[Cold City] - Mechanical Basics

[Malcolm Craig]

Following on from these two threads:

Cold City: Character Creation: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17325.0

Cold City: Revised Character Creation & Consequences: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17512.0

I thought it wise to gain feedback on the mechanical elements of Cold City. One thing I'm concerned with is the use of narrative. I'm attempting to steer away from the 'parlour narration' concept into something a bit more important to the game. Feedback on this element would be especially appreciated. Also, any critique of the fundamental elements of the system would be great.

------------------------------------------------------

The Game System

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed. Perhaps this deserves a little more explanation.

If a character is chasing an SZ and has to climb a wall and the act of not climbing the wall would put a barrier in the way of the story, then let the character climb the wall. There's no sense in rolling dice for every little thing the character has to do. Dice should be reserved for important conflicts and vital situations. If a Border Guard is in the way of a character and knocking him out would be a good way to advance the story, then let the character knock him out!

However, there are certain times when there are conflicts and vital situations. This is when you should break out the dice!

Before we get started, Cold City uses ten sided dice, normally referred to a D10s.

A conflict does not have to be violent. It's simply any situation where two or more people face off against each other with different ideals of how the situation will work out. At the very start of a conflict, whoever is involved must set out their ideals, stating what they want their character (or NPC in the case of the GM) to achieve if they win the conflict. These are known as the 'stakes' in the conflict.

When you get into a conflict, pick the most appropriate attribute for that conflict, be it Body, Mind or Heroism. You get to roll a number of dice equal to the level of that attribute.

If you have an ability that is appropriate to the situation, then you also get to add another die to your 'pool' of dice.

And, if you can bring one of your characters traits into play, you get another die as well. When you're bringing a trait into play, it's important that you incorporate this into your role-playing and into the narrative of the ongoing story. How does the trait make your character act? What does it make them feel? How does it affect others around them?

Then there's another possibility. If you can bring your characters  Hatred into play, then you get two additional dice to add to your pool. However, this means that the situation must have a strong connection with the Hatred or force the character to face up to the Hatred in question.

Now that you have your pool of dice, you have to roll against the opposition in the conflict. This may be another character, an NPC being played by the GM or whatever. In Cold City, there are no fixed numbers that you roll against, you're rolling against the dice of the opposition.

So how does this work? You roll your dice and the opposition roll theirs. What you want is to get numbers that are higher than the highest number rolled by the opposition.

Example:

Gregor is playing the character of Yevgeny Chernyakovsky, the Russian member of the team. He's having a blistering argument with a sinister British intelligence officer whom he suspects of being involved with a cabal of Incursors. The British officer is played by Cat, the GM.

In this situation, Gregors character wants the British officer to admit his involvement with the cabal of Incursors. Whereas Cats character wants to convince the ranting Russian that he's talking a load of nonsense and he isn't involved in anything sinister. These are the stakes in this conflict.

Gregor decides that Mind is the most appropriate attribute to use here, so picks p three dice (the level of the Chernyakovskys Mind attribute). The character also has the Ability 'Intimidation', which is quite appropriate to the situation, so Gregor gets to add another die to the pool.

Cat decides to use the British officer's Mind attribute as well, which stands at 2. Player and GM roll the dice!
Gregor gets: 3, 8, 9

Cat gets: 2 and 7

Gregor has rolled two dice which are higher than Cats highest number, so he wins the conflict.

So, in a conflict like this, you roll one round of dice and see who turns out to be the winner. However, there are ways to turn defeat into victory.

If after the initial dice pools have been rolled and you feel that through narration you could bring other traits or abilities into play, you can do so. This allows you to roll further dice for these traits and abilities, giving you another chance to turn the situation around and bring it to your advantage. But be warned: all sides in a conflict can do this and the consequences are increased.

Narrative

In many games, the GM basically tells the players the outcome of any actions they take, describing what takes place, the results of what they do and so on. 'Cold City' isn't like that. Like many other fine games, the players are encouraged to take a full part in the narration of the game, driving the story and leading it off down new and interesting paths.

Narration in any given scene does not necessarily fall to the victor. Tot up the total value of the dice each individual has rolled, the person with the highest total gets to narrate the outcome of the scene, taking into account the actions of NPCs and PCs present. Players (and the GM) should be encouraged to fully describe the sights, sounds and smells of what is going on. This mechanism allows those who have not been succesful to influence the story.

If there is a situation where more than two people are taking part, the winner of narration still gets to narrate but they must take into account the actions and intent of the other participants.

Combat

Combat is a conflict like any other. When engaging in combat, you use the Body attribute to provide your base pool for all rolls.

In a melee combat situation, you roll your pool against the Body attribute of the opposition. In addition, if you have any Abilities that relate to the combat situation you are in, you get to add an additional die to your pool (e.g.: if you are fighting someone hand to hand and have an Ability called 'Brawling'). Whoever ends up with the most successes is the victor and the opposition will incur damage.

In ranged combat, you roll against a pool as determined below:

Easy shot      1
Moderate shot      2
Tough shot      3

Success means that you hit the target.

Shooting someone or something at relatively close range in broad daylight might be considered an easy shot. Shooting something at the same range whilst dashing pell-mell through a half-flooded, abandoned bunker might be considered a tough shot. In consultation with the GM and other players, decide how tough a shot it is. And go with what is dramatically appropriate. In addition, if it's dramatically appropriate that a character hits a target and it advances the story or give a good moment in the game, then let it happen.

Damage

Each attack, whether is be fists, pistols or bazookas, does a certain amount of damage. The damage of any attack tells you the number of dice that are rolled versus the targets Body stat. The number of successes gained tells you how many points of damage are inflicted on the character.

Some attacks may have damage noted in the following format; 'Number' x 'Number'. In this case, you roll a pool of dice equal to the first number against the targets body, then multiply the number of successes gained by the second number to get the overall damage total.

In all cases damage deducts from the Attributes of the target. If the attacker gets only one success when attempting to hit their opponent, then the opponent gets to choose from which stats the damage is deducted. If the attacker rolls two or more successes, then they get to choose from which stats the damage is deducted.

Damage can be spread about all three stats.

Narratively accounting for damage is encouraged, describe what happens when the character is hit, take account of emotions and feeling. Deducting damage from Body means that a target is physically damaged, deducting damage from mind could mean that the character is stunned, confused or otherwise shocked, deducting from Heroism could mean that their pride is wounded, their confidence knocked and their self-belief shattered.

If an when all of the attributes for a character reach zero, then they have reached a crisis point. Reaching zero with every attribute doesn't necessarily mean the character is dead, but the player should now start thinking of how they want their character to go out. Will it be in a blaze of glory, saving their comrades? Will they be finally consumed by their hatred? Will they give in to paranoia, mistrust and their dislike of their fellows?

[Roger]

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed.
[...]
However, there are certain times when there are conflicts and vital situations. This is when you should break out the dice!

I'd watch this carefully in playtesting.  I have a hunch that you may need to give the players more guidance about who has the authority to make those calls, and how to deal with any meta-conflicts which may arise.  But I may well be wrong.

At the very start of a conflict, whoever is involved must set out their ideals, stating what they want their character (or NPC in the case of the GM) to achieve if they win the conflict. These are known as the 'stakes' in the conflict.

Do you see this as a unilateral decision made by each player for his character, or is there some stage of negotiation here?

In this situation, Gregors character wants the British officer to admit his involvement with the cabal of Incursors. Whereas Cats character wants to convince the ranting Russian that he's talking a load of nonsense and he isn't involved in anything sinister. These are the stakes in this conflict.

This example is a bit... intriguing.  It seems to imply that, if Gregor wins, it becomes true that the British officer is involved with the cabal.  Very Dunjon-esque.

If after the initial dice pools have been rolled and you feel that through narration you could bring other traits or abilities into play, you can do so. This allows you to roll further dice for these traits and abilities, giving you another chance to turn the situation around and bring it to your advantage. But be warned: all sides in a conflict can do this and the consequences are increased.

I'd watch this pretty carefully in playtest too.  Presumably, players are going to bring in any relevant abilities at the beginning of the conflict.  To let them try to drag in more abilities if they've lost seems problematic to me.  I might be wrong, but if this turns out to be mostly a bunch of whining and weaseling, I'd re-address it.

Narration in any given scene does not necessarily fall to the victor.

I like the general mechanic you've set out here, and I'd be interested to hear the account of how it works in practice.

Your game seems to be progressing along nicely.


Cheers,
Roger

[Callan S.]

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed.

Why should a player be eager to roll dice which means the possiblity of failure, when he can try and keep the situation normal and automatically suceed?

[Malcolm Craig]

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed.
[...]
However, there are certain times when there are conflicts and vital situations. This is when you should break out the dice!

I'd watch this carefully in playtesting.  I have a hunch that you may need to give the players more guidance about who has the authority to make those calls, and how to deal with any meta-conflicts which may arise.  But I may well be wrong.

Thats a very fair point and one which I think is further highlighted by CallanS' post. The paragraphs in question deserve further clarification on this topic, even before playtesting.

At the very start of a conflict, whoever is involved must set out their ideals, stating what they want their character (or NPC in the case of the GM) to achieve if they win the conflict. These are known as the 'stakes' in the conflict.

Do you see this as a unilateral decision made by each player for his character, or is there some stage of negotiation here?

There is room for negotiation, but I very much see it as each player decided what they want to get from the conflict in question. What would the character be hoping to gain and how would they gain it? And are they willing to deal with any consequences which may arise from success or failure?

In this situation, Gregors character wants the British officer to admit his involvement with the cabal of Incursors. Whereas Cats character wants to convince the ranting Russian that he's talking a load of nonsense and he isn't involved in anything sinister. These are the stakes in this conflict.

This example is a bit... intriguing.  It seems to imply that, if Gregor wins, it becomes true that the British officer is involved with the cabal.  Very Dunjon-esque.

Again, I think this is an area which could be worthy of some further expansion and clarification, as there are a lot of possibilities here. On one level, it could simply be that one side is right, the other wrong. Or: one side is convinved they are right (but are in actual fact wrong) and win the argument, therefore giving their belief creedence. Then there's the other possibility that whatever side wins (as you pointed out), then their belief is reality and becomes the truth. To be honest, I'd rather give the participants some degree of choice in this, as for some, having reality be created through conflict might not be suitable for the stories they are trying to tell. It's one to think on.

If after the initial dice pools have been rolled and you feel that through narration you could bring other traits or abilities into play, you can do so. This allows you to roll further dice for these traits and abilities, giving you another chance to turn the situation around and bring it to your advantage. But be warned: all sides in a conflict can do this and the consequences are increased.

I'd watch this pretty carefully in playtest too.  Presumably, players are going to bring in any relevant abilities at the beginning of the conflict.  To let them try to drag in more abilities if they've lost seems problematic to me.  I might be wrong, but if this turns out to be mostly a bunch of whining and weaseling, I'd re-address it.

This is one of the things that will definitely be ironed out in playtesting. My point of view on it was that it encourages further narrative play, if one side loses, then they either give up or try to improve their situation.

Narration in any given scene does not necessarily fall to the victor.

I like the general mechanic you've set out here, and I'd be interested to hear the account of how it works in practice.

It's fairly heavily influenced by the narrative principles set out in 'Dust Devils', where the winner of a hand of cards does not necessarily get to narrate, that duty falls to the holder of the highest single card. I'm slightly wary of the addition element of adding up dice to find the narrator, I'm not sure how much this would slow down play in any given situation. It's something I'll be keeping a close eye on.

Your game seems to be progressing along nicely.

Thanks you. It's now actually fully drafted and just requires a few tweaks and playtesting.

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed.

Why should a player be eager to roll dice which means the possiblity of failure, when he can try and keep the situation normal and automatically suceed?

As discussed above, it's a matter of differentiating between a conflict and and ordinary situation. In the example given, the character has to climb a wall. Does the character need to climb the wall? Will it drive the story forward? If the answer is yes, then just let the character climb the wall. The character has no conflict with the wall and not climbing it may prove to be a figuartive and literal barrier to the continued story.

Thanks very much for the feedback guys.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

A conflict does not have to be violent. It's simply any situation where two or more people face off against each other with different ideals of how the situation will work out. At the very start of a conflict, whoever is involved must set out their ideals, stating what they want their character (or NPC in the case of the GM) to achieve if they win the conflict. These are known as the 'stakes' in the conflict.

Makes for some great potential PC vs PC conflicts, judging from how the game is based on the idea of trust or lack thereof. What worries me, although slightly, is that it may hinder any actual story progress if the players get too involved in creating conflicts with one another - but only if said conflicts would ruin the flow of the story.

Again, I think this is an area which could be worthy of some further expansion and clarification, as there are a lot of possibilities here. On one level, it could simply be that one side is right, the other wrong. Or: one side is convinved they are right (but are in actual fact wrong) and win the argument, therefore giving their belief creedence. Then there's the other possibility that whatever side wins (as you pointed out), then their belief is reality and becomes the truth. To be honest, I'd rather give the participants some degree of choice in this, as for some, having reality be created through conflict might not be suitable for the stories they are trying to tell. It's one to think on.

I wonder how this subjectivity of truth would work when the conflict discussed was between two players. I believe that such conflicts would require somewhat more specific outcomes, what do you think?

[Callan S.]

Rule No. 1 in Cold City is that in ordinary situations where the story is being driven forward, let the characters succeed.

Why should a player be eager to roll dice which means the possiblity of failure, when he can try and keep the situation normal and automatically suceed?

As discussed above, it's a matter of differentiating between a conflict and and ordinary situation. In the example given, the character has to climb a wall. Does the character need to climb the wall? Will it drive the story forward? If the answer is yes, then just let the character climb the wall. The character has no conflict with the wall and not climbing it may prove to be a figuartive and literal barrier to the continued story.

Awhile back Ralph gave this great example about character flaws. Character flaws just don't work, because players will whinge and moan when their brought into play. Why? Because the flaw penalises them. And there is a thin chance that by arguing, they will be able to get out of the penalty. In a way, character flaws reward arguing.

I think your number one rule rewards arguing. Because using the dice is just like a flaw...it means a chance of failure.

It isn't just a matter of differentiating between conflict and ordinary situation, unless the GM has some cult of personality power over all the players.

Ralph did have a very interesting and constructive solution, though.

[Malcolm Craig]

Makes for some great potential PC vs PC conflicts, judging from how the game is based on the idea of trust or lack thereof. What worries me, although slightly, is that it may hinder any actual story progress if the players get too involved in creating conflicts with one another - but only if said conflicts would ruin the flow of the story.

You're quite right and this is something I'm keen to investigate during playtesting. I'm of the opinion (and hope) that a lot of the story will flow directly from the characters and their attitudes. How much this impedes that actual activity of monster hunting, we'll need to see. Overall though, I'd like to see a lot of inter-party conflict, especially in critical situations where, under pressure, mistrust, antipathy and hatred could so easily come to the surface. Will one character actively act to save the life of another whom she despises? Or will she risk the antipathy of others and leave him to his fate?

I wonder how this subjectivity of truth would work when the conflict discussed was between two players. I believe that such conflicts would require somewhat more specific outcomes, what do you think?

Yes, there would need to be a substantial amount of player interaction if this were the case. Agreement between the players that the subjective truth of one character would become the objective truth would need to be a matter of consent from the outset. If players are uncomfortable with this being the case, then they could play in a much more straightforward fashion without hindering the core themes of the game.

Awhile back Ralph gave this great example about character flaws. Character flaws just don't work, because players will whinge and moan when their brought into play. Why? Because the flaw penalises them. And there is a thin chance that by arguing, they will be able to get out of the penalty. In a way, character flaws reward arguing.

I think your number one rule rewards arguing. Because using the dice is just like a flaw...it means a chance of failure.

It isn't just a matter of differentiating between conflict and ordinary situation, unless the GM has some cult of personality power over all the players.

Ralph did have a very interesting and constructive solution, though.

Thanks for the heads up on Ralphs thoughts, I'll need to search around and do some reading on it and offer further thoughts after that.

Cheers
Malcolm

[mutex]

Well, if the GM actually has authority, then they can simply tell the player to roll it.  For fairness sake, the threshold between a situation that requires a roll and a situation that does not must be very clearly defined.  I presume that whether something requires a roll would be relative to the current Stakes.  If there are no Stakes, then the roll is probably meaningless.  If there is a Stake, then that will require one roll from each side, including all of the relevant skills and modifiers.

In the wall example described, this is rather clear.  In the unopposed example, there's a wall, but the character has essentially unlimited time and resources to defeat the wall.  The GM could try to make them roll vs. Strength to see if they were strong enough to climb the wall, or Agility to see if they could climb the wall without falling on their keister, but this is a case where there is no STake.  Those sorts of rolls are pointlessly deprotagonizing, and the character will eventually succeed (or die by falling off the wall a hundred times in a row).

As soon as a Stake is involved, for example an armed guard coming around the corner, then they have to roll.  The STakes are not "Do I climb the wall?"  Of course they climb the wall.  They are protagonists.  The Stakes are "Do I climb the wall without getting caught by the guard?" If they fail that, then they end up in a new conflict against the guard.

I dunno, guys, it seems pretty darn clean-cut to me.

[Callan S.]

Imagine if you rated the competing drives on a scale of one to ten, ten being highest:

Respect for GM's authority to call this: 5
Desire to avoid penalty involved in the stake: 2

Now, at this rating, respect wins out. But as you raise the penalty involved becomes more intense, so does the desire to avoid it. Once it equals or beats the respect, the arguements start.

[Malcolm Craig]

Thanks for the feedback on this topic, it really is much appreciated.

As regards player avoidance of risk by steering clear of conflicts, I'm going to stick with the system as proposed (with modifications as suggested) and see how it pans out during playtests. This will give me a much clearer idea of how both sides of the argument fair in a game situation. If it looks like, yes, players are avoiding conflict, then obviously changes may need to be made. If, however, it functions well, then it'll most likely be a go'er.

As always, I'll let you know how things fare, probably via and actual play thread.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Callan S.]

I just want to quote Ron, because he brought up an important point in another thread.

One of the most valuable skills a designer can develop is to recognize, during playtesting, when his or her own leadership is substituting for rules that aren't there, and assuming therefore that the written rules work. It's a common problem.

I think it's something important to keep in mind in detemining whether the GM judgement of the situation works as intended.

[Malcolm Craig]

I just want to quote Ron, because he brought up an important point in another thread.

One of the most valuable skills a designer can develop is to recognize, during playtesting, when his or her own leadership is substituting for rules that aren't there, and assuming therefore that the written rules work. It's a common problem.

I think it's something important to keep in mind in detemining whether the GM judgement of the situation works as intended.

Of course. However, I do also intend to have GMs other than myself, ones who have never even heard of the game in development, run the game and gain feedback from this.

Obviously the old 'observer effect' and the subjective viewpoint do have to get taken into account. Hopefully during my own playtests I can be, at least partially, objective about the game and assess whether or not the mechanical elements function as intended in a play situation.

Cheers
Malcolm