As promised, part 1 of a 3 session arc of Cold City was run at Geas on Sunday. It was a start-from-scratch game, with Character gen and plot created whole-flesh from the hooks the players gave me. The players were 3 completely new to CC and one who had played the previous week. Of the 3 new guys, one of them was obviously a thespian of some sort and one of them was an american unknowing power gamer.
Since the game didn't exist before the characters did, here's a quick run-down of the characters which were made.
Kirk Bradford: American Paratrooper, joined the war late-ish, and broke his leg on his first jump. Spent the rest of the war convalescing.
Draw: Joined the RPA for a late chance to be the war hero he always wanted to be.
Action: 4 Influence: 3 Reason: 1
+Sharp Shooter
+Athletic
+Smooth Talker
-Low Self Confidence
-thinks with his muscles
National Agenda: Try to prevent Britain from finding useful technology so they remain reliant on the US (nice - good historical reference)
Personal Agenda: Prove himself as a hero and be respected.
Trust: Jacob 3 Illya 2 Phillipe 1
Mr Jacob Flottly:English Auctioneer, who was in berlin when the war started, dealing in artifacts. Was thrown in jail and treated, one suspects, very badly. Sprung years later in poor health and...
Draw: ...specifically asked to join up as someone who could ID important artifacts.
Action: 1 Influence: 4 Reason: 3
+Calm
+Knowledgeable
+Charming Voice
-Unfit
-Patronising
National Agenda: Gain monetary support for England or occult artifacts to empower England.
Personal Agenda: To Recover the Spear of Longinus
Trust: Kirk 2 Illya 4 Phillipe 0
Illya Tsarovich: A sniper, promoted to commisar after the war.
Draw: Requested transfer to the RPA for a chance to stem the rising tide of defectors in Germany. If proved to him that the Soviet ideology is empty, might leave the RPA.
Action: 4 Influence: 3 Reason: 1
+Snipers Eye
+Interrogation/Torture
+Double-faced Liar
-Children (queried this - meaning he's a sucker for children, not that he hates them)
-Nightmares
National Agenda: Identify and eliminate possible defectors, report back to the USSR on possible sources to overcome the corrupt Russian Empire.
Personal Agenda: Protect Russian children from further harm and suffering
Trust: Kirk 1 Jacob 2 Phillipe 3
Phillipe Dauphin: a 20-year old trainee surgeon; was orphaned during the war after the Germans killed his parents.
Draw: Joined the RPA to hunt down the people that killed his parents - late the player added that he suspected the person responsible was in the RPA now, and named Michael Wolfhause. Might leave the RPA if revenge is fulfilled, or if close to getting caught breaking the law.
Action: 3 Influence: 1 Reason: 4
-Enable to control desires
-Enjoys killing/torture too much
+Surgery
+Good perception
+Good at Subterfuge
National Agenda: Monitor the work of the other nations in the RPA
Personal Agenda: Enact revenge on parents killers/enjoys torture
Trust: Kirk 2 Jacob 2 Illya 2
So, that's our cast. Things I note here which interested me from the start: A lot of completely non-supernatural stuff going on here. The only person who has anything even slightly supernatural on their initial sheet is Jacob, the non-military character seeking the Spear of Longinus. Second thing I noticed was people trying to cover bases with their agendas. Phillipe has his parents, but throws in the torture thing at the last second; for the player in question, this was a simple case of feeling like he should, though really, "liking torture" is covered by his traits.
The player of Illya, the latent power gamer I mentioned, did ask specifically at the start if he could play a bad guys, which I told him was totally fine. I think that he wanted to exercise a little extra plot power, though he did totally mitigate all that with the loving the kiddies angle. Oh, and Phillipe chose to distribute his trust equally, and even asked if he had to use all the points up, since he wanted his character to be untrusting. In the end he was happy enough not to especially care about anyone more or less than anyone else, and inform his opinions through interaction - which he did, in spades. His trust changed by the end of the session quite markedly.
