Okay, so, first of all, a disclaimer. Take what I say with a grain of salt; I'm still really new to this hobby and a lot of what I'm gonna say will be based on observations and could range from legitimate criticism to vaguely nitpicky things I feel compelled to comment on, lol.
I'm going to break this into chunks for the three segments of your piece just because it's easier for me to outline. Though before I get to that I want to mention something that might be minor but I think has a huge impact on the experience: mode of narration. Third-person objective is a really fitting perspective for a character like Bull.
Anyway, onto the meat of the subject.
PART ONE:This was largely an exposition dump. I get it, it happens, especially when you have as much context to unpack as you do in this scene. Being that this is the first roleplay of yours that I have read, I appreciate getting the chance to catch up before you plunge into areas where that context becomes important.
That said, it makes the first scene feel like it's kind of just there, if you know what I mean. I will say though that most of the dialogue is solid here, if a bit utilitarian, though I can buy that these two characters, given who and
what they are, wouldn't really bother beating around the bush. There's only one line of dialogue I take issue with, and it might be a bit nitpicky to bring up, but I feel compelled:
"And we sent out Project Chameleon to clip any connections between Frost's so called mob connections and DCI. And by clip...I mean kill."
It's really only the second sentence. You can cut it without losing meaning. Have faith in your readers to connect the dots
.
Something else I noticed in this scene is that your narration/scene description/whatever you want to call it is a little bare. I'm not saying you need to have paragraphs of narration between every line of dialogue or anything but give your audience a little more to chew on than just a couple of establishing sentences and some intermittent character movements.
Overall, however, my feelings towards this scene are more positive than what I've previously said may imply. By the end of the scene, I found myself intrigued by the major event it was setting up and curious about what was going to come next. That's what it seems like you set out to do with this scene, so that's a big mission accomplished.
PART TWO:There's really only one thing I have to say about this part because I think a lot of what you have is really solid.
As a reader, I don't entirely buy that Corey Bull would take umbrage with John Frost for being a racist. From what I've gathered about Corey Bull, he's a misanthrope supreme who looks down on humanity in general. He's the type of guy for whom the classic retort "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" isn't so much an excuse as it as a universal maxim. He's literally the Hatebringer.
So while I can believe that Bull wouldn't want to be branded a racist because of his connection to Frost because that is hatred born from an ideology and for Bull hatred itself is his ideology, it's a tougher sell to me at least that Bull would necessarily be at odds with Frost for
being racist. I think you did a good job elaborating on that and not pinning Bull's distaste for Frost squarely on that one subject (and the bit about racism being more ignorance than hate helped sell me on the idea).
That one gripe aside (and it could totally be the result of me misinterpreting the character and being wrong and if that's the case then I apologize), I think this segment was pretty god damn strong overall. There's one last thing I'd want to mention here, but I'll leave that for...
PART THREE:
It wasn't until the very end of scene two into the beginning of this scene that I noticed something. This is theatre adapted to prose. That might sound a bit strange; hear me out.
Reading the first half of this scene, which is entirely dialogue (this is important), reminded me of a play called The Laramie Project. Without sidetracking this post by talking too much about the play, there are sixty characters in the play. Directors tend to cast about eight to ten actors to play all sixty characters. Because of this, the actors have to break the fourth wall a bunch to establish who's in the scene and who's speaking. I think you get where I'm going with this.
If this is what you're going for, I get it and I'm totally for it. There's a few things I touched on back in the first scene that make more sense looking at it in this context: the somewhat sparse narration establishing the setting is you describing the stage. Once the character interaction starts, it's not so much narration as it is stage direction. There's something really great and cool about that.
That said, if this is what you're going for (and I'm not completely off-base here), you ought to commit to it. Read some short plays if you aren't entirely familiar with the formatting and really push it that way. It's definitely a unique niche, and one I think would suit your strengths as a writer.
If you've made it this far, thank you for bearing with me. This whole post is a bit of a mess, but it's 3:30 in the morning here and I'm a bit scatterbrained right now. But I was planning on responding to this sooner so I figured I should just go for it before I forgot again. If you have any questions about anything I brought up, feel free to reach out, either here or via private message!