgrounds or training of some kind.

Sample Occupations: Serving Military Officer, Traumatised RAF Bomber Pilot, Red Army Soldier, Conniving Diplomat, Self-Righteous Aid Agency Worker, etc, etc.

Draw

How was the character drawn into the Underground War? What reasons do they have for continuing their participation? What circumstances might arise to make them disassociate themselves from the Underground War?

The characters draw allows the player to lay out why they are involved and also lay out circumstances under which they might want to get the hell out of there and escape from the nightmare of the Underground War.

Attributes

There are 3 attributes that serve to define characters in Cold City. And these are:

Body

Body is used when the character takes any physical actions, for example: firing a gun, punching a guard, etc.

Mind

Mind is use when the character is in a situation that requires intellect or perception, for example: working out a tricky puzzle, spotting an Incursor hiding in shadows, etc.

Heroism

Heroism is the most nebulous of the three attributes and represents the heroic qualities of the character. It is used in situations where the character does something that is, well, heroic! Examples of this would be jumping through a window onto the top of a moving train, making a last stand against hopeless odds, etc.

Attributes range from 1 to 5 and players have 8 points to spend on the three attributes.

1 = Poor
2 = Average
3 = Good
4 = Excellent
5 = Almost superhuman

Keys

Each character gets two 'keys', one negative and one positive. These are aspects of their personality that drive them, inspire them, aid them, trouble them or scare them. For example:

Fear of flying
Remembers everything
Crazy in a fight
Extremely sunny disposition
Paranoid around Russians

But don't think that your character will stick with the same keys forever. Particularly shocking, traumatic or life-changing encounters can give your character new keys or remove old ones. Think about the situation the character is in during the game, what they have done and so forth: are any of these significant enough to warrant the addition of a new key? Or, perhaps the character has done something that warrants the removal of an existing key, how was this achieved? [See 'Consequences']

Hatred

This is something or someone that the character hates beyond all reason. Hatred should be chosen carefully, especially if they relate to people. While it would be fine to choose the hatred 'Britain and the British', think carefully about how this would affect the character in play, how they would react to colleagues and so forth.

Like keys, Hatreds don't remain static; they will evolve over time, be reinforced or reduced. You might even get a new hatred. Even though all characters start out with just one hatred, there's always the opportunity to gain more. Perhaps someone has screwed you over in a particularly bad way, does this give you reason to hate them? It might, so add a new hatred. [See 'Consequences']

Abilities

Abilities are skills and talents that the character has learned, acquired or perhaps just been born with. Abilities don't have a level, you just have them or you don't. Sample abilities might be:

Brawling
Driving
Investigating
Lock picking
Occult knowledge
Piloting
Rifle shooting

Players get to choose 5 abilities for their characters. And, like Keys and Hatred mentioned above, a character will not stick with the same abilities forever. There's always the possibility to gain new skills and talents, but there's also the possibility to lose skills and talents through injury, trauma and stress. That SZ that broke your kneecap with a sledgehammer? Looks like he's ended your running days, goodbye to that 'Sprinting' ability! [See 'Consequences']

Trust

Trust plays a big part in Cold City. Are your fellow team members spies feeding information back to their political or military masters? Are they in league with more sinister forces? Do you trust their personal or political motivations?

In order to reflect this element, once the group has sat down to play, find out that the other characters are and decide what your character thinks of them. Do they trust them and if so, how much do they trust them?

Trust can vary a lot, even within the time frame of an individual games session. The actions of a character can heavily influence what the other PCs might think of them. If they start acting in a suspicious manner, trust might do down. If they start acting in a manner which inspires trust, it might go up. But hang on, why are they acting like that? Maybe you shouldn't trust them...

On the character sheet, you'll notice spaces for the names of the other characters. You'll also find space under each name for a one-line description of your opinions of the character and a box to put a number in. This number represents your level of trust. The higher the number, the greater the trust.

Trust of 0 means that you absolutely would not trust that character to tell you what the weather was like outside. Trust of 5 means that you would trust that character with your life and the lives of your nearest and dearest.

Trust   Meaning
0   Absolute zero trust, no reliance on the individual at all.
1   A very low level of trust, as with a new acquaintance or possibly and old enemy
2   A low level of trust, as with a colleague or nodding acquaintance
3   Moderate trust, as with a trusted colleague
4   Very strong trust, as with a close friend
5   Absolute trust, you would place your life in their hands


When the PCs first come together, trust needs to be assigned and the stereotypical views established. Now, people only have a limited amount of trust to go around, so you have a certain amount of trust to assign to each PC. The total amount of trust you have to go around is:

Number of other PCs x2

So from this you can see that the average amount of trust you're going to have is 2 for each other player. However, take into account your characters nationality, attitudes, keys and hatred. How will this influence the assignment of trust? Who do they feel they can rely on from the outset?

Initially, your opinions of the other characters will be very much based on national stereotypes, as listed below:

American: Brash, loud, over paid, over sexed, over here, uncouth, assertive, cocky and confident, .

British: Reserved, stiff upper lipped, always takes a break for tea, eccentric, sport obsessed (especially cricket and football), superior and smug

French: Cowardly, alcoholic, fond of good food and wine, rude, arrogant, amorous and romantic.

German: Hard working, humourless, efficient, bureaucratic, rude, orderly, precise and given recent events, more than a little warlike.

Soviet: Stoic, fiercely loyal to the Motherland, a firm believer in Communism, robotic and melancholy.

Pick some of the words listed above and incorporate them, plus a concept of your own that helps to define the characters particular stereotyping the other nation in question, and write a short sentence in the space provided. This is the characters initial opinion of the other PCs and is very much based on (largely incorrect) national stereotypes.

Next to this, you write down how much you initially trust each of the other characters, rating your trust in them from 0 to 5.

In play, you can change your stereotypical outlook and your trust in other characters if they perform actions or say things that may influence your character. Over time, one characters opinion of another could change radically, or the stereotypes could simply be confirmed in their eyes. [See 'Consequences']

Trust In Play

In play, trust can do two things: firstly, it informs your opinions of the other PCs and should serve as a guide as to how your character interacts with them. Secondly, it serves a mechanical purpose in that allows you to assist other PCs by awarding extra dice into their pool at critical moments.

The numerical level of trust you have in another PC indicates how many extra dice you can award to that PCs during the session. This extra pool does not refresh during a session and once it's gone, it's gone. In order to award these trust dice, your character must do something or narrate an event which assist the acting PC in some way. They do not necessarily have to be present, a player may have realised something terrible useful or insightful about the situation and want to narrate a particular thing.

Consequences

As the result of important conflicts, differences in opinions and the whims of the player, characters can change and evolve during play. Here follows some guidelines as to how these changes take place and what effects they have on the character.

The term 'consequences' describes the positive and negative results that can arise from a conflict. Sometimes, negative consequences can have a beneficial effect for the character, sometimes it can be disastrous. However, consequence always allow the character to change and evolve.

During play, take note of the conflicts that your character wins and loses, keep note of the totals separately: this is important.

After play, you get to roll a number of dice equal to conflicts won and a number of dice equal to conflicts lost. You roll both separately, effectively taking consequences for your successes and your failures.

When these D10 are rolled, add the two highest numbers showing (if you are rolling more than two dice) and consult the following table:

Success Consequences

Was your roll:

Less than 5?
You can increase your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC

Less than 10?
Choose one from the following:

You can increase your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Gain an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a positive key appropriate to what happened in the session

Less than 15?
Choose one from the following:

You can increase your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Gain an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a positive key appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a point to an attribute appropriate to what happened in the session

Less than 20?
Choose one from the following:

You can raise your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Gain an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a positive key appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a point to an attribute appropriate to what happened in the session
Lose a hatred

20?
Choose two consequences from all of the above

Failure Consequences

Was your roll:

Less than 5?
You can lower your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC

Less than 10?
Choose one from the following:

You can lower your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Lose an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a negative key appropriate to what happened in the session

Less than 15?
Choose one from the following:

You can lower your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Lose an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a negative key appropriate to what happened in the session
Lose a point from an attribute appropriate to what happened in the session

Less than 20?
Choose one from the following:

You can lower your trust in any number of PCs by a maximum of 1 per PC
Lose an ability appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a negative key appropriate to what happened in the session
Lose a point from an attribute appropriate to what happened in the session
Gain a new hatred appropriate to what happened in the session

20?
Choose two consequences from all of the above.

[Graham W]

Hi Malcolm,

I'm worried about the Trust stat. I'd prefer to decide, during the course of play, how my level of trust of the other PCs changes, without that being dictated by a statistic.

For example, what happens if one of the other PCs saves my life during the course of a session? I'd like to be able to decide, on the spot, that I trust him more. Or trust him less, because I think he's got an ulterior motive.

