Unterfeldwebel Wilhelm, Grenadier Schnieder, and OberGrenadier Dreyman lead an honorable Volkssturm squad garrisoned in the fortress city of Konigsberg on the Fatherland's Eastern front. The Prussian town is key to the defense of the Eastern flank and Army Group North will fight to the bitter end to protect it.

We played 4 scenes pregnant with juicy conflicts. The first scene involved the Volkssturm squad heading into the edge of the town to evacuate German civillians following the fall of the 1st line of defense. After evacuating a handful of citizens, the squad hunkered down in an apartment building as intermittent artillery bursts rang out along the rooftops. A Wehrmacht soldier on a loudspeaker announced the arrival of the Soviets in the district and the troops sought to ambush a Red Army infantry column supporting a T-34 Russian Tank. The conflict ended in the first Moment (round) as OberGrenadier Dreyman found himself pinned in the alley clutching his Panzerfaust. Unterfeldwebel Wilhelm had trouble maintaining his troops' composure and they opened fire prematurely, forcing the group to evacuate in order to avoid the wrath of the approaching tank.

The next two scenes were only a few hours later in game time, involving the group being assigned reconnaissance duty near the 2nd line of defense in order to gauge the Soviet approach. We established the poor armament of the Volkssturm squad and the fact that they were being treated as 2nd citizens in the face of the Wehrmacht OberLeutenant in charge of their line. After a brief conflict to establish the Volkssturm's group autonomy, they headed out to the industrial sector of the city. This is where the group found shelter in an abandoned bakery, spotting a nearby Stalin II Tank Crew enjoying a moment a peace. Grenadier Schneider quietly dispatched with two Soviet riflemen before the group made a stealthy departure in order to head back to home and report on their findings: The Red Army was close and gearing up for war.

The final scene featured the squad spiritously fighting to hold their section of the 2nd line against an onslaught of Russian Artillery/Rockets and advancing armor supported infantry. Some really stellar descriptions found their way into this conflict colored intensely by the 3 Strains in Black Cadillacs (Horror, Hubris, and Valour). A moment of horror gripped OberGren. Dreyman as his scavenged PPSh jammed in the face of an approaching line of bayonet wielding infantry. Gren. Schnieder sought to pick off a tank commander who was abandoning his iron coffin, only to have his shot thrown off by the shower of gore of a nearby comrade. We also saw an intense moment of Valour displayed by the UnterFeldwebel as he rallied his men from fleeing, forcing them to hold the line much longer than anticipated. In the end, however, the troops were forced to retreat as the approaching group was much too strong.

I have to admit that the end game mechanics of BC are quite gripping. You pose three questions to the group and answer them with a clever trick taking card game. Our three questions included:

Q.What happened to the boy (a 15 year old member of the squad who Schnieder took under his wing - he dissapeared in the final assault)
A. He was captured, sodomized and killed (Poison'd meets the Eastern front?)

Q. How do the troops under the OberLt. view the Volkssturm squad in the wake of the final assault?
A. The Volkssturm squad was seen as the first to break, fleeing the defenses and causing the whole line to cave in.

Q. Were we (the squad) betrayed? (This was an awesome open ended question posed by one of the players - it referenced a Rumour which alludes to the OberLt. possibly being a Commie traitor)
A. The OberLt. placed the Volkssturm squad in a vulnerable position so that blame could be easily levied on them (we still don't know where his true loyalties lie).

Then the group reveals what cards they have left to determine Who Dies, Who Gets Away (leaves the war/group), and Who is distinguished. We sadly learn that the UnterFeldwebel was killed as he held off the final wave overwhelming their defensive line so that his men could get away. Both Grenadier's were distinguished and it was decided that Schneider will receive a field promotion next session (He will be the new squad leader).

We all loved the game immensely. Conflicts seemed to arise relatively naturally and we all had a hell of a time sharing narration of the scenes in the Rising Action phase (pre-conflict free play). The only times I felt a little hand-cuffed were when a clear conflict would arise but one of the troopers would disagree with the groups actions (there was some arguing with the OberLt. and Grenadier Schnieder agreed with the Extra rather than with his own squad). I believe we handled this correctly as we worked out the goal of the conflict to be congruous with every member. It just took a moment to let it work itself out and then we were fine.

