Please feel free to ask questions of me; I've never done an actual play post anywhere ever before, but I thought it only fair because I'm gonna be asking you guys for some help with a game soon, so I thought there should be give and take.
So, I ran Cold City for the first time on Sunday. I had a basic plan for a plot, and since the players were all so new, or at least new to the concept of narrative games, I was always going to be driving the game a little more than I would with old-hand indie gamers. The basic plan was: High-ranking RPA-agent gets letters coming directly to the RPA, where no-one should be sending them. They're tip-offs of smuggling and criminal activity, which being normal crimes get handed to the police to deal with. But the police get blitzed, with memory loss and mind control issues. The noob RPA squad get sent to observe the next meet, capture and question a thug and track the boss to his lair in a nightclub. They take him down, wherein it is revealed he's an RPA agent who was possessed while on a mission, he's the one who has been tipping him off, and the creature responsible is in a lair in tunnels under the building. They go into the dank dark atmospheric tunnels and destroy the creature; celebrations ensue!
Into that was thrown a group of 5 characters: Schmiddt, the German Priest, seeking to convert and eliminate heathens - especially Atheistic Communist; Rosie the English Mechanic, a sexy bombshell in a boiler suit trying to prove herself in a man’s world; Robert, the lazy good-for-nothing, greedy Frenchman; Boris, the tows-the-line communist (and wannabe-lapdog to Chernyakovsky, who I threw into the briefing for good measure); and Tex, the good old home town christian boy from Texas, soldier and ladies' man. They had a good selection of agendas too; the priest just wanted to convert the non-believers, though his national agenda was more subvert the communists – with religion; Rosie was looking for the real reason her 4 brothers all died; Tex was just after Nazis and tech, Boris was looking for super-science to reverse engineer, and Robert was trying to make a quick, easy franc and retire to the Maldives.
We had some hiccups along the way. The biggest hiccup, technically, was that I got about 50% of the system wrong. Luckily it was all unimportant stuff like what you roll on dice, and forgetting to check whether people were invoking positive or negative traits. I also stymied myself by misinterpreting the rules on weapons, thinking they added dice rather than harm. I thought I knew the game mechanics better than I did, essentially, but I got away with it, and I don’t think it seriously affected the ‘Cold City-ness’ of the session.
The biggest actual hiccup was exactly the one I thought it would be. My players were all old school gamers, in the D&D, Shadowrun, my-character’s-got-to-win-this and you-tell-me-what-happens mould. We got past it in the end, but right up to the last scene the players were still needing me to explain to them that they could tell me what happens. In game repercussions were minimal, except the extra time it took to get through certain scenes because of it. That, combined with an over-extended planning sequence (my fault; I shouldn’t have sketched them a map of the warehouse) meant that the game only got as far as the opening warehouse, but it seemed fine anyway.
The players were a very enthusiastic group, a good mix of people who play to clichés and people who refuse to go with clichés. Also a good mix of people who will do accents and people who won’t. I know, a lot of people think accents are silly, but in Cold City I always feel it helps remind people of the prejudices they’re supposed to have. So Robert, who was an absolute stereotype, having a wandering French accent, was completely appropriate and reminded people not to trust him with things like, um, work of any kind. Of course, he trumped their suspicions straight away by completely charming (and bribing) his way into a roller in the motor pool. Because he got so many successes, he even got to find a box of nice cigars in the glove box, which served as a good example to the players the power of narrative; Robert’s player got into that whole aspect really quickly, and stayed on to play Dust Devils afterwards too.
Other players took longer; so for instance, Tex finally went “Right! I swing through the window in a cable, roll across the floor, pick myself up and ask the pretty lady if she’s okay” right at the end, knowing it would be a fun moment even though the bad guy had already been apprehended. The German Priest was the only person in the game to engage the trust mechanics – he was pushed in front of Boris when they ran to help Rosie, and on finding himself face to face with an angry, mind-controlled mob, held up his cross and said “I’m a man of god, you can’t attack me. But there’s a godless Commie behind me, how about it?” and then ran off leaving Boris to his fate.
Top moments:
- The priest gives the crowd a quick blessing as he runs away, and the player of the priest decides to narrate in that the blessing dislodges the demonic hold on the gang (and Rosie) long enough for Rosie to make a break for it.
- Frenchie insists on showing up at least an hour late for any meeting they schedule, no matter what time they make it.
- Boris saying, “well, I do have this super-secret giant taser” when faced by the mob – and he did, he’d written it down way back at the start when I said to put down whatever he thought was appropriate.