Did you read that discussion about the Fruitful Void? This strikes me as a Fruitful Void issue: that even though the game is about trust, there shouldn't be a stat for it.

Other than that, looking great, and I like the national stereotypes.

Graham

[mutex]

I like that Trust can be used to give out gift dice, but the mechanic for replenishing it seems a bit vague.

Also, I think that having the Consequences placed at the end has two problems:

1. Book keeping:  During gameplay, I really don't want to make lists.  While not particularly complex, I still just don't want to do it.  It takes me out of immersion, and it feels too much like a scorecard.

2.  Immediacy (or lack thereof):  Let's not even assume my character is going to survive the travails of a given adventure.  Story is often based on a character's change.  If my character can only change at the end of a game session, that hurts this game's capabilities for one-shot action.  Plus, it dislocates the action from the consequence, making them less relevant.

As far as the random nature of consequence, while I think that an action shouldn't necessarily always have consequences for the player character, I feel that if they are going to receive consequences, it should at least be determined at the time of the action.

EX., My character Janus, a Russian Black Flag Guerilla, is investigating a laboratory of the mad ArchDuke Fritz von Waffen.  In a secluded alcove, he finds a triad of electrodes, apparently without charge.  He needs a long piece of metal to smash a lock on another door, so he grabs one of the electrodes.  Suddenly, a surge of hideous energy pulses through his arm.  He drops the electrode and grabs at his hand.  The hand is strangely deformed, with lumpen skin and elongated nails.  Horrified, he puts on his leather gloves, fearful that the others will see.  He now has a latent Fear and possibly a new ability related to his deformation.  They maybe do not yet have a game effect, but they will, at least by the next session.

[mutex]

Oops, I forgot to say, "Good draft.  I'm glad you're continuing work on this game."

[Malcolm Craig]

Hi Malcolm,

I'm worried about the Trust stat. I'd prefer to decide, during the course of play, how my level of trust of the other PCs changes, without that being dictated by a statistic.

For example, what happens if one of the other PCs saves my life during the course of a session? I'd like to be able to decide, on the spot, that I trust him more. Or trust him less, because I think he's got an ulterior motive.

Did you read that discussion about the Fruitful Void? This strikes me as a Fruitful Void issue: that even though the game is about trust, there shouldn't be a stat for it.

Other than that, looking great, and I like the national stereotypes.

Graham

Yep, trust was something I was concerned about as well. I had face to face discussion about this with a numer of people and through this, came down on the side of having an actual mechanical element to the trust stat. However, I can see the benefits of eschewing any mechanical advantage and basing the entire thing solely on player/character opinion. And, in addition to this, I think this also connects with concept of consequences within the game. Consequences (currently) come at the end of the session. But yes, it is true that your opinion of another character could change in a split second as they do something which otally throws your conceptions of them. So it's essentially a two fold problem, taking account of the trust and consequence elements of the game.

And yes, I've been reading up on the 'Fruitful Void' idea, very interesting. One thing that strikes me here is that yes, the game is about trust. Currently, there is a stat (of sorts) for trust. Would the game be a better experience if trust as a stat was removed and replaced with, say, a simple verbal description (a word or two chosen by the player) saying how much they trust another character? I'll need tot hink on this one for  a spell.

I like that Trust can be used to give out gift dice, but the mechanic for replenishing it seems a bit vague.

A very fair point.

Also, I think that having the Consequences placed at the end has two problems:

1. Book keeping:  During gameplay, I really don't want to make lists.  While not particularly complex, I still just don't want to do it.  It takes me out of immersion, and it feels too much like a scorecard.

2.  Immediacy (or lack thereof):  Let's not even assume my character is going to survive the travails of a given adventure.  Story is often based on a character's change.  If my character can only change at the end of a game session, that hurts this game's capabilities for one-shot action.  Plus, it dislocates the action from the consequence, making them less relevant.

I think there are arguments here in favour of immediacy of consequences and flow of gameplay. My point of view is that I would rather load up the end of the game session (post actual play) with the matter of consequences rather than having play 'bogged down' in deciding consequences at every turn. Now, I realise that not every conflict is going to result in major consequences, far from it. I also realise that there are game out there which handle just this sort of thing every well.

However, I do think your second point is a good one well made. I can see how, in a one shot situation, it would be more satisfying to see a character evolve and be able to utilise that evolution in play, rather than reach the end of the game, see the character evolve and then not be able to utilise it.

As far as the random nature of consequence, while I think that an action shouldn't necessarily always have consequences for the player character, I feel that if they are going to receive consequences, it should at least be determined at the time of the action.

So, what you are essentially saying is that both the consequence and the severity of same should be in the hands of the player at the immediate moment of conflict? This would take a step away from the current system and say, "These are possible outcomes for the character, covering the full gamut of conflicts. Pick one or two that are appropriate to the situation you have just found yourself in." On one hand, I kind of like this for its simplicity, on the other hand, I'm slightly wary of it as it seems slightly vague.

Oops, I forgot to say, "Good draft.  I'm glad you're continuing work on this game."

Thanks very much, greatly appreciated.

Cheers for the feedback and comments.

Malcolm

[Roger]

In 'Cold City', no two players should have characters of the same nationality.

Does the setting offer a predefined lingua franca, or is it up to the players to hash out a common language, hire on a team of translators, or some other solution?



Cheers,
Roger

[JSDiamond]

One thing jumps out at me right away that you might change --Keys and Hatreds.  They seem too alike, so why not just use Keys?  Since one has to choose a positive and negative, "hatred of Russians" could easily be a negative Key. 

I like how Keys can change and I like the Trust mechanics very much.  In fact, I can see how relationships would ebb and flow because of those two things.

[Malcolm Craig]

In 'Cold City', no two players should have characters of the same nationality.

Does the setting offer a predefined lingua franca, or is it up to the players to hash out a common language, hire on a team of translators, or some other solution?

Cheers,
Roger

An excellent point. I had recentlyy added a small paragraph on language and how players might want to approach it, but have now realised that it would be much, much better if actually placed in the character creation section. Thanks for pointing that out.

One thing jumps out at me right away that you might change --Keys and Hatreds.  They seem too alike, so why not just use Keys?  Since one has to choose a positive and negative, "hatred of Russians" could easily be a negative Key.

I like how Keys can change and I like the Trust mechanics very much.  In fact, I can see how relationships would ebb and flow because of those two things.

The Hatred was meant to be one thing which really ate into the heart of the character. Whereas keys were character traits of lesser power or influence. Although looking at it as it stands, I think greater differentiation needs to be made between the two in terms of the effects they have. Or, more to the point; Hatred needs to have much greater differentiation from the keys, something like the difference between the Traits and the Devil in 'Dust Devils' (to use an example).

It might be just a small thing, but perhaps re-naming keys would serve to illustrate their function better? The good old fashioned 'traits' or something like that.

And yes, one of the thing I was hoping for after the last thread on Cold City was the the combination of the keys/hatred/trust would be a major influencer on the character relationships in play. I'm confident that I'm close to having a workable system, so testing it out in play is vry much the next step to see how it functions in the hands of players.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Malcolm Craig]

Further to my last post as relates to the languages spoken by the characters, I could be missing a trick here.

Say the Soviet character is the only one to speak Russian and the group has to converse with an MVD officer or similar. Only one character can interact: how does this influence the other characters opinions? What is the Soviet character saying? Are they really doing what they said they would do or are they in some way selling out the group? It never really struck me before, but there's another possible avenue for conflict right there, tying into trust and so forth.

Cheers
Malcolm

[mutex]

The same is true for any documents left behind.  I don't know how you feel about note-passing and/or props, but there's an opportunity here for above the table use here, i.e. the player whose character reads that language is the only one who is allowed to read the prop/note.


On an unrelated note, I didn't actually assume that the player would get to choose the Consequences in any given shocking or horrific situation.  I was assuming that either the GM determined the Consequences or the GM and Player negotiated the consequences.  Could you clarify who determines the Consequences?

[Malcolm Craig]

The same is true for any documents left behind.  I don't know how you feel about note-passing and/or props, but there's an opportunity here for above the table use here, i.e. the player whose character reads that language is the only one who is allowed to read the prop/note.


On an unrelated note, I didn't actually assume that the player would get to choose the Consequences in any given shocking or horrific situation.  I was assuming that either the GM determined the Consequences or the GM and Player negotiated the consequences.  Could you clarify who determines the Consequences?

Note passing or props in-game are fine by me. I'm not sure whether to make this and explicity part of the game. Although, it I must admit it does tie in well with the language/trust part of the game, so it might well make a worthwhile addition to the text.

I would say that the player determines the consequences for their character, but if the GM or other players feel that any given consequence is too braod or is inappropriate to the situation, they can enter into discussion with the player concerned about the consequence they have chosen. In fact, this is something I have already written into the revised text in light of the comments received.

Thanks for the further feedback.

Cheers
Malcolm