The third session of our Hot War playtest here in Wellington took place tonight.
The details of the initial planning stage can be found here.
The details of the first actual session of play can be found here.
The session picked up where the last one left off, with the PCs having already made enemies of various bullies and xenophobes within Battersea. They found themselves hauled in from of 'The Boss', a former petty councillor, now puffed up on his own sense of importance and his attempts to create his own fiefdom through fear and brutality.
The scene in the dilapidated Council Buildings not only established that the current ruler of Battersea was attempt to use existing trappings of power for his own advantage, but also served to introduce the Boss and his right hand man, a former policeman slightly known to Neames, one of the PCs. We also saw a scene in the abandoned underground railway tunnels, where the ill-equipped PCs were sent by a vengeful Boss in order to try and find evidence of some unspecified 'beast'. We also saw the introduction of Dr Wilkinson, an NPC created during the collaborative game creation phase, who was requested as a foil for the evil that the Boss and his henchmen represented.
The final scenes took place amongst old warehouses and buildings near the power station, where a hunt was going on to root out refugees and people living illegally in Battersea. This scene was not dwellt upon, as we didn't want to have a simple repetition of scenes from the previous session.
Two really important things came out of tonights play:
1) Conflicts with multiple particpants.
We decided that, in the case of conflicts with multiple participants, but where the various people are not co-operating, the current rules text needed clarification and expansion. This is a rough first draft of the additional text:
However, there may also be times when there are multiple particpants in a conflict, with no co-operation between the sides. If this is the case, the victor is the defined as the particpant who beats every other person involved. Once the victor has been decided, the level of success (and therefore the number of consequence points that can be allocated) is determined by deciding who the victor was in adversity with and seeing how many successes they had against them. If the victor was in adversity with more than one particpant, then the number of successes is determined by seeing who they achieved the most succeses against.
The victor then has the right to tell the story of what happened in the conflict and spend consequence points as they see fit.
2) The role and use of positive and negative relationships:
We talked a bit about how they were used and how they could be better used. After the discussions, this is pretty much what I wrote:
With a positive relationship, the owner of the relationship always gets first option on using the relationship UNLESS the conflict is with the object of the relationship. If the side with first choice does not choose to use the relationship, then other participants in the conflict may use it.
Example:
Neames has collared Watson, who is on his way to an assignation with a local girl. Debbie decides that she will initiate a conflict, representing the fact that Neames is trying to stop Watson. Joe assembles his dice pool, but choose not to bring in his relationship with Mary Pike, the girl Watson hopes to marry. Debbie decides that she will bring in Watsons positive relationship with Mary Pike. This represents Neames using the relationship to persuade Watson not to jeopardise his chances just to get a one night stand.
With a negative relationship, participants other than the owner of the relationship always get first option on using the relationship UNLESS the conflict is with the object of the relationship. If the side with first choice does not choose to use the relationship, then other participants in the conflict may use it.
Example:
Beaumont is having a set-to with Morely, a bullying work-gang leader who he has built to a sizeable negative relationship with. Therefore Caroline can decide whether or not to use it to aid Beaumonts chance of beating Morely up, using the anger and resentment represented by the negative relationship.
There seemed to be general satisfaction that these were workable solutions to the issues that we had encountered during play. Comments and feedback welcomed as always.
Cheers
Malcolm
I wondered whether you
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Wed, 05/03/2008 - 11:57.
I wondered whether you envisage changes to consequences as a result of relationships. Could, for example, a 3 or 4 point consequence be used to flip a relationship from positive to negative?
I think I might use a player's relationship totals as a pointer to their standing, status or how well fed they are. But we've only got one more session so it's possibly not long enough for that to make a difference to the game.
Good Question
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Wed, 05/03/2008 - 21:07.
That's a very good question and something that has been integrated into the consequences. The way it's been done is that with a 4 point consequence, you can reduce a relationship to zero, rather than take it from negative to positive and vice versa, which would be far too powerful an effect to have happen as the result of one consequence.
The other consequence changes are:
2 point success: Increase a + relationship or decrease a - relationship by 1.
2 point failure: Increase a - relationship or decrease a + relationship by 1.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Quick thing
Submitted by Graham W on Thu, 06/03/2008 - 00:08.
We finished Hot War tonight. It went very well: I led the oppressed masses in revolt against Simon's evil regime. Full report to follow, I'm sure.
Quick observation about negative and positive relationships, while I remember.
When you get a two-point success, you now get a choice between adding a positive or negative relationship. Simon and I were tempted to always add positive relationships, because they're more mechanically useful. You shy away from adding negative relationships, because they can get used against you.
Could negative relationships be cheaper than positive, to give an incentive to add them? Say, could they be added on a 1-point success? Or could they be added on a 2-point success but start at level 2?
