[UA] Kult

[Doug Stalker]

Matthew Rowan Norwood wrote:

>
> To tell you the truth, though, UA also seems to center too much on combat.  I know that it's
> more "street-level", so that makes a lot of sense... still, I can't help but feel that it's a
> bit of a regression to the old days of weapons lists and combat monsters.

I don't get this feeling from UA.  Of course, it depends on the GM.  A "enter the building, kill
the guards and recover the item" adventure is far easier than anything else.  Running a non-combat
adventure requires lots of real-time impovisation; set a goal, let them decide what they will do
and work with it.

> Honestly -- and I
> know 'm going to get crucified for saying this -- I think that White Wolf spent more time
> detailing non-combat options for their games.

I've so farmanagaed to avoid serious combat in UA by pointing out how damn lethal it is and how
f***ed over you end up afterwards.  One bullet is all it takes, something that makes a nice change
after playing most other systems where the PCs can shrug off the first few rounds before they need
to worry.

>  But if asked to rank games on the
> feasibility of playing non-combatants within the basic rules, I'd say something like:
>
> 1) Call of Cthulhu

Only because all combat is suicidal. :)  When I played this we had a GM who followed the
lovcraftean philosophy of "Kill them quickly, but try to drive them insane first".  We went
through lots of characters... in one case "I'm his twin brother" became "Did I mention we were
quintuplets?".  My favorite (and longest lasting) character was a tabloid journalist with all
starting skill points invested in run, dodge and hide.

>
> 2) Vampire/Mage/Changeling/Wraith (pre-twinkie stages)

The only vampire I played into degenerated into combat, but this was due to the GMs desire to
railroad the characters in ways designed to screw them over, with no choice on their part.

> 6) Most anything else I've played: Shadowrun, medieval fantasy stuff, Palladium, Champions,
> etc.

Some system encourage combat based adventures.  Especially ones liek AD&D that give experience
based on how many monsters you kill.  Shadowrun is a bit easier to do without combat, a friend
just started up a shadowrun without combat.  The parties weaponry consists of 2 light pistols (one
of which the character leaves at home) and a can of pepper spray.

>
>
> Of course, I kind of like the "occult gangster" aesthetic of UA, where combat fits in nicely.
> Still, it might be nice to see more complex rules on non-combat actions more complicated than
> "roll your skill value to see if you can do it".  I mean, I'd just as soon see a game where
> things like research, social situations, technical challenges, etcetera are resolved with
> highly detailed series of skill rolls and decisions, and when a combat situation erupts, the
> GM announces, "Okay, everyone roll your Fight skill to see who wins."
>

I'd like to do the opposite and reduce combat rolls to make them simpler.  I think UA would really
slow down with excessive combat, especially with everyone rolling inititive once per action.  I'd
rather have something quick and dangerous, as this encourages the PCs to avoid it.  The lethal
part is already there... I had a comment from one player "I've gone from mowing down hundreds of
enemies in Feng Shui to runing from a single mook with a gun"


To try and summerise:  I'd like to see less combat in role playing.  I acknowledge that this
places extra creative load on the GM, and I am currently running a combat-light UA campaign to
show it can be done.


BTW>  I make exception for games like Feng Shui.  Feng Shui is built around fast-paced movie style
combat, and I really enjoy it.


>
>
> I want to see a game where human beings are actually "evil" or "good" in some totally
> objective sense.

I really have no idea how you'd go about this.  I've always considered good and evil to be
subjective, and without a complete  understanding of  a few fundemental things like the meaning of
life I don't hink there can be objective good and evil.  As  GM you'd have to create a world, and
then specifiy that certain things are good and certain things are evil.  Might work with a gaming
group that doesn't include 2 poeple studying philosophy at Uni, but there is no way I'm going to
rty running this. If you do give it a go, good luck and I'd love to know how it turns out.

> And maybe the PCs are among the few people who can see this.  In fact, some
> of these people might not even be fully aware of their own alignment!  I mean, after decades
> of being told that you're a product of your environment, etcetera, who really thinks that
> they're truly "Evil", no matter what they do or think?
>
> Actually, maybe I'll just run a game in some other system this way.  It would make a nice
> delusion for some PC.  (But officer, he was chaotic evil!  I had to kill him!  You can't
> arrest me, I'm Lawful Good!)  They could all imagine themselves Palladins or some such.
>

PCs that are convinced that the are objectivly good/evil would be easier.  You could even argue
that from a role playing perspective they are identical to the above, since a player shoudl only
be able to interact with the game world through hs characters subjective universe.

  - Doug
--
_____________________________________________________________
  Network Operations Engineer - Big Pond Advance Satellite



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua