Tonight saw the continuation of the playtest that was kicked off in this thread after a hiatus of some weeks. That's actually proved to be beneficial, as the mechanical aspects of the game have undergone some change since then. This would be an opportunity to see how those changes actually affect play.
One of the players, Blair, was coming into this totally cold, so he had something of a disadvantage from the start. Both Morgue and Steve had been part of the game and character creation process, whereas Blair had to adapt to the character that was handed to him, with much less knowledge of the setting elements than the rest of this. However, he did do an admirable job.
The real stress on this evenings play was to give the conflict mechanics a real booting to see how they held up. The changes that have taken place from the almost straight port of the Cold City mechanics to the current iteration of Hot War have been quite substantial, altering the tone and themes of the game radically. Cold War is all about the decay in trust, Hot War is about building relationships in the aftermath of the apocalypse. An important difference.
So, it was conflict ahoy, almost from the get go. If this were a BBC drama (which is the tone that we chose to set at the start), we would have got about fifteen minutes into the programme during this evenings play. As a bit of backstory, the characters are going undercover in Battersea to root out a corrupt, venal local politician who is attempting to set up a power base for himself in defiance of the Government. The characters find themselves in a work gang, being forced to hand over their ration cards because "That's the bosses orders, see?"
Conflict ran good and hard and it was nice to see that the GMs power of framing scenes didn't cause a diminishment of the contribution from the players. They took the scene and ran with it, playing things out to conflict. The opening scene moved nicely into a fairly harsh section, where in an interior scene in a dilapidated terraced house, some French refugees are found and driven out (the characters and other having been seconded from the work gang for this task) and multiple conflicts regarding their fate and the standing of the characters in the eyes of their fellows grew out of this.
These scenes helped establish the brutal nature of the regime in Battersea and how far the characters were willing to go in order to keep their cover and get in deeper. Neames was on the verge of administering a beating to the adult refugees with a pickaxe handle, Perkins whacked the work gang leader across the back of the head and Beaumont was attempting to be a force for order and calm amongst it all. We also saw Blair bring in one of Beaumonts hidden agendas (he wants to save as many refufgees as possible and get them to a better life outside of London) to effectively allow the escape of the refugees.
The establishment of character (Neames show to be immersing himself in his cover, Beaumont exuding leadership and establishing himself as a rallying figure for the downtrodden people and Perkins acting without regard to consequences) worked really nicely.
The real value here was in thrashing out some of the flaws that became apparent in the Relationship and Consequence mechanics. it was immediately obvious that the concept of having reciprocal relationships (operating in a manner similar to Trust in Cold City) was flawed and met with problems when relationships were taken as consequences. The conclusion was that relationships should be all about the relationship from the point of the view of the character. If an NPC with whom the character has a relationship has a reciprocal value, then cool. But if not (and there's always the opportunity to establish that in play) then cool.
The second issue was with conflicts and consequences. More conflicts resulted in 2 successes than any other number, so that section of the consequences table came in for some scrutiny. It became apparent that when spending 2 points, there were a lack of viable options for failure, particularly when you were in violent conflict. the addition of a new type of consequence "Temporary (remainder of this scene) negative trait" would be an effective fix here.
Just to note, you trade successes for point to spend on both success and failure consequences. So, with 2 successes, you can buy 2 points of success consequences for yourself, 2 points of failure consequences for the opposition, 1 point for both and so on.
So, in light of this extremely valuable playtest, there are going to be some changes to the text! Relationships will undergo change in light of our experience with them and consequences mildly revised to make them more applicable to more situations.
I hope that Blair, Morgue and Steve might chip in with some of their thoughts on tonights game at some point.
Cheers
Malcolm
Yes!
Submitted by Graham W on Thu, 28/02/2008 - 12:17.
We played Hot War last night. We'll do a full report somewhere else, I'm sure (it's a three-session game and we just played the first session), but here are the bits that chime with what you're saying.
The conclusion was that relationships should be all about the relationship from the point of the view of the character.
I agree. We played Hot War last night: I had a relationship with another character that, on his side, was "Friendship", and that I wanted to be "Unrequited Love" from my side.