So, some pondering on what the players had given me, and I started off with a quick scene where a small homeless girl in a ragged old russian army coat is searching for scraps and a warm place to hide under some train tracks in the Russian district. She is quickly snatched by a tall shadowy figure carrying a large object - undefined.
Cut to the new RPA team having lunch in the canteen (which develops a bar half-way through, but I let it slide). Illya makes it clear to everyone what a friendly jocular guy he is but buying drinks and chatting about how great the brave american soldiers are etc etc. Jacob is the model of upperclass brit and puffs on a pipe the whole time, whilst Phillipe and Kirk brood about their upcoming briefing with Chernyakovsky and Walters. Illya slips a note to the russian bartender, who informs him that Chernyakovsky wants to speak to him in private after the briefing.
At the briefing, they are told (over tea which Major Walters provides) that there have been some disappearances in a rough area of town, not definitely RPA stuff but worth a look anyway. They are told that they should strictly observe for the moment, to determine whether further investigation is warranted. Illya goes off to 'get the equipment together', Phillipe follows him but fails to catch him at anything unusual. Illya slips out to relieve himself after the liquid lunch, but instead contacts Chernyakovsky by radio who informs him that the modus operandi of this abductor matches that of someone else on their records - and this person only abducts children. He is to bring back any artifacts he finds, though he is not told what sort of thing is expected - nor does he ask.
The group go out to the train tracks, at which point a huge heap of plot is invented by the players. The players wanted to look for clues, and I, needing their input to make things happen, basically gave them rolls against the bad guy, whose desire was not to have any clues found, whilst theirs was to find clues. The players then gave me descriptions of what they found. Of the 3 players who went looking, 2 succeeded their rolls (using the system properly now), and one failed, so the results were mostly theirs.
Jacob used his Reason and his giant auctioneers magnifying glass to come up with a scrap of russian great coat, torn away, with half a piece of paper with half a word on it: ünter (the word itself was decided on later). The American goes looking in the nearby abandoned train station; this was a good little moment here, because he decided to use his "thinks with his muscles" trait. Dice hit the table, including the newly added negative trait die, and he succeeds... sorta. The player describes finding a barrel which is making a ticking noise. He tries to open it but its jammed, so... he pulls his gun and shoots the barrel open! The barre; leaks some kind of oil, the ticking stops, and he finds within a severed child's hand and a strange clockwork device which has now got a bullet lodged in it and doesn't work anymore. The child's hand has no fingernails.
Phillipe goes looking on the train tracks, and picks up a russian officer's hat wedged between the ties, not been there for very long and still in good nick. And the Russian, ah, the russian. He goes to question a local store owner. Now this was odd. The player decides to intimidate information out of the shopkeeper with Illya's nasty interrogator ways, and takes the poor old german man into the back of his shop, much to his wife's horror. Illya is played nice and menacing, whilst the shop keeper comes off resigned to his immenent demise. The dice hit the table, and its a 3 level success! Great for Illya, yes? Well, I remind the player to tell me what he wants to have happen, and he kind goes to town. The whole table has to sit through his blow by blow recitation of the entire interrogation scene, which, whilst a good scene, really comes off as one player just showing off.
As soon as I got to the point that I felt the conflict itself was described I jumped back in as the shopkeeper, but it was a 5-minute-long one-man show, which I had to take into account for the rest of the game. Basically, if I gave this guy enough rope he'd hang (up) the whole game, so I was sure not to let him completely run off with the game that way again. Perhaps I was harsh, but I could see the rest of the players waiting for something to do while they waited for him to finish. This was a good warning to me about the dangers of highly narrative games. Luckily the way the rest of the session went helped to clear this guy's eyes about where he stood with regards the rest of the players, plus it was cool to watch.