The player's received their homework and I cannot wait to hear their Stories next time we play. We already tossed around the idea that Schnieder's story would occur at his field-promotion ceremony as he receives a medal for his valour and his CO relays his heroic tale. We definitely are excited about the next session.

Hey Charles!

I've been bouncing up and down all day, having read your post this morning.  I've only been able to snag the time to respond now.

Thanks for playing Black Cadillacs.  I'm chuffed that it's engaged you & yours, and I'm doubly chuffed that you'll be revisiting the battle of Konigsberg.  (As an aside, mostly for those who know little or nothing about the Eastern front of WWII, the Wikipedia article is actually pretty good!)

I've got a few questions for you.  However, I have a feeling that they're all intertwined.  I'll lead with the first one.

You mention an (in-fiction) argument between a Trooper and a senior-ranking Extra (NPC.)  One of the issues of military gaming I specifically did not address in the book is the subject of Rank.  How did your group handle the structure of command as Players?  Were there any thorny issues?

Danke,
D

Rank was touched on a primarily in that scene I mentioned.  Let me explain the scene a little bit more before answering your question completely.

So, the squad had been ordered over radio by their OberLt. to perform reconnaissance on the nearby district.  It's important to realize the OberLt. was established by a rumor in which it is circulating that he could be a Soviet sympathizer - thus automatic distrust built into the Extra.  The OberLt. is also Wehrmacht while the group was comprised entirely of Volkssturm so there was a bit of a dichotomy there.  The group did not like how they were being treated and the Player who was in charge (the UnterFeldwebel) decided to ignore the incoming call.  The player decided to take volunteers to perform the recon instead of forcing his entire squad.  Three members of the squad decided to stay (including Grenadier Dreyman - a PC). 

The OberLt. arrived in person, interrupting the meeting.  He challenged the UnterFeldwebel's rank and ability to lead his troops by allowing 3 to stay behind.  We turned this into a conflict in which the goal was "Can the Volkssturm affirm their autonomy in the face of the OberLt."?  This goal worked well, but actual Go's (unit of play in Black Cadillacs) featured Allies actually making vocal points against each other. 

For instance:
Grenadier Schnieder made his Go dialogue in an attempt to convince the squad that the mission was neccessary: "We are fully capable of performing with excellence in the name of the Reich.  Let us take to the field united, rather than split."
OberGren. Dreyman wanted his Go to consist of dialogue - he restated that they had the situation under control and didn't need interference from the Wehrmacht - while also asserting that he wanted the OberLt. to deck one of their group in the face.

Now see, they both wanted the squad to ultimately govern its own affairs but within the individual dialogue and Go's they had conflicting behavior.  I think this is ultimately fine so long as the Goal of the conflict is still the same.  That was a really long answer to a simple question but we played rank relatively low-key.  I don't remember the UnterFeldwebel ordering the squad around much as a great deal of the game occurred with colorful narrative descriptions rather than actual dialogue (as the book encourages).

I do have one question though, is it acceptable to have scenes without Conflict?  The rules seem to point at "no", but I definitely think you should consider it.  One player did mention afterward that he wished we had a bit more character development rather than jumping to Conflicts quite as fast as we did.  While we did have some solid character development, I can understand where the player was coming from.

Oh one more thing Darcy. 

Your nagging concern about the 3 questions in the Endgame causing fiction to be retrofitted can be completely solved by what we did.  As you can see, we asked questions which would not step on the toes of the final three.  Instead, we only sought future outcomes when it didn't touch the character's directly (the boy for instance was an NPC, not PC).  We also sought to answer details which were left unresolved but did not directly influence the outcomes of death/departure such as the OberLt. betraying the group.

This worked well and we loved the questions/answers which arose.

Oh, yeah, the Players were also absolutely enamored with the death die.  One even remarked that he didn't think he'd ever have the balls to roll it.  We did end up using it once though.

Hi Charles,
Ok.  It sounds like your group handled Rank really well. Here, I'm refering to the unfortunate tendency to appoint a "party leader" based solely on Rank.  Specifically, the tendency for the high-ranking character's Player to be making all of the important thematic decisions for other Players. It sounds like you guys just didn't fall into that trap by virtue of...not being suckers to Social Domination. That's good, self-aware, play.

I'll just point out that if Social Domination were to rear up, Black Cadillacs provides a safety valve. Since there is no Player ownership of Character, merely stewardship, the Players collectively have to assent to specific characterizations. I don't mean this in a "Ok. I'd like Lt. Dickwad to punch you each in the balls.  Is that ok with you, Bill? Betty? Oh, Frank has a problem with that. Let's lie down on the couch and analyze why that is..."  Rather, since each and every one of the Players can make incremental choices for all of the Troopers, the "dickwad" moves don't seem out of this earth -- you've all arrived, through play, at a character who would behave that way, or make those choices.

I'm digressing (fruitfully, I hope.)  OK, time to get back on track.

The next issue was highlighted via rank, but is not actually about rank.  Your scene in which the Squad asserts itself (which sounds great, by the way. I can literally picture the sneer on the OberLeutnant's face as these...fucking peasants have the audacity to question his authority!) So, you've got a scene where the Troopers are unified in a goal, but they're all going about it in (potentially) counter-productive ways. There's a couple of ways to skin this cat.

1. The simplest implementation works almost all of the time.  This works when the various Declarations (whatever their stripe) are all actively working towards achieving the goal[sup]1[/sup].  Depending on how initiative & rolls shake out, then various counter-productive tactics become fodder for subsequent failed (or successful) Gos.

Using your Schneider-Dreyman-OberLt scenario as a starting point, consider:

Schneider first (success) followed by Dreyman (success).  Since Schneider's assertion was confirmed first, it'll (likely) have more weight in the SIS.  This doesn't devalue Dreyman's win.  Perhaps his assertions appeal to the fringe elements of the squad who are generally not on board with Schneider's POV.

Schneider first (success) followed by Dreyman (failure).  Here, we've got a great example of an argument falling on deaf ears, and the majority of the men are with Schneider.

Those are just two possible ways to interpret the Declarations (I believe that there are 16 possible initiative/success combinations for 2 characters.) All of this interpretation is done post-roll, and will also be coloured by how Strain is assigned.

2. A slightly more finicky implementation needs to be trotted out when Trooper actions are directly opposed to the Goal.  Yeah, you can have Troopers act against the Goal.

So long as the Allies all assent to the Goal during the Conflict Proposal (and their assent is emphatic, not merely a hand-wave), it's perfectly OK to have all sorts of counter-productive declarations occur during Moments & Gos. Doing this involves a bit of a judgement call on the Foe's part, and implementing what I call the "Dogs Trick" -- namely reversing roles in the conflict (from the self-improvement type of initiation conflicts in Dogs in the Vineyard) on a Go-by-go basis.

I'll use an even more extreme example from the German Cavalry game at GenCon. The opening conflict in that game was about siezing a farm before the alarm could be raised. However, the player who proposed the conflict actually said something like "Can I look good in the eyes of my father?" In the specific scene, "looking good" was shorthand for "storm the farm", but it carried important baggage, specifically that bound up with success would be the understanding that the Trooper's star would be on the rise.

Given the fact that the Trooper wasn't particularly well-liked, it wasn't surprising that a fair number of declarations involved his fellows hindering him in some way.

This is easily handled once you remind yourself that the Allies are rolling for whichever fictional forces will advance the Allies' side of the goal at that moment. Let's say that Johann (the disliked Trooper) declared "I urge my horse to leap over the little girl so I can reach the barn before they bar it shut." and Helmut's player replies with "Screw that! I 'accidentally' jab your horse in the ribs, hoping to spook it."

Here's the neat part.  When Helmut's player rolls, he's actually rolling for the Belgian sniper who's drawing a bead on Helmut.  As odd as it sounds, here and now, that Belgian is helping the Troopers achieve their goal.

It's a little bit of mental gymnastics, but it does work.

Cheers,
D

_______________
1. I'm including Declarations like "The enemy launches an artillery barrage against us." in this group.  Although articulated as a Declaration against the Troopers, these kinds of Declarations immediately conjure to mind the pro-goal reaction from the Troopers.

Excellent answer.  I really dig that the troopers may have the same goal yet may actually act in Conflict within a given Moment.  We definitely played that way and I think the Artillery example and the text describing that individual Go's do not have to be your Trooper acting directly really planted this idea in my head.

I'm also pleased that you brought up the Dogs initiation technique as that is exactly what popped into my head during a couple of Player's Go declarations.  I'm wondering if I had not previously played Dogs and experienced that technique how it would have worked out for us.

Hey Charles,
I just noticed that I missed a couple of your questions.  Sorry!

My intention was for each and every scene to have a conflict (p.43)  I've always run it that way, and I've never felt the need for more character development.  However, I'd like to explore your request a bit.  When you say 'character development', what do you mean?  What sorts of things constitute character development to you & yours?

Regarding the "shoehorning" issue surrounding the Big Three Questions, I really like the solution that your group hit upon.  It (very blurry) hindsight, I think that we've been doing similar things at our table, but I'm not certain.  I'd be very greatful if you kept your finger on the pulse of this issue -- if other solutions present themselves, or if this solution breaks down under certain circumstances, I definitely need to know!

I'm very stoked about your game, please keep up the excellent feedback.
D

Character development to me (and I believe my group would generally agree with me) is basically discovering who a person is, how their past has influenced them, and why they make the choices they do.  It's characters possessing a distinct personality which continually grows as is hinted upon in the fiction.

Now, even with every scene being a conflict, I can definitely see room for character development.  You have memories, Rising Action, Falling Action, and even individual Go's where you can emphasize different elements of your particular Trooper.  However, where I think my group may have enjoyed a little more freedom would be through revealing a character's beliefs, desires, and personality through dialogue.  Saving Private Ryan is perhaps my best example when it comes to War Movies, as we see a great deal of character development in the quiet church scene as well as the aftermath of the Radio Tower assault where the Medic Wade dies, and prior to the final battle where the soldiers are sitting around the record player.  Those are the scenes where these characters come to life and those scenes in particular make the action more meaningful to me as I do not wish to see these living breathing men perish just when their vulnerable sides to the camera. 

I see my latter two examples in the film being things you can explore in Rising Action and Falling Action, but I'm not so sure about that church scene.  That's pretty much a self-contained scene featuring solely dialogue.  Now, you could say that is actually rising action building up towards their departure and trek across the countryside but then you have Scenes which span multiple locations - and I'm not so sure that's in line with the rules.

Also, I keep mentioning the word dialogue.  Dialogue is something Black Cadillacs keeps in the background, only touched upon briefly.  I think that's very interesting but there were a couple moments where we wanted to just let loose and talk.  To reflect on things that had happened in character and not through merely physical action.  The OberLt. conflict above was almost entirely dialogue and we loved it.

Hey Charles,

To lead off, yeah, those are my favourite scene from SPR too.  Especially Wade's death.  Especially since it's super-loaded with gravitas after the Church scene.

I'm going to address your "Black Cadillacs hates dialogue" notion. This isn't the case. In fact, Dialogue is just another tool in the toolbox.  The only place where I encourage not using Dialogue is in Rising Action.  In fact, what I'm actually encouraging is the use of "wide shots", in other words, getting individual players to take some Directorial or Authorial (as in the stances) authority during the buildup in a scene.  For everyone who may be following along, here's the pertinent text:

"pg wrote: What do you do on your turn?

• You say what’s going on.
• Speak in terms of distant, wide-angle
shots; as much as possible, describe what’s
going on from the camera’s perspective.
• If you need to zoom in for a little dialogue
or a closeup, that’s ok too. But try to keep
this to a minimum.
• Do not get tied to the idea of “playing”
one character; when it’s your turn, you
control everything.

Yes it does.  I definitely think the possible problem is me reading more from than the text than it explicitly says.  I don't necessarily think this is a problem with the wording and am not sure why I interpreted the line "try to keep this to a minimum" (referencing the dialogue) to "don't use dialogue". 

I'm trying to put a finger on why I came to this conclusion and the only thing that makes sense to me is the fact that keeping dialogue to a minimum is very unique for the way my group plays.  It seemed like a bit of a radical idea and very interesting to simply describe situations outside of the characters directly and take a more directorial approach.  I latched onto this hard-core to the point where I felt like we weren't playing Black Cadillacs as intended when we engaged in the OberLt. scene.  Everything is beginning to clear up for me now, although I believe that finding the correct balance between dialogue and external non-character attached narration may be a skill I need to work on.

Next session I will loosen up a bit and not worry too much about playing it "right".  That may have tripped me up the first go around.  The rules are pretty clear and simple and as long as we keep with the cinema approach all should be well.