(UA) This Is The City (take 2)

[Markleford Friedman]

Steven Kaye writes:
> WHat about character-based conflict, though? I'd argue that's as least
> as important as group-based rivalries.

Oh, it still is, and I agree entirely, but this doesn't seem to be the slant
of the source material, and goes even further against the last solicitation
of proposed UA supplements.  I was simply trying to reconcile the fact that
many of the groups seemed barely leverageable as written due to geographic
and population distribution restrictions (i.e., "if they keep to their
listed region of operations"), and forthcoming sourcebooks seem to be geared
at making the original groups and world design less potent (which is "okay",
if you like it).

Sure, the New Inquisition has the manpower and can get around, but others? 
For example, the Sect of the Naked Goddess numbers "perhaps three dozen
people", and "the majority of followers" operate out of Chicago.  The
Goonies of StGermain have perhaps 17 members per geographic region in only 5
North American centers: that's spreading things pretty thin.  What's the
chance that your PCs will run into one of these groups, especially if they
live in Podunk, Iowa?

As a friend of mine put it:

	Two dozen members is not a cult; that's a small get-together
	that just happens to involve sacrificing a goat. Call me when
	your cult is running the NYPD, then I'll be concerned... And
	why should I travel to Jackson Hole Wyoming to deal with
	somebody else's problem?

Yet both these groups are listed as "Major Groups".  I don't see the
correlation.  Certainly, magick is the great equalizer, but it's arguable
that mundane factors are more important to the organization than the mages
themselves.

Thusly, since it's unlikely that your PCs are likely to cross paths with one
of these groups if they don't "happen" to be based in the same city, then
you either have to bring the groups to the PCs, or the PCs to the groups...

If you bring the groups to the PCs: Why are they coming to Podunk, Iowa?  Is
there a resource here that they need?  Are they here to confront the PCs for
some reason?  Or are they just "passing through"?

If you bring the PCs to the groups: What was important enough to make them
leave Podunk?  Is there anything important enough in Podunk for them to
return?  And if not, why were they based in Podunk in the first place?

As such, you have to choose:

1) Abide by the contrivance of having groups "pass through town".  But if N
number of groups are passing through, it's likely that there's a reason why
they're here.  Some resource or simply "fate" bringing them to Podunk.  So
you might as well move along to...

2) Abide by the contrivance of basing all groups in one town.  Hell, we
already have evidence that Mak Attax has plotted out ley lines across
America and plant their members accordingly.  As such, what's so wrong with
having a city that happens to be the Big Node, the MuthaLode?

3) Have the players travel a lot.  However, since no other listed group has
decided to set up base in Podunk, it's likely that it's spiritually dead. 
This means that your PCs will be spending little time in Podunk, so why even
return there?  And if your players are travelling from Podunk to Seattle,
then they're just as likely to move from Seattle to Chicago a week later. 
Itinerant campaigns mean extra GM preparation, PC inconvenience, and they
make "city books" (as proposed and traditionally written) less of an
efficient investment.

or 4) Ignore the source groups altogether.  Which seems to be the way to go,
as every other method seems to have "contrivance" built in.  So why not just
ditch the Inquisition, Sect, Order, Temple, etc as written in the main
books?  Umm, well, perhaps because the entire game has been written around
these groups!  Hell, they're all emblazoned on the back cover, even.

POINT: All this source material has been "built up" by the UA authors, yet
most GMs on the list are saying "simply discard it": "Make up your own
groups," they say, and that's certainly a valid approach, but that removes
any "commonality" that UA campaigns might have.  I'd like to leverage the
"standard world design" in some manner, so as not to make it a waste of
paper, and the easiest way to do that is place them in one city.  That's my
solution, at least (your milage will vary), and I'll certainly add my own
groups to the mix.  However...

I am, as stated, one to bring the action to the PCs.  Itinerant campaigns
have their roots in fantasy RPGs and epic fiction; the journey was part of
the game.  But in a modern setting, society is a bit different, and modern
mages need not be "hermetic hermits".  They have mundane lives of their own;
this should be encouraged.  To make everyone "travel-ready" detaches them
from the things that make them human and eventually turns them into
pantomime warriors.

> Perhaps more groups could be added - right now it's very U.S.-focused - but
> One City with all the groups fighting each other seems too contrived for my
> liking.

Well, certainly not *all* the action happens in the One City, but
concentrating on that one provides a more manageable microcosmic view, a
small model for what's happening in every city of the world.  Sure, you can
still use travel to other cities as a device, but use it sparingly and for a
specific purpose.

> Besides, I like the idea of previously unknown magical schools
> doing their own thing in the middle of a New Inquisition warzone - they
> don't do grandiose plans for world domination, so they don't interact with
> all the powermongers.

There's still room for "unknown armies" within a single city; who knows
which groups you haven't run across yet!  It's difficult enough knowing the
ins and outs of your own city, let alone having a handle on what's happening
in the rest of the world.

Groups rise and fall, they arrive and depart.  And the city doesn't have to
be an enclosed system; pathways lead to and from its boundaries, but we
don't have to travel them to know that they're there or to feel their
effect.

> Heh. You're assuming characters will be nice enough to always pay
> for their rides

Payment isn't as much the issue as uprooting lives and growing apart from
people.

> Travel's also a good opportunity for character development  - just how
> important is getting a cross-section of JFK's brainpan to you? More
> important than your job? Than your family? Your lover?

There's two sides to this:

1) Constant travel, and the lengths that PCs have to go to get there (as per
your Entropomancer example) can indeed develop character, but unfortunately
they do so in the "hardened" direction.  This contributes to characters
becoming less human and less playable. 

2) You're asking the tough questions.  They're good questions.  However,
what the PC would do and what the Player would do are two separate issues. 
GM: "Are you road-tripping for JFK's brain?"  PC: "No. I'd lose my wife
after all that I've done to win her back."  GM: "Too bad.  Feel free to
watch TV in the other room while I game with the other players."

Forcing a character down a plot path is good for writing fiction, but it
doesn't make for good gaming.  As I said, travel is a good device if used
sparingly, but forcing the "tough decisions" should be handled even more
carefully.  You could easily rack up a few points on Self, Isolation,
Helplessness, and even Violence, depending on your "travel methods".  Which
is part of the game, sure, but why add to the mental deterioration when
there are so many opportunities for it already?

- m