So, they take their findings back to headquarters, and promptly get sent back out to do a more thorough search. They get sent with another agent, Torsten Bergen, an engineer who can help them search the locale for hidden... stuff. Architecture is his speciality, so he hopes to be able to find tunnels or hide-outs for them. I introduced Torsten to set him up as the man who killed Phillipe's parents. I also noted that the word ünter could easily be the end of the name Günter, rather than refering to under something (also, unter has no umlaut, and the umlaut was explicitly mentioned). My plan was to reveal that Torsten was somehow related to the goings on and living under a false name, though whether he is to be an all-out bad guy I've yet to decide.
Torsten is the subject of lots of scrutiny by the party (in fact, his grilling by Phillipe nearly shakes Jacob out of his obvious disdain for the french doctor), and speaks of building he was commissioned to work on several buildings later used for... bad things, but he's uncomfortable to speak about it. He mentions that he worked in Poland. Phillipe wants to scrutinise this guy a little more closely (dice) and notices that he is carrying a weapon which is pretty incongruous to the the situation. I fill in that its a machete - huh?. Mmm, plot seeds ahoy.
Anyway, they take him back to the train tracks, and Phillipe and Kirk enjoy a cigarette by the car, Jacob has a glass of wine from his personal supply, and Illya and Torsten go snooping. Phillipe excuses himself quite quickly to follow Illya, who is rapidly losing his good reputation with the frenchman. He is spotted, however, and retreats to a nearby café.
Illya and Torsten then come across a tiny one-handed girl who stumbles out from behind a railway shed some distance away. She is covered in odd white leather straps and has a mis-shapen torso. They approach, talking quietly to her, but when she suddenly howls and lunges for them, Illya yells at Torsten to run, which he does, then lightning fast dodges for the cover of some old barrels and flips out his folding rifle. He (3 successes) shoots out both her kneecaps and she collapses.
The rest of the group come running, Jacob panting like a labrador, fetched by Torsten, and for some reason Illya denies that he even had a gun (he hid the gun away agin real fast...?) and that he doesn't know how the girl got hurt. They do not believe him. Then the doc treats the girl's wounds, they restrain her and carry her to the car. Once again, Illya acts, this time to betray them and drive off with the girl in the jeep before anyone else has a chance to get in with him.
Now, at this point I'm not really sure what he was trying to achieve. I think the player was just trying, yet again, to be the prima donna type and take centre stage. What actually happened was, he took his trust dice and headed off, and the rest of the group commandeered 2 vehicles (Nice use of trait - Jacob gave a streetside speech with his charming voice that brought the shopkeeper's wife out. "Here, take my car - that man scared my poor husbamd so badly, I hope you get him!"). The car chase was quick and succinct: 2 rolls were taken, one to see if they could catch up with the lead car, and one to see whether they could stop Illya before he got where he was heading. Phillipe and Torsten in one car, Jacob and Kirk in the other.
To cut a long story short, the french doctor manages to cut off the russin, pulling in front of him and blocking the road. Kirk and Jacob pull level with Illya and start yelling at him to pull over. Illya plays dumb, says he's just trying to get the girl to help at the RPA headquarters. They don't slow down yet. Torsten flees in terror, Phillipe draws his gun and levels it at the Russian, who finally realises that his number's up and screetches to a halt yards from the other car.
Gruffness ensues, with raised voices, raised guns and accusations of treachery and innocence, and The whole group drive back to HQ, which they had nearly reached anyway, backing up Illya's story.
The game sesison ended with the other players interrogating Illya about what the hell really happened. He swears blind he was just trying to help the girl and thought the rest of them were in the car all along - which doesn't wash with Phillipe or Kirk, probably because the car was a jeep and its pretty hard to miss people in a jeep. Jacob, however, completely buys it, and recovers his trust in Illya somewhat. Lines have been drawn, with France and America on one side, Russia and England on the other. Tensions are high, and they don't even know what's wrong with the little girl yet.
End of game session description; I'll give some more thoughts on this once I get back home from Black Lion.
Cheers,
Shevy
Woah!
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Mon, 24/09/2007 - 22:14.
Lots to read here.
Hey, you say one player was kind of a motor mouth and was kind of grandstanding a bit. How were the other players with that? Did they enjoy it or did it ruffle their feathers a bit?
One thing you can do with that sort of thing is to get everyone's input on the success, even (or maybe especially) ones for motormouth's character. The person winning narration gets to affirm what happens but that doesn't mean they're the only person talking. Encourage everyone to listen to other ideas and it's fine as GM to say "right, that's cool, I think we have enough here, now let's move on".
And conversely, as the GM, you can use some of your authority to say "hold on, let's see what X has to say" to get input from other players that are getting cut out.
A good technique is to say "Blah..." where blah is someone's name, and then ask them for what they think. This has a subtle way of shutting up anyone who isn't Blah, and inviting Blah into the verbal "space".
Hah, yeah. Generally it was
Submitted by Shevaun on Mon, 24/09/2007 - 23:29.
Hah, yeah. Generally it was fine, show-boating but fine, it was just the scene where it was just him and an NPC that got too out of hand, and its not like it broke the game. But it did make the other players wary.
I like to think that, as a GM I have half way decent table control, good enough to make sure everyone has their time in the sun. There were some moments of subtle boundary setting, but they were kinda taken to heart I think. Like I say, the guy wasn't a jerk, but was maybe used to fighting other players to see who could be the biggest character at the table. not so used to the working together thing.
What concerns me now though, is that after the game was done, and he'd thoroughly inserted himself into the centre of the plot and group, he told me he might not make it for a week or 2. It was stated up front that it was just a 3 week game! Sigh.
Next week I plan to do some character cementing, with a few draw or background scenes. The doctor and his vicious whims, some scenes from before and after Kirk's fateful parashoot jump, and a little of what happened to the autcioneer in captivity. He hates doctors, which is part of why he distrusts Phillipe so much, so I think it would be nice to see more about that.
As for the Soviet, well, I guess he doesn't get a draw scene for another week, if at all. I don't know how that'll effect the player interactions, but I'm willing to bet that Kirk, Jacob and Phillipe will love it.
I did ask the players up front what they wanted to have in the game, and their responses were quite interesting. Espionage, realism, 'Natural' enemies (as opposed to supernatural), Hellboy-esque, downtime and character reflection, these were the things they asked for. I'll see what I can cater to.
Actually Cold City sits well with drop-out and drop-ins
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Tue, 25/09/2007 - 12:06.
Actually Cold City sits well with drop-out and drop-ins, since the National Power for your character can call you back to base at any time. When you're ordered ... you have to do it.
This makes it convenient to cover for players being away -- their character is pulled back by their superiors.
If you are somewhere more isolated -- a sewer or a dodgy research facility -- then have them disappear. It fits with the fiction well and when they turn up again the player can have an excuse of where they went. I leave it up to the Trust to see whether people actually believe them...
It sounds like you have a fun game there. It will be interesting to see what the quietre players drive in play next week.
Are you finding Cold City to be quite a traditional game in the way that as GM you set teh plot and scenes, whereas the players bring their interpretation of their characters and personal agnedas?
I'm finding that I need to
Submitted by Shevaun on Tue, 25/09/2007 - 12:48.
I'm finding that I need to pull back on the reins a little, simply because of the huge amount of stuff the players are throwing at me. I'm kinda responsible for making an exciting game happen, and to do that I have to make use of some of the stuff that's being brought in - but I was getting swamped! So many things to weave into the game/plot, and only a limited amount of feasible plot to run with. I'm trying to slow it down a little to give the plot some time to develop, so that everyone has some sort of collected vision of where its going. I hope after that the players will be bringing stuff which backs a cohesive plot whilst still being innovative and creative.
The other reason for doing it is to help bring a little balance to the table, make sure no one player gets all the limelight, and make sure everyone who adds an idea feels like it is appreciated. It was interesting for me that the player of Illya seemed crestfallen at the
end of the session, feeling like he'd screwed up somehow. I reassured him that a game where the party is split, full of tension and paranoia and full of potential issues is actually desireable, so that he'd actually done well. Without that I'm pretty sure he'd have gone away from the game thinking it sucked (because he didn't win? Maybe). As it is, well, we'll see. I'm interested to see if he makes the effort to come along for the 3rd session,but if he doesn't I know I can find a player to fill in for
him.
Actually, I was approached by one of last week's players, and I'd have taken him in in a second if I wasn't really determined to stop my game from getting overloaded with players that time.
Thanks for your extensive
Submitted by Per Fischer on Tue, 25/09/2007 - 18:06.
Thanks for your extensive write-up, Shevaun. Good to hear what's on your mind as the GM as well.
I might sound oddly like Yoda when saying this: have you thought of just letting go and use the the Force? Ie. simply relaxing, leaning back and enjoying the game instead of feeling responsible for making it exiting? Relying more on the players' powers and decisions to make as much sense in the game as yours?
Maybe you may even feel you have more energy to help bring everyone around the table into the game when you ease off of the entertainer/controller role?
It seems like you have something going here, though, and that you actually enjoy having the reins and the fundamental responsibility - if that's the case, all good :)
What are the other players apart from the powergamer like?
Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com
Thoughts from me, echoes of other comments
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Wed, 26/09/2007 - 06:43.
Well, thanks again Shevvy, it's great to see another Cold City AP up here so soon. And such an extensive one as well.
A lesson I learned and learned hard as a GM: You are not solely responsible for the fun. This chimes with Per's comments. In the GM role, I think many of us are used to being the focus, of being the performing monkey, of being expected to create and maintain the fun. This is bollocks. Yes, the GM has a defined role, yes they are partially responsible for the fun, but not solely and the expectation should not be on them for that.
Gregor points out, correctly, that CC is quite traditional in the way that the GM has to act. However, this does not mean that the GM has to have total responsibility. The players have power via the narrative outcomes of succes in conflicts, they have power through various aspects of their character and they have power through the collaborative nature of play (in games where collaboration is encouraged).
But, don't feel you have to go it alone and be that performing monkey. Maybe some discussion with your players would help? Let them know that they can involve themselves more in shaping the story that you are all creating. Obviously you have the authority associated with the GM role, but they have authority as well. It is at times like this that I wish I had written a more in-depth analysis of this in the main book, rather than just in the Companion!
And looking at your 'grandstanding' player, there are a few ways round this. You could have a pre-game chat about narration rights and what they involve. Perhaps you could ask players to limit themselves to no more than a minute or a few sentences. Or, suggest that winning narration through success gives you narrative authority and the ability to involve others and have others involve themselves in the narration, not just the ability to drone on for minutes at a time about your character and what they are doing. I think that describing a torture scene for five minutes is a moment of play where the GM has absolute authority to step in and ask the player to swiftly wrap things up, especially if it is making ANY participant (GM included) at the table uncomfortable.
Like Per, I'd be intereste din hearing what the other players are like.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Gotta go to work, but just
Submitted by Shevaun on Wed, 26/09/2007 - 06:55.
Gotta go to work, but just quickly then, the 4 players in brief:
Benjamin: Grandstanding centre-stager who seems to be trying to 'win' the game over the other players; enthusiastic though, with a natural flair for descriptive prose, and did seem to get the message quickly enough. Playing Illya.
Tom: Reticent about the supernatural aspects of the game, and maybe not quite getting the whole Trust thing to begin with. Has now altered his trusts hugely and is totally participating in the inter-player conflicts. Playing Phillipe.
Fraser: Played CC the week before, and whilst seeming like the quiet type, has totally taken to the idea of acting within his motivations and bringing good ideas to the table. The least naturally charismatic of the players, but not afraid to voice his opinions in a friendly and personable manner.
Matthew: I strongly suspect Matthew to be either an amateur dramatist, as he successfully put on a complete persona for the entire game, puffing on his pipe and huffing and guffawing throughout. Actually managed to do so without disturbing the game as well. Enjoys the characterisation most, but is having fun with Trust too. Tends to confirm his actions with me a lot. Playing Jacob
Damn, I'm proud I remembered their names...
Shevy
Trad or HippyHugger
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Wed, 26/09/2007 - 18:35.
Gregor points out, correctly, that CC is quite traditional in the way that the GM has to act.
Oh, sorry I maybe wasn't clear. Shevy, I was more asking if you thought it had been quite "traditional" or more "hippy hugger". (Rather than me pontificating, for once!)
Did you feel that you were "approving" the content and "sewing" it together, much like a "trad" GM would.
And I'm interested in some comments you made -- it sounds like there was a volume of stuff they threw at you. Did it feel like you were being swamped with diverse inputs and, in a way, too many disparate ideas? And how did you cope with that? What sort of things did you do to limit that or keep everything manageable. And what things did you shoot for when editing their ideas?
Thanks for your thoughts on CC GMing too, Malc.
Swamped? Yeah, kinda. the
Submitted by Shevaun on Wed, 26/09/2007 - 21:50.
Swamped? Yeah, kinda. the main problem was that more and more stuff was building up, and I was having trouble working out how it was all going to be resolved. The players were having loads of fun making stuff up, but at that point they certainly weren't interested in resolution. I guess I was worried that, between 8 agendas, 4 draws, 6 trust interactions and 20 initial traits, it was going to be hard to produce a game which made everyone feel their time was well spent in producing the story/game that resulted.
Add that to the fact that the players were positive but, at times, not into the whole co-operative story-telling thing, and I was left feeling that a more traditional/controlling role was necessary.
Now, with regards to me own thoughts on the game session, as promised. The GM role in Cold City is an odd one for me; its a balancing act between having too much control and letting things go unproductively wild. The GM does the scene setting, but then also brings in the majority of the monsters and foes, even if they are based on players' ideas and characters' backgrounds. Its me who chooses what the monster is ultimately, who describes it in detail, or so it seems. If you have advice for what to do about that, please do let me know. I'd like to be able to sit back a little more and see the ideas flow; I'd especially like the players to stop looking to me to OK their ideas.
The system was a little odd this time. The correct use of the dice helped, but the negative traits thing didn't quite sit with me. I tried, as you suggested, the whole extra die to see whether the negative trait comes into play thing, but what I saw was people bringing in their negative traits and then ignoring them a lot. The die didn't come up trumps, so they didn't need to add it to their narration. When I ran it incorrectly the week before, people were adding a die for their negative traits and then adding in flavour for them every time, which was much more satisfying to me.
As it is, the negative traits are doing little or nothing. Even the one scene with Kirk shooting the barrel only happened because it was the first use of a negative trait in the game session, and it took me a moment to remember how it was supposed to work. In actuality, the negative die came up a 3, way lower than the others, so he wouldn't have had to use it in his narration at all, by the system.
Ah well, we'll see. Next week I'm getting one of my freshers week players back to sub for Illya (the guy who played Boris, handily; I bumped into him in the pub tonight), and I'll be running some draw scenes to get people a little more engaged with their, and each other's, characters.
Shevy
Please note: the game has
Submitted by Shevaun on Fri, 05/10/2007 - 11:23.
Please note: the game has had to go on hold for a couple of weeks. We didn't play last week because only 2 players showed up, and they didn't want to play without at least the majority of players present. Next week I'll be visiting my mom, so no game again.
Cheers,
Shevy
Oh, on negative traits...
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Fri, 05/10/2007 - 19:52.
You should maybe switch back to using them the way you did in the first game and see how that works for you. If it's more comfortable and intuitive for your group then I feel you should go with that.