In discussions with a few people (Gar Hanrahan pointed out the slight anomaly of trust within moments of reading the playtest document), both playtesters and others, the topic of trust in Hot War has come up more than once. It's true that the mechanic as it stands is a straight port from Cold City, where the Cold War atmosphere and nature of the game make trust an exceedingly important part of play. However, as some have pointed out, perhaps this isn't such a huge part of Hot War. In a devastated, post-nuclear environment, perhps there are other things, related to but different from, trust that should come into play.
These are simple, off the cuff thoughts based on those conversations.
First off, should there be trust between all of the PCs? Perhaps not. Maybe it should be mandated that there are least one or two relationships between the PCs, but perhaps not to the extent that it exists in the mechanics of Cold City. So, perhaps we have a situation where a player has a pool of 'loyalty' or 'relationship' points that they can spend. What things are mandated?
There must be one (or two) relationships with other members of the SSG team*
There must be a relationship with someone in the faction that the PC represents
There must be a relationship with a non-involved party (a wife, husband, daughter, son, lover, best friend, priest, whatever)
So, at minimum, there are three relationships that exist from the outset. How do we define them? This could be a simplification of the trust mechanics in Cold City: the player has a pool of points (say, arbitrarily, six) to spend, minimum of one in any relationship and a maximum of five. If the relationship can be brought into play, then there is a dice pool bonus equal to the trust/loyalty. However, if the person who is trusted decides to betray or sell-out the character, then they get a bonus equal to the trust/loyalty.
Thinking on, this trust/loyalty could be extended out to groups and organisations, not just people. The simplicity of this would also tie in to the consequences system, allowing raising and lowering trust to become part of the outcome of conflicts (or, relationships could be 'locked'** as a result of consequences, preventing them from being adversely affected if they are brought into a conflict).
Just a few thoughts, commentary appreciated as always.
Cheers
Malcolm
*It would probably make sense, in this case, that the character in question must have a relationship with any other character who chooses to have a relationship with them, even if they only choose to set it at a low level.
**I've added the locking of traits to the consequence outcomes in the game as well, since sending out the playtest documents, having recently been re-reading Nine Worlds and also having just come across Gregors excellent work for Cantare (I missed that thread entirely while I was away camping, having just read it today, much to my chagrin).
Edit: I should also note that the crucible in Covenant has proved to be another great inspiration behind this. The way that it forces you to choose relationships at the outset of the game really sets things up well, something that I'm hoping to have in Hot War.
Trust = Hope, sorta
Submitted by Shevaun on Wed, 30/01/2008 - 23:49.
Me? Pitch in on a Hot War/Cold City thread?
The biggest thing I've noticed so far is that with no points forced on them to spend on trust, the players have all basically said no, I don't trust anyone. Totally in keeping with a paranoic post-apocalyptic game where traitors and monsters lurk on every corner, but it kinda robs the game of any sense of betrayal, when (if) it happens.
The reason to have a set number of point would be the same in my mind as the reason for having enforced bonds or relationships: it forces a situation where betrayal means something. If any of my players betrayed each other, there would be no surprise at all, and no huge kick-back for the game play.
Trust is different here, but it does mean something. However, unlike in Cold City, where it represents the decaying of an individuals relationships, in Hot War it represents more the fact that possibly, just possibly, a year after the biggest betrayal humanity has every perpetrated on itself, people are learning to trust again. The question then is, can people hold off of following their own selfish agendas long enough to allow that trust to flourish into something solid?
Or, something. Maybe I'm being a bit melodramatic here... I guess it'll come out in the game play, one way or another.
Shevaun
Solutions...
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Thu, 31/01/2008 - 00:26.
Hey,
Thanks for the further thoughts, it's good to hear some more ideas on the fundamental basis of the game. However, it's certainly pretty clear to me that there is an issue with trust in Hot War, tied in to the setting (which you clearly identify in your post), so what I'd like this thread to be about is looking at the proposed alternative and finding out if it is functional.
Not that I am unappreciative of the commentary (far from it), but I'd really like to keep this thread focussed on the solution, rather than the issues behind it. If that makes any sense.
Thanks
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Yeah Malc, I think it could
Submitted by JoE PrincE on Thu, 31/01/2008 - 03:10.
Yeah Malc, I think it could work with a bit of jiggery pokery.