Graham
Last night
Submitted by Steve Dempsey on Thu, 06/03/2008 - 09:56.
I think that the briefing on relationships needs to be slightly different, you get dibs on a positive relationship if you're using it to help and dibs on a negative relationship if you're using it to harm or resist.
So Simon has a negative relationship with Graham, Simon gets to use it if he's punching Graham. If Graham tries to persuade Simon to do something, Simon also gets to use the relationship.
We had a couple of conflicts yesterday through an intermediary. That is Graham had got to a witness and told them not to squeal, when Simon talked to them, the conflict was between Graham and Simon, not two conflicts between the witness and the PCs.
On the consequence side, it's now very hard to lower PC's or anybody's stats at all. As such combat seems a little ineffective unless directly stated as a stake. I liked it better when the 1pt consequence could be used to temporarily lower a stat. A 3pt consequence would take most people out of a fight.
And, if it were possible, it got even grimmer last night.
Great Questions
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Thu, 06/03/2008 - 21:28.
Quick observation about negative and positive relationships, while I remember.
When you get a two-point success, you now get a choice between adding a positive or negative relationship. Simon and I were tempted to always add positive relationships, because they're more mechanically useful. You shy away from adding negative relationships, because they can get used against you.
Could negative relationships be cheaper than positive, to give an incentive to add them? Say, could they be added on a 1-point success? Or could they be added on a 2-point success but start at level 2?
A good and valid question. However (and it's very likely that the text lacks clarity at this point), I envisaged it as when you gain success, you cannot buy failure consequences for yourself. Therefore, it's only when you fail that their is a chance someone else will assign a negative relation to you (or increase an existing negative relationship). So, yes, positive relationships are in many cases more useful and desireable than negative relationships, but not in all cases.
I think that the briefing on relationships needs to be slightly different, you get dibs on a positive relationship if you're using it to help and dibs on a negative relationship if you're using it to harm or resist.
So Simon has a negative relationship with Graham, Simon gets to use it if he's punching Graham. If Graham tries to persuade Simon to do something, Simon also gets to use the relationship.
Yep, I totally see what you're saying there. I'll need to muse further on the ramifications of what the text actually says, vs. the intentions of what the relationships get used for. But it is certainly something I'm thinking hard about.
On the consequence side, it's now very hard to lower PC's or anybody's stats at all. As such combat seems a little ineffective unless directly stated as a stake. I liked it better when the 1pt consequence could be used to temporarily lower a stat. A 3pt consequence would take most people out of a fight.
True. However, I kind of see it as the narration being the outcome of the conflict and the consequences stemming from that, rather than the consequences. If that makes any sense at all. I do take your point though, regarding reduction of attributes and so forth. At the moment, the only way to 'kill' and opponent is to get a 4 point success and spend that on reducing an attribute to zero.
If I understand what you are saying, then you have -1 attribute as a one point failure consequence. If the conflict is all about combat and you score 3 successes, you could choose the -1 three times?
I'm glad your game went well and I look forward to hearing more about the descent into further grimness.
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios
Ah...right.
Submitted by Graham W on Thu, 06/03/2008 - 22:01.
However (and it's very likely that the text lacks clarity at this point), I envisaged it as when you gain success, you cannot buy failure consequences for yourself.
So negative relationships are something other people foist you with. That's great. That would have worked fine.
Given that, I like Steve's revised briefing on relationships. The idea of who gets dibs on the dice was a little weird for us (in a conflict, I didn't ask for the dice for Simon's negative relationship, then Simon claimed them. But can I then insist I have the dice?).
It was a very good game. The real strength is the setting and the text that describes it: bloody superb. I'm still thinking about the question of authority.
Graham
Relationships/Consequences/Authority
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Thu, 06/03/2008 - 23:10.
Yes, the negative relationships come from others, during the consequence phase.
I'm thinking on about the consequences, and perhaps (would need to test this out) there only needs to be 3 levels of consequences: the current 1st level ceases to exist, 2 becomes 1, 3 becomes 2 and 4 becomes 3. Now, this would certainly resolve some of the issues that currently apparent, but would it take things too far in the other direction? Testing will doubtless make this apparent. or not.
Regarding getting dibs on the relationship dice, if you have first choice and pass, then you cannot insist that you get them if someone else chooses to take them. You had your choice and chose not to exercise it. Subsequently taking them away from someone would just be petty blocking, of a kind.
Also: thanks for your comments on the setting and text. I'm becoming more and more satisfied with it as time goes on. And yes, the authority section is being questioned in my head as well. The main question is: is it necessary at all? With the subsidiary question of: can elements of it be integrated into other parts of the text?
Cheers
Malcolm
Contested Ground Studios