1. In a non-combat conflict, you cannot sustain more than one consequence.

2. The winner gets a success consequences, while the loser gets a failure consequence.

3. The winner gets to chose their success consequences, the loser gets to choose the failure conseqeunces, appropriate to what has taken place in the conflict.

4. No. But, the increased consequences arising out of weapons use only apply to the perosn who the weapons are directed against.

5. You cannot require a player to bring negative traits into play, but you can always enter into discussion about them.

Hope this helps!

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

OK, thanks for that. One last issue for clarification. I am involved in a combat conflict.

I shoot my enemy and score 3 successes. I add 2 consequences for my weapon and force him to take 4 consequences of damage.

Do I then gain one success consequence or do I gain 2 or 3 because it is a combat conflict?

You'd still only gain one success conflict.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

OK, i think these might have gotten lost in the sprawling ap thread. A couple of additional Cold City questions that cropped up out of the last session:

Healing of Injuries: As I understand it if you take some temporary damage to a stat this can only be removed by successful use of that stat in a subsequent conflict. Yesterday we had a player have his action of 1 (he is a frail elderly frenchman) reduced to 0. This left us a bit stumped about how he ever recovered it. In the end I decided that an afternoon of rest at HQ would be enough.

Negative Traits: The point was made last night that at character creation there is no reason not to take the maximum number of available negative traits and thereby get the maximum number of positive ones. You have the choice about whether to use a negative trait or not so they need never come into play.

Now, I have excellent players and they were happy to bring negative traits into play all over the place which was excellent. We also discussed before rolling the dice what the impact would be if the trait came up, both for players and NPC's. It worked very well but may well not in other groups. If they were compellable then there is a risk to taking them.

Currently Playing: Cold City, Pendragon
Currently Testing: Duty and Honour

It's a monster (but very good) thread alright!

That seems fair and reasonable. However, if you hit zero, I doubt that an afternoons rest would be enough. 0 is a pretty serious point to reach, although crisis is only triggered if you hit zero in 2 attributes.

Hmm, it's a question that comes up a lot. Traits aren't just about game effect, they also provide colour for the character. And, there's the chance that through consequences, some of your positive traits will gradually flip over to being negative. You could have a preponderance of negative traits and if you choose not to use them, you could be placing yourself at a disadvantage. If players don't want to use negative traits, then there is nothing to compel them, true, but they are disadvantaging the character if they don't use them. The worst possible consequence of using a negative trait is something bad happening in the story, there ae no actual consequences in terms of mechanical change to the character.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

I think it really depends. Given the small number of points available and the large number of added consequences from weapons 0 seems really pretty easy to reach in any stat. Otherwise you are left with having to come up with loads of new traits on the fly or dumping all of your positive ones in negatives.

In this case the character has a base action of 1 and a negative trait of Frail and Elderly. He took one point of action consequence and one to reason I think due to a car crash. Because I didnt really want him effectively out of the game (timeline wise it is coming to a head very rapidly) I sort of hand waved it away. He still has the reason penalty at the moment.

I see what you say and as a group negative traits have made several appearances and been used very well. Both positive and negative traists are allowing the players to actively narrate things into the game which is absolutely cool.

The point was simply made from a "mechanics" based persepctive, there really didnt seem to be any downside to taking the maximum at the start. In effect you are only disadvantaged if you choose to be so. A group coming to CC from a more traditional gaming base is likely to be confused.

I think one thing which is really causing one of my players difficulty at the moment is the issue of death/defeat.

I can see the crisis point issue if two stats reach 0 although I dont think it is strongly spelled out in the book. What isnt really clear is how to apply that to mooks, minions, henchmen etc. The consensual death angle is great for players, it allows you not to have to worry about killing them by accident but if I just want my players to be able to plow through some zombie hordes it doesnt seem very appropriate.

The issue here is much more a character creation one. At char gen, I can select an additional positive trait for each additional negative trait I take. There is nothing in the game which makes me use me negative traits. Result - free positive traits at char gen, huzzah!

I think the issue here may be caused by a semantic misunderstanding. Traits are traits. They exist in one of two states - Positive and Negative. Negative traits are ones that can cause complications if they are used and the Dice of Doom comes up. Positive traits don't but they can become Negative if they suffer a consequence.

So for example, Yuri has 'Man of Faith (+)' which we have interpreted as a strong showing of religious strength that will allow him to stand up to the horrors before him. However, if he was to lose a conflict suffering a consequence that flipped 'Man of Faith' (say Troy was threatened with mutilation if Yuri didn't succumb to torture and he used his Man of Faith to overcome the torture but failed and Troy got his eye gouged out) then 'Man of Faith (-)' could be the result. It is now interpreted as him heavily doubting the value of his faith and being on the brink of crumbling when it is called upon.

So in essence, as I see it, there is no reason not to take everyone you can reasonably fit into the character concept without it becoming daft because it offers up more options. Not positive or negative options - simply more options.

And if players DON'T use their negative traits in conflicts, they can never be spun around into positive ones. And if they ONLY use their positive traits they are doomed to eventually get more negative ones.

Not that that matters.

Or I could be talking balls

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Thats a very good point which I hadnt really considered. Of course I could easily envisage a situation in which someone engages in a coflict, doesnt apply the neagtve trait of doom but still is able to explain flipping it to a positive as a consequence of success.

Over the years I have learned that this is always a possibility...

:)

Never let it be said that the degree in marketing hasn't given me the requisite bullshitting skills to get through in the modern world...!

Neil

That's excellent, Neil. You've managed to get over what I always had in my head far more clearly than I've been doing. I think that's pretty much the heart of the traits thing right there.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios

But negative traits add a die, much like a positive trait in the latest printing, so players shouldn't be shy about bringing them in. And do remember that you get capped at 9 traits.

My own preference would be to stack up adds on a stat if I win (then avoid using that stat until I need it), hopefully all stats will be up above eventually -- waiting to be used. For negative consequences I'll grab negative traits every time rather than drop a stat. Effectively they're positive except for the story twist (which perhaps makes them more interesting than positive ones). Anyway, a tactic if you start short of traits is to "throw" a combat conflict with another player -- this ensures maximum consequences in combat so they can stack up a stat and you can stack up on (negative) traits. I'm sure they'll return the favour at some point...

Oh and since you pick your own negative consequences if you lose then no one should be scared of bringing in negative traits. It's up to you what the downside is (though others can persuade you in the touchy-feely discussion of the fallout).

OK, just to be clear.

Are you saying that traits can only be changed around in either direction if the are used in a conflict?

If so that is fine, it gives people a direct mechanical reason to bring negatives in, the chance of turning them into positives.

Also, could you give me a bit of advice on the death/defeat issue as you apply it to npc's. So far I have pretty much just applied consequences to the Action stat and when it hits 0 they are out, dead, unconcious, driven off whatever.

I havent yet had to deal with it for major npc's and I imagine I will trewat them as pc's.

Currently Playing: Cold City, Pendragon
Currently Testing: Duty and Honour

Hmm, I had obviously overlooked this as I have been setting them but after the touchy feely player discussion bit.

Currently Playing: Cold City, Pendragon
Currently Testing: Duty and Honour

Yes, although the text is probably not 100% clear on this point.

That is the way i would do it, yes. Treating major NPCs in exactly the same way as PCs is also the way to go.

Cheers
Malc

Contested Ground Studios