You could define a set number of factions in play before the game so each faction has at least 2 PC members. Then betrayals can be turning the factions against one another.
Now some qvestions:
How will betrayal work with NPCs? Will the GM just decide someone is being betrayed?
Is the incentive to betray provided purely by the PC's personal agendas?
Is it up to the GM to provide PCs with the chance to achieve these agendas?
Lets get to the heart of the trust and betrayal!
+++
JoE
+++
Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....
The Heart of the Matter
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Thu, 31/01/2008 - 03:40.
How will betrayal work with NPCs? Will the GM just decide someone is being betrayed?
Is the incentive to betray provided purely by the PC's personal agendas?
Is it up to the GM to provide PCs with the chance to achieve these agendas?
Lets get to the heart of the trust and betrayal!
Yes, lets!
I'm not sure if by "betryal work [ing] with NPCs" you mean when the PCs are betraying NPCs or vice versa, so I'll try to give an answer that covers both bases:
The relationship determined in a similar manner to the current Cold City version: if I have a relationship with you, you must have a relationship with me. Say that I put 2 points in a relationship with your PC, Mr Jackson, 2 points in a relationship with Captain Groves, my characters superior in the Navy and 2 points in a relationship with Louise, my characters sister.
Each one of those characters (PC or NPC) must have a relationship with the PC. If it's another PC, then they must spend some of their points in creating that relationship (minimum of 1). If it's an NPC, then it must be decided between GM and the player (in negotiation, with the other players also allowed to give their views).
At the moment, then, we're still operating kind of like Cold City, which is good. This continues to how it operates in play: if you can bring the relationship into a conflict in a positive fashion, then you get Your Relationship Points as additional dice. If you are using it negatively (i.e.: in betrayal) then you get Their Relationship Points as additional dice. So far, so similar.
The difference comes in the fact the NPCs now have relationships with PCs which the GM can use in play. It takes trust from Cold City and moves it on a step. So, say (from the example above), I choose to have Captain Groves attempt to sell out the PC to other characters in a conflict: in the role of the GM, I would get additional dice based on the trust that the PC had in Groves.
Furthermore, rather than the arbitrary choice system that currently exists in the CC mechanics for changing trust, changes in relationships owuld be hardwired into the consequences of conflicts: they can only go up or down if they are endangered by a conflict situation. Hence the 'locking' mechanic can allow relationships to be brought into play without adverse risk.
As regards your question on agendas: no, it's not in the GMs hands. Hidden Agendas are now rated and each use moves the character towards a resolution of the agenda. When the max number of uses has been reached, then there is a resolution point. At the point, the agenda is resolved either positively or negatively and can be replaced with a new agenda.
Cheers
Malc
edit: Yes, it is pretty much trust from CC extended out to cover NPCs as well and a allowing the GM to interact with the trust mechanics. Also, I'm torn between relationships and loyalty as a naming convention here.
Contested Ground Studios
Relationships
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Fri, 01/02/2008 - 13:30.
Relationships with Ideals, Factions, NPCs or other PCs certainly populates the game ina meaningful way. The incentive of dice to do one thing or another to the target of these relationships is what makes them the focus of the PC's actions.
For that age-old question "What do you do in the game?" is answered by the relationships and what they want from you and what you want from them. Where are the lines in teh sand drawn by your character?
Protect your wife? Reclaim your city? Loyalty, or not, to the Army?
It doesn't have to be about Trust. Though you can again make that a central part of the game. Cold City seemed to me to be about Trust falling apart (maybe I'm worng), is Ht War about finding it?
Exactly
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 02:06.
It doesn't have to be about Trust. Though you can again make that a central part of the game. Cold City seemed to me to be about Trust falling apart (maybe I'm wrong), is Hot War about finding it?
Yes, I think you are totally on the money there (and, to give credit where credit is due, as was Shevaun when she pitched in earlier).
So, yes, the mechanics have to reflect this. If raising/lowering Trust/Loyalty is explicitly tied to the consequences of conflicts and you can ONLY change t/l as a consequence of same, the that could set up some cool stuff where you go in to a conflict with the explicit intent of affecting change in the t/l level: that's the consequence you want to choose at the end, if you succeed. The only way you can do this is by bring the relationship into the conflict in the form of bonus dice, thereby risking that relationship in the hope that it will have a positive outcome.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios