[UA] Kult

[Ken Nelson]

--Enough lurking for me.  Opinion time.z

> > 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.

--I don't see the system much as combat-oriented
either.  I see it more as an intimidation-oriented. 
The threat of violence & pain & looking like you'd do
it being enough to resolve stiuations.  But it all
comes down to the gm & players.
 
> > 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.

--I ran it once so far and things went badly for the
players.  Luck plays as much or more of a factor as
skill does when it comes to combat.  It's a
interesting change from running shadowrun where you
can take several hits before dropping.

> >  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.

--...and check the cieling for shuggoth matter.  A
scream & two shots, we'll come to help (there's a
chance you still might be alive).  Two shots & a
scream, sorry man- you're on your own.  Longest lived
character almost always stood second to last in the
party line up, easier escapes.  Also brings into
question loyalty to whatever group you're with.

> >
> > 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.

--Played vamp & werewolf.  One vampire gm in
particular, she was sadistic.  You had to follow the
storyline for the night, your existence (usually)
depended on it's completion- and 90% combat heavy. 
Whatever gods you pray to help you if you played a
female in her games.

> > 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"
> 
-I found UA's combat system was real quick in the
couple of cases where I used it, nice.  Now I need to
run it again with a higher number of combatants.

> 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.
> 

--It also places an extra burden on the players too. 
To come up with those imaginative solutions without
having to resort to violence, the chance of them
getting killed is reduced.  

> 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.

--You may want to give a check to John Tynes site for
'Power Kill' if you haven't.  That sounds a little bit
what you're thinking of with some dfferences.

-Ken Nelson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com

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