- The players take it upon themselves to give the tiny, evil parasite it’s form and voice once they catch it! It turns out to be bat-like (much more creepy to watch pulling itself out of a human neck) and screams threats against humanity all the way back in the car after Tex winged it with an amazing dice roll, in a tiny but menacing voice.
Down-sides:
- Because I had gotten the system a bit wrong, it turned out nearly impossible for the main bad guy to prevail in any way. I was too reliant on extreme dice-rolls, and didn’t get one until after he’d been seduced, mislead and knocked out. Still, I got to pull off Charlie's Mind Control in the end so that was okay.
- I also feel I should have left the game a bit more open to the players to decide how it went, and should have incorporated their secrets in a bit more. The hidden agendas weren’t used at all really, aside from stealing a little paperwork. I could have avoided this easily by making them pre-gens, but with a plot only finalised about 2 hours before I ran, this was never going to be an option.
- Also, a bit more comedy than I’d intended, but what can you do? They were freshers, you have to keep their attention somehow.
All in all though, everyone enjoyed themselves, and I think I gave them a taste of a lot of what Cold City has to offer. I may well go back to the game and run a short plot arc to see how it progresses with time; harm and consequences seem to be things which fly around a lot when fully implemented, so characters could change a lot over 3 sessions.
Oh, and just for those who know enough to care, the main antagonist was a man named Charlie Fisher, who, because of the evil within him (picked up on an RPA mission) had developed the power to make people love him. Because as we all know, everyone loves Charlie. Mmm, recycled PCs…
Thanks for choosing to run
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Thu, 20/09/2007 - 08:43.
Thanks for choosing to run Cold City at the Freshers Weeks event and cheers for taking the time to write up the AP.
I'd like to focus, for a moment, on your 'hiccups' in the game. In terms of the system, how wrong exactly was it? This (from and outside observers POV) could have a big effect on how the game played out. Could you g into more detail about what system elements you felt you got wrong and how they affected the game as a whole?
In terms of the players and their experience of games where they are given greater control, how much explanation of this element of the game did you give them prior to setting out to play? And in play, how exactly did they deal with responsibilities of setting goals in conflicts and handling narration when they were successful? Were they to brief in their goal setting/narration? Too lengthy? Utterly confused and grasping at straws? More information on how this part went would be really helpful in gaining a better understanding of how it went overall.
One way to make life easier when running a gaming in this environment (i.e.: the con game or demo setting) is to partially pre-gen the characters. Give them a few traits (but left the players describe at least one positive and one genative), give them their attributes, give them a national hidden agenda, but let them decide their personal hidden agenda and their trust levels. I tried this out at Gen Con and it worked really well, got the players just as involved as if creating characters from scratch and took much less time. You could also try out letting them decide the Draw for their characters and going through brief draw scenes as described in the Companion. This brings people and charactsr into the game really well and, if you let the players know that they should bring other players into their draw scenes in the role of NPCs, get them into the way of the game.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to hearing more on this.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Well, I'll happily say that
Submitted by Shevaun on Thu, 20/09/2007 - 20:16.
Well, I'll happily say that a lot of the errors were on my side - I'm about as rusty as I could get as a GM. The system errors were quite basic: firstly, I was working from memory about the basic die-rolling mechanic; unfortunately I never really got the die rolling mechanic the first time through - I was working it kinda like Risk, comparing dice in order to see which dice beat which. Luckily this method was still quite intuitive to the players, and didn't give results too far outside the normal range of successes.
The other thing I missed was purely just a bad call on my part. My players were all saying "hey, I've got this trait that's relevant, do I get more dice?" and I missed a few occasions where the traits they were talking about were negative ones. Hence, the woman with "trying to prove herself in a man's world" got an extra die for almost verything she did, instead of losing one. In general, I think the main effect this had was to detract from the idea of the characters as partially tragic; they were completely heroes despite - or maybe because of - their flaws.
The loss to the game mostly stood out in terms of the flavour we achieved; it came out pulpy instead of horror/paranoia. I could do better next time, honest!
As for the narrative tasking of the players, I gave them a run down of what was expected of them, or rather the extra power they all had, at the beginning, and they were all enthusiastic about it. I found though that mostly they had either a fear of stepping on my toes, or of transgressing the setting/plot. For instance, they kept on saying "wouldn't it be cool if X happened?" and then looking askance at me, whereupon I would prompt them with "well, does it happen?". It took a few goes before they got the hang of it, which was fine and expected. I did find though that they fell back on that again at the end, once the action hotted up. It was as if they were happy making flippant choices about the scenes, but got uncomfortable again when it seemed they were having a real effect on the plot and/or game world.
I think though that if I ran for those players again (and at least one of them has specifically asked for that), they would get into it much more quickly. The fact that in the end it was them who chose what form the bad guy critter took, making it a tiny bat-like creature with a voice, and it was them who really made the ending dramatic, with their grenades, tasers, ropeswinging and holy blessings, shook a lot of the, shall we say, sleep from their eyes.
I had thought about running with partial pre-gens, but my own experiences of the game had flowed so well from making my own little character and running them through their paces. I forget, of course, that I was primed for games like Cold City by extended interactions and discussions about Indie Games with the likes of you guys. So yeah, next time, pre-gens, a few set piece introduction conflicts to give people the hang of things, and more involvement of the characters' draws and agendas.
Oh, the other thing I forgot to mention: I was one player heavy. Cold City is a game which relies on personal interactions, and it benefits the GM to know what's going on with everyone so it can all be woven in. As an introductory session for a gaming society, however, we needed to give places to everyone, and we were, in my estimation, about 2 GMs short. So I ran with 5 players, which was probably one more than I'd have liked. Of course, pre-gens would have helped with that too.
As a quick first note, have
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Fri, 21/09/2007 - 11:11.
As a quick first note, have you seen the free download with the update form the 3rd printing of Cold City? You can get it here. It contains the revised way of using negative traits that Steve Dempsey and Josh Newman came up with. A marked improvement on the way they work in the 1st and 2nd printing text. It would be worth your while checking them out.
The new way of doing things avoids the stupidity of the way negative traits used to work, now, all traits get to add an extra die, regardless. Check out the download and you'll see what I'm on about.
You comment about the players becoming uncomfortable when they felt their character actions were having a concrete effect on the game world is an interesting one. Did this stem that they were happier playing in a game that was essentially 'pulpy' in tone and when the game got more 'serious', they shied away? Or are there other factors which you can identify?
It does certainly seem that the group were in the mode of relying on the GM to make all the big decisions. That's an entirely valid mode of play, but not for Cold City. Running them through the Draw Scenes as laid out in the Companion (available from an FLGS near you now!) would, I think, gently get them into the way of doing things without it being 'in play', in the sense of being within the context of the mai adventure they are participating in.
I'd be very interested to see if any of these players would be interested in playing Cold City again and if they way they approach it changes on a second viewing.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
As far as purchasing a
Submitted by Shevaun on Sat, 22/09/2007 - 09:21.
As far as purchasing a supplement to make the basic game work better, I've never been keen on the idea - a companion should be optional, not required. I remember your conversation about making negative traits positive dice for certain rolls, but working with the book alone, and the author (unusually) not around to get advice from, the core book was all I had to work with.
I'm looking to run a longer game, because myself, I feel that an average Geas session is too short to showcase Cold City properly - I can certainly say that, on reading it, there was a lot more to the game than I ever experienced in those sessions I played. A 4 hour slot, especially with uncertain players and a new GM, was a little short to do more than a taster - an overblown demo if you will. Factoring in Draws, Agendas, opportunities for trust and betrayal, and that all-to-often overlooked area, the Plot, takes a little too much time, so only certain areas can really be used in a short game. For the crowd I had, I think I made the right choice in keeping it high on plot/action and lower on some of the more complex aspects of the game, because it gave them more time to focus on the unfamiliar aspect of narration.
Which isn't to say that the same players wouldn't be open to all that next time round - in fact, I suspect they would be interested, and I'm offering up places in a longer game as of Sunday. They were certainly keen enough to keep their character sheets, which I feel is a good sign.
I think the hesitancy was, as I mentioned before, largely because they were uncertain about whether they were overstepping their bounds within the final, climactic scene. Simple habit, because most GMs in traditional games can get very tetchy when people step stepping on their vision of the game, whereas Cold City kinda encourages that sort of interplay. They didn't want to offend me, I think, but also they didn't want to be responsible for the climax of the plot faltering if they didn't perform well. I see a lot of this in these story games-thingies. People can easily feel like they'll be judged if they don't come up with sparkling ideas every single time.
Shevy
Edited for me just getting to the shop and the Companion was in; musta arrived a day or 2 ago.
Judge dread
Submitted by Per Fischer on Sat, 22/09/2007 - 18:50.
People can easily feel like they'll be judged if they don't come up with sparkling ideas every single time.
This is a very common misconception, not only in story games, but in mainstream gaming as well. I some circles, even your awesomeness as a GM/player is measured in how "sparkling" or clever you can be.
I assume that you didn't judge the players, Shevaun, and that they didn't judge each other (or did they?) - so where's this angst coming from?
