[UA] Re: UA digest, Vol 1 #271 - 15 msgs

[Matthew Rowan Norwood]

> Speaking of Kult, that would make a nice alternative setting for UA.  I
> liked
> the setting, and some of the flavor text was great (especially in teh
> section
> about advantages/disadvantages) but the system didn't look that great.  I'll
> admit I never played it, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
> :)
>
> Kult's my absolute favorite setting.  As far as the rules go, I'd say
> they're extremely average.  The only thing that I really like about the
> system is that they have dark secrets as part of the character creation.
>
> I've always thought the rulebook had far too many combat-type rules for such
> an evil game, too.  'Course when I was playing Kult the most was back when
> White Wolf games were in their hay day ('94-'95), nd I wasn't too keen on
> combat at the time.  I've grown and see the error of my ways.

I hear you on all of that.  Like I said in a post the other day, though, I also think that the
sanity rules had a lot going for them.  It was pretty cool how sanity was innately tied to
magic and to the ability to see through the Illusion.  I like the description I read
contrasting the game to CoC: "CoC characters go insane because they do and see weird things.
Kult characters do and see weird things because they have gone insane."

The combat, though... weird.  It's as though someone designed a combat-based game system and
then transposed it over the setting.  What did they expect PCs to be doing, karate-chopping
Nepharites?  Like CoC, combat was irrelevant when it involved any of the beings described in
the rules.  Even humans nearing Awakening, about to realize their latent godhood, were trapped
in pitifully fragile bodies of flesh and blood.

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.  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.  They quickly spiralled into twinkiedom, of
course, and I don't see UA doing that (please, guys?).  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
2) Vampire/Mage/Changeling/Wraith (pre-twinkie stages)
3) Cyberpunk (pre-twinkie stages), Timelords/WarpWorld (anyone remember BTRC?  A little too
much calculator-punching to run a smooth game, but realistic as hell!)
4) Kult
5) UA
6) Most anything else I've played: Shadowrun, medieval fantasy stuff, Palladium, Champions,
etc.

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."

Ah well.

While I'm at it with my game wish list, I think it'd be cute to revive D&D's alignment system
for use in a modern game.  I'm getting tired of all this moral relativist bullshit where
people's personalities are determined by psychologically realistic criteria.  Even in games
like Kult, where God and the Devil really exist, the morality of the situation is confused
because they're both actually evil, so humans can only be "enlightened" or "insane", both of
which lead to total enlightenment if taken far enough.  And in games like In Nomine and
Changeling, the duality is more about order/chaos than good/evil... the forces of order,
although more life-preserving in a sense, are also stuffy and repressive.

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

-Matt Norwood
 Chaotic Neutral


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