I must admit, I'm not quite seeing the thing about building relationships yet. Perhaps it will build during play.
On consequences from conflicts: we kept forgetting to add and subtract extra dice, that had been given as a consequence from the previous conflict. That might suggest that temporary traits (for the rest of the scene) are a good thing, because it would help us remember.
Graham
Relationships, etc
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Fri, 29/02/2008 - 00:06.
Temporary traits, as we talked about them, could last for an entire scene. So, if you have a scene with maybe a couple of conflicts in it, you get to use that trait more than once. With the bonus die thing, that's a one shot deal. Now, in somes cases, they may work out as having the same mechanical effect, but I do think the differences could be important.
As for relationships, I found that people were really driving their characters to build those relationships in play and gain new ones through engaging in conflict. So, the characters started establishing further relationships with each other, expanding upon previous stuff or creating new ones. or, they started establishing them with NPCs. And out of that, nameless NPCs became named characters, with a role and personality. Which was interesting in itself.
So, one of the older men in the work gang became Sykes, who started being slightly avuncular towards young Perkins. Beaumont also established a relationship with the work gang as a group: his leadership, education and words started to have an affect on them.
All very interesting from a game point of view. I'm also looking forward hearing more from you and Steve about your game.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
I'm not altogether convinced
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 00:29.
I'm not altogether convinced about relationships (and in some places in the manuscript you've still got "trust").
Here are my issues:
- most players start with relationships with each other of 0, which means destroyed relationship.
- those relationships that do exist polarise the group even more quikly than trust did.
- it will take a long time and people spending a lot of consequences on relationships to change the way PCs feel about each other.
- relationships can be on a variety of different bases, trust, fear, love but the numbers mean the same thing in each case even if the relationship means the opposite.
So, taken altogether, I don't think that the current mechanic does a particularly good job of representing relationships. On the other hand, I do like relationships but think they need to work in a different way than trust did in CC.
I've also got a few issues about GM advice. Although at the start of the game you say you can play either open or closed games, most of the advice in the book is for open games and a particular brand of open game. I think instead that you need to bring the issue of authority up first, it's wider than open and closed. You can then decide on open or closed once the different authorities have been discussed.
In particular this is an issue in open games because you need to decide to what extent the game is lead by the GM and to what extent the direction of the game is decided by the players. It's much harder to see in an closed game anyone but the GM giving direction to the plot of the game.
Cheers!
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 00:50.
I'm not altogether convinced about relationships (and in some places in the manuscript you've still got "trust").
Here are my issues:
- most players start with relationships with each other of 0, which means destroyed relationship.
- those relationships that do exist polarise the group even more quikly than trust did.
- it will take a long time and people spending a lot of consequences on relationships to change the way PCs feel about each other.
- relationships can be on a variety of different bases, trust, fear, love but the numbers mean the same thing in each case even if the relationship means the opposite.
So, taken altogether, I don't think that the current mechanic does a particularly good job of representing relationships. On the other hand, I do like relationships but think they need to work in a different way than trust did in CC.
Hmm, I would argue that the PCs, if they start with no relationships with each other, don't start at 0 (destroyed relationship) but start without a relationship, which is different from it being at 0. However, I think that's a matter for the wording of the text and the way it currently reads, as opposed to the way it should read.
I agree that they should function differently from trust. We butted up against similar issues in our own playtest and the solutions offered above came out of that. I think that the text as it stands is not sufficient for the job it sets out to do. At the moment, I'm thinking of relationships as positive things, when they increase, they improve the characters life. Perhaps (and this is just throwing the idea out there) we could have both positive and negative relationships? Perhaps part of it is that, rather than being destroyed relationships can become negative. Not getting negative numbers, they would get dice in exactly the same way. But they represent enemies, former friends, embittered ex-lovers and so forth. Maybe when it would reach 0, a relationship becomes negative?
This would need to be thought on more carefully as to how it would work in the game.
Thinking on:
All relationships give dice, when you bring a relationship in to a conflict, you are risking that relationship. If it's a positive relationship, you're risking it becoming less powerful. If it's a negative relationship, you're risking it becoming more powerful. Maybe negative relationships get to be used by other characters, by NPCs and so forth?
I've also got a few issues about GM advice. Although at the start of the game you say you can play either open or closed games, most of the advice in the book is for open games and a particular brand of open game. I think instead that you need to bring the issue of authority up first, it's wider than open and closed. You can then decide on open or closed once the different authorities have been discussed.
In particular this is an issue in open games because you need to decide to what extent the game is lead by the GM and to what extent the direction of the game is decided by the players. It's much harder to see in an closed game anyone but the GM giving direction to the plot of the game.
This mirrors some other feedback I've had and some thoughts I was having myself regarding the structuring of the text. You're right in that the authority stuff needs to appear earlier on in the text, right up front with the discussion of closed and open games. I'm also thinking that the section on scenes and scene framing needs to be at the very start of the chapter on conflict resolution (which would obviously need to be retitled).
I imagine that the stuff on NPCs could also be integrated into a wider chapter that combines the scene framing/conflict resolution/NPC elements into one section, but with obviously distinct parts within that section.
Thanks for the comments, very valuable.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Here's an idea.
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 11:06.
CC was all about trust. It was worth getting someone to trust you so you could get a big load of dice to betray them when the time was right. Trust was mechanically simple and satisfying. The mechanic fitted the theme of the game and the way it was played. It could be slowly built up but also destroyed in a moment. It was also generally in a player's interest to have trust in others to get bigger dice pools.
Relationships in HW are not so simple. Trust is obviously a positive thing but relationships are not. It's hard to say what betraying a relationship means, especially if it's one of hate. Can you do this by kissing them?
It's also less clear why relationships would add to dice pools. Does hating you make it easier to shoot you, or does loving you?
It seems a general principle in HW that dice are only ever added to pools, this is inherited from the NDP in CC. Given that traits can be negative and positive, why not relationships?
A negative relationship is one of distrust, bad feelings and destruction.
A positive relationship is trusting, loving or nurturing.
How are relationships used in conflicts?
Negative relationships can only be added to dice pools if you want to harm, disempower, bully or otherwise do negative things to someone. Positive relationships can only be added to dice pools if you support, empower or help someone.
Relationships can be used by either side in a conflict, but only once and the character with the relationship gets first dibs.
For example. Alex is trying to persuade Graham to dish the dirt on the Union. Graham has a positive relationship with the union and uses the dice on his side to increase his dice pool.
Later, Alex tries to persuade Graham to attacks Simon's PC. Graham has a negative relationship with Simon and in this case Alex gets the relationship dice to increase his dice pool, even though they are from Graham's character.
Relationships again
Submitted by Graham W on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 12:49.
Malcolm, to come back on something from earlier.
As for relationships, I found that people were really driving their characters to build those relationships in play and gain new ones through engaging in conflict. So, the characters started establishing further relationships with each other, expanding upon previous stuff or creating new ones. or, they started establishing them with NPCs. And out of that, nameless NPCs became named characters, with a role and personality. Which was interesting in itself.
I haven't seen this happen, yet, and wouldn't have thought of doing it myself. I realised that building/deepening relationships was one consequence of a conflict, but wouldn't have thought of engaging in conflicts specifically to produce that.
That said, it's a brilliant idea, and I'd love that to happen. Would it be possible to focus the mechanics more in that direction? At the moment, building relationships are only one consequence of a conflict: if that was the sole consequence of a conflict then, without doubt, I'd be engaging in conflicts to build my relationships.
I don't really agree with Steve about negative relationships. It seems interesting to use a negative relationship when trying to empower someone ("Damn it, I've always hated you, but we need to get through this together"); and, equally, a positive relationship when trying to disempower someone ("I love you too much to let you go through that door").
Personally, I wouldn't use positive and negative relationships. I'd allow the number of dice (0 to 4?) represent the intensity of a relationship. So:
0: Indifferent.
1: Some emotional investment.
2: Definite attachment (positive or negative).
3: Real emotional energy.
4: This relationship consumes your very soul.