Why is it a misconception? Because being clever or thinking hard to come up with "sparkling ideas" is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do to provide creative input to a game's fiction. Graham W has written a number of awesome posts about it based on experience from improvisation, where some of the same processes can happen: Impro for roleplayers
Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com
Supplemental
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Sat, 22/09/2007 - 23:37.
As far as purchasing a supplement to make the basic game work better, I've never been keen on the idea - a companion should be optional, not required. I remember your conversation about making negative traits positive dice for certain rolls, but working with the book alone, and the author (unusually) not around to get advice from, the core book was all I had to work with.
Errr, you don't have to purchase anything to make the game run better. While I think the Companion and the Draw Scene is a very worthwhile addition to the game, it is merely optional, there is no necessity or compulsion to use it. Whereas, in the case of the use of negative traits, I felt that this was necessary change, which is why it appears in the Companion, in the third printing of Cold City and for free download from the website. But, there is absolutely no need to purchase a supplement to make the "basic game run better". Cold City runs perfectly well as it is, out of the box and with not further materials required.
I'm looking to run a longer game, because myself, I feel that an average Geas session is too short to showcase Cold City properly - I can certainly say that, on reading it, there was a lot more to the game than I ever experienced in those sessions I played. A 4 hour slot, especially with uncertain players and a new GM, was a little short to do more than a taster - an overblown demo if you will. Factoring in Draws, Agendas, opportunities for trust and betrayal, and that all-to-often overlooked area, the Plot, takes a little too much time, so only certain areas can really be used in a short game. For the crowd I had, I think I made the right choice in keeping it high on plot/action and lower on some of the more complex aspects of the game, because it gave them more time to focus on the unfamiliar aspect of narration.
I may be wrong here, but I think you are seeking to defend your game decisions here when no defence is required. Keeping the game strongly focussed on plot and action was your choice as the GM.
I think the hesitancy was, as I mentioned before, largely because they were uncertain about whether they were overstepping their bounds within the final, climactic scene. Simple habit, because most GMs in traditional games can get very tetchy when people step stepping on their vision of the game, whereas Cold City kinda encourages that sort of interplay. They didn't want to offend me, I think, but also they didn't want to be responsible for the climax of the plot faltering if they didn't perform well. I see a lot of this in these story games-thingies. People can easily feel like they'll be judged if they don't come up with sparkling ideas every single time.
I think Per's response to this hit the nail on the head. I very srongly agree with him: there is no responsibility or requirement at all for people to bring super-awesome stuff to the tabe at every single moment of the game. It's a fallacy and possibly damaging to play.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Hey, we all know about the
Submitted by Shevaun on Sun, 23/09/2007 - 01:53.
Hey, we all know about the concept of 'performance anxiety' - it may be founded on absolutely nothing, but it still happens. People's own insecurities are the issue, which is why I believe that the scared-to-narrate problem would be overcome in subsequent games for these players. The very fact that they weren't judged for this was the encouragement they needed, and that's why I want to run again, to build on this enthusiasm they have developed from the lack of denial of their input or demands on their creativity.
True, I may be looking to defend my game, because I know it went, in terms of feel, quite differently from the way it went when you (Malc) ran it. But we'll see, eh? If I run it again tomorrow (like I want to; I wasn't joking when I said I really liked Cold City), we'll see how it goes with a more developed approach, both from myself and from the other players. And of course, I'll let you know right here.
I've got the Companion now, so I'll have a look through and see what I think of your revisions. Since its not too long, I'll see what I can implement tomorrow, especially with regards negative traits. You should note, by the way, that the update you pointed me towards only mentions that negative traits add obvious dice to your pool, not what you do with them. That is, according to the page reference on the first page (mentions page 52 when the download only goes up to page 48 or something).
Cheers for your various responses (Per too; I haven't seen most of you in ages),
Shevy
NB: Cold City had way less problems with scared-to-narrate players than my later game that day, which was a purely character driven Dust Devils game. Vicky (you remember PHBG don't you Malc?) made a character who was a total nutcase, the whole focus of the game, but when she won narration she invariably gave it to someone else. On the other hand, the 2 players who had just gone through CC were much more willing to take the helm when required, which pleased me greatly.
Un-spammed your comment
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Sun, 23/09/2007 - 10:53.
Un-spammed your comment Shevy. Don't know why that happened.
Oh, just to chip in that "winning narration" doesn't mean they have to talk the most, or even much at all. They just get the right to approve what happens I think.
Is that how you guys do it? Or do you prefer the winner to be the one doing the talking?