Pulling together a scenario, part 2 — Using a plot generator

All right, let's get building this story for A Dirty World scenario started. To start with, I'm using the plot generator/prompts in the Appendix of the book called One Roll Legal Problems, where I am directed to roll 11d10. I got: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9. The sets (two 1s and two 7s) determine the 'central disputes' and the single numbers are the 'Twists, Reveals and Complications.'

Oh wow, I've been in editor mode a lot today. That lack of an Oxford comma is really bothering me.

Any rate, back to story crafting.

The Central Disputes. The ones set gives me theft, petty, minor stuff while the sevens are Government Regulation, Police Misconduct. First, that's hilarious given the setting I've already chosen and secondly, it either works really well with my character concepts or is going to make character creation harder. If the police misconduct is know or apparent from the start, it would make sense for the PCs to be Internal Affairs. But, one of the secrets I was going to lay on a character was that they were undercover Internal Affairs. (It's noir, everyone has a secret. It's coded in the rules and everything.) So, I can either make the PCs part of the Robbery unit and they have to figure out the police misconduct OR the misconduct is apparent enough when the crime gets called in that it's all handed off to IA off the bat.

Given my personal experience with identity theft, I happen to know that at least some jurisdictions aren't going to investigate/take it to court if the theft is under a certain monetary amount (because resources yo, the department is overwhelmed as it is). Therefore, petty theft doesn't seem like something a modern police force would hand off to detectives. Which pushes the story either towards being primarily about the misconduct or I need to make the theft bigger. I'm going to look at the complications and come back to that. 'Cause there's a lot of complications from this roll.

Given how few sets I managed on 11 dice, I have seven out of ten numbers on the Twists table.
2: A frame job, or evidence tampering
3: Insanity
4: Addition
5: Reluctant key witness
6: Seemingly damning physical evidence
8: Passionate, powerful courtroom testimony
9: A marital infidelity angle

I'm not all that comfortable with the insanity complication — there's a tendency in popular media to portray mentally ill folks as 'crazies' who commit crimes when in real life they are statistically much more likely to be the victims of crimes. I don't really have time to research a mental illness to portray it as sensitively as I'd hold myself to. So, since it's my story and all, I'm just going to change that 3 to a 1. And now the theft our characters need to sort out is "an item of great sentimental value."

I can fold the frame job/evidence tampering (2) into the 7s set. So know I know what type of misconduct happened. Or, the evidence tampering can be the clue pointing our PCs to the misconduct. I think I like that better. Alternatively (again), I could drop the addiction (4) complication to push up the theft into the "Elaborate, intrusive theft of something very expensive" category and say the goal of the theft was to steal evidence (2) but high-value things were stolen as a cover. Or, you know, payment to the thieves. Now I'm getting into some territory I feel familiar with.  

So, lets look at the complications I have left:
5: Reluctant key witness
6: Seemingly damning physical evidence
8: Passionate, powerful courtroom testimony
9: A marital infidelity angle

The 5 and 9 pair nicely: a key witness is reluctant to give evidence because they're involved in marital infidelity. So somebody knows something but only because they were stepping out on their partner and giving evidence in court would mean their partner finds out. I can work with that.

Now the question becomes do the players need that reluctant key witness to give 'passionate, powerful courtroom testimony' to counter the seemingly damning physical evidence? Or is their testimony opening the door to introducing the physical evidence into the record? Namely, is the evidence accurate or not? Basically, should I be looping back to tie the 6 evidence into the 2 frame job/evidence tampering or leaving them as separate elements?

Hmm, I like the idea that the theft of physical evidence was itself evidence tampering and our reluctant, cheating, key witness needs to give courtroom testimony in order for the stolen items to be admissible in evidence.

Melvin killed his drug dealer Tiny in Tiny's own home and then dropped the gun where it got kicked under the couch. Officer White found the gun and was sealing it in an evidence baggie when his partner interviewing Tiny's partner mentioned that Melvin, Petru, and Liza had all been behind on payments lately. Officer White knew Melvin's daddy Moses Nikodemos was a) rich, b) protective, and c) influential in the business community. Also, White wanted to retire in a couple years. Nikodemos could certain provide a little starting capital and recommendations in the real estate business in say... Portland. Somewhere other than the East Coast any rate. So Officer White pocketed the gun, still in the evidence bag.

White wasn't stupid enough to keep the evidence in his home — he contracted out the evidence collection and actual blackmail to a bookie he knew. Samuel McNiven, the bookie White knew, (don't get him started on the Catholic versus Jewish guilt; he's a connoisseur of both) did a pretty good job with his end of the deal... right up until he let slip to Nikodemos that he was the one holding onto the evidence that would lock up Melvin for life.

Nikodemos senior is not afraid of direct action or breaking the law. But murder would just bring too many unnecessary risks. So he contracted out a theft to a couple of professionals — hit the bookie's place and steal the gun in the evidence bag. Don't touch anything else and they'd be well compensated. Too bad for Nikodemos that the thieves decided the cash in the safe was a bigger payday than Nikodemos could provide and to keep the gun as insurance against Nikodemos. After all, if that was all he wanted, it must be pretty important.

Too bad for the thieves there was a witness — Officer White's wife Katrin whose having an affair with McNiven. She was in the room when the thieves broke in and hid behind a curtain. She got a good look at the whole shebang, including the debate over whether or not to take the money or follow Nikodemos's instructions. And a good look at the evidence bag and her husband's writing on the bag. She doesn't want a divorce just yet, nor her husband to wind up in jail...

Too bad for Nikodemos AND Officer White that McNiven decided to report the theft. After all, all that money in the safe was part of his perfectly legitimate pawn shop operations. And he wants his money back. He'll just not mention the gun that was in the safe too...