So positiveness or negativeness isn't specified: the relationship can be love or hate, depending on the situation. There's something very warlike about that: relationships can turn from intense hate to intense love on a dime. And that ambiguity is immensely narratively satisfying.
(It also explains why PCs without a relationship start at 0: they're indifferent to each other).
Hope that's of some help. Looking forward to continuing on Wednesday.
Graham
Authority
Submitted by Graham W on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 12:39.
On the authority thing.
At the moment, in our game, we seem halfway between a traditional GM-led game and a players-create-their-own-adversity thing.
Nothing essentially wrong with that, of course, but it leaves me a bit confused: should I concentrate on providing adversity for other players? Or sit back and let Steve do the adventure?
So my problem isn't quite, I think, one of authority ("What can I narrate?") but of what I'm meant to be doing to make the game work.
This may, of course, be me talking bollocks.
Graham
More Authority, or less
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 14:06.
Nothing essentially wrong with that, of course, but it leaves me a bit confused: should I concentrate on providing adversity for other players? Or sit back and let Steve do the adventure?
Aren't these two slightly different things? Unless, of course, you see the game as being about a struggle between PCs.
I guess this probably needs to be clearer from the start and I also feel a little confused about it myself. It probably doesn't help that I think there are different expectation in the group. I posted about this on CM but didn't get any responses.
As far as where the game is going, that's just one of things that's up for grabs in the authority stakes. I'm by no means welded to the idea that as GM I should call the shots. As a minimum, I think it's my job to play NPCs, focussing on PC agendas and relationships and to ensure everyone gets equal screen time. I don't have to do anything else although I think some players want me to (Simon is usally keen on a 'proper scenario' i.e. one with some details decided beforehand by the GM and kept secret from the players).
The other things that are up for grabs are:
- game outcome. Do we have a goal in mind for the game, such as deciding the fate of Project GOGMAGOG or something more local like who wins control of the work camp between the PCs, the locals and other interested parties? Or is it just about making sure the camp output stays high enough to avoid inspection?
- scene setting. Do players call for scenes or does the GM or can anyone?
- NPC creation. Do the players decide who they are or does the GM?
- secrets. We've got an open game but does that mean no GM secrets?
With any of these, it's possible to share the burden, to decide up front or to see what happens in play.
As to what you should do, what do you want to do?
More Relationship ideas
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Mon, 03/03/2008 - 14:19.
I've no problem with the dice representing the strength of the relationship as an absolute but I still think the question of who gets the dice should be up for grabs.
I'm not convinced that if you hate someone with a passion then that should count towards working with that person. I suppose you might justify it narratively as keeping an eye on them but that seems a little weak to me.
Generally relationships, I imagine, should be used to boost actions that correspond to the nature of the passion.
So positiveness or negativeness isn't specified: the relationship can be love or hate, depending on the situation. There's something very warlike about that: relationships can turn from intense hate to intense love on a dime. And that ambiguity is immensely narratively satisfying.
Possibly, but is that what the game is about? It seems to be more about building relationships to survive than ones that flip-flop. I agree that there has to be a downside to being strongly linked to someone or thing, much as there is with trust in Cold City.
If relationships are about survival, then there's possibly no reason to give a score to negative relationships. After all, they aren't going to get you any more potatoes.
Perhaps the downside ought to be something to do with what happens if the thing to which you are related suffers a set-back. Perhaps the total of your positive relationships might be a number that represents how well fed your PC is or some such status score. Any significant drop in status could trigger some kind of crisis.
Great!
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Tue, 04/03/2008 - 03:59.
These are all very valuable thoughts and ideas, regarding a whole bunch of stuff.
Looking at the relationships issue, I've tee'd my playtest group up to test out those ideas tomorrow night. We're going to look tat negative relationships, how they work in play, are they required and so on. Taking some feedback from other playtest groups, it seems that some way of integrating enemies or nemeses for the characters would be valued, and I think that negative relationships would fit the bill quite well. Testing it out will verify if this is the case or not.
As regards authority/responsibility, I think this is a function of the text as it stands. Are there any specific bits that are causing trouble or are contradictory to other items in the text? Is the guidance simply unclear?
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios