|
Whoever the current Messenger is, they've done a great job protecting themselves the past couple years. Snowden, Assange, etc. seem to have all failed in their attempts to usurp the archetype. I don't think, also, that a Mother archetype could necessarily drop a plane on a Mother godwalker while she was even around a child. It could go even deeper. Could the Mother archetype be the Mother and kill a Mother protecting any child? or even just mourning over the grave of her dead child? Executioners, similarly, wouldn't ever need to fear being killed by their own archetype - provided no one else gives that their archetype a reason to kill them. Not that they couldn't work against an irksome godwalker in a dozen ways, but "plane drop" is sort of uninspired and lazy.
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
It seems incredibly unlikely that the intent was to remove Godwalker assumption as a thing that's possible for players or NPCs, so I'm going to assume it's still attempted and achieved in 3E, airplanes or not.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:50
|
|
quote:Whoever the current Messenger is, they've done a great job protecting themselves the past couple years. Snowden, Assange, etc. seem to have all failed in their attempts to usurp the archetype. Nah, Steve Bannon's the Heisenberg Messenger, went from running a 'news' site to getting The Fool elected. I'll let you fill in the rest of the Tower/card symbolism yourself. I'm sure you could mine UA/occult symbolism from all his failed Shakespeare reinterpretations & general Florida lowlife weirdness. The Fyre Festival would make a great one-shot. The Heisenberg Messenger - 'I am the one who talks'.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:The Fyre Festival would make a great one-shot.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
You could do it like this: tell the players it's a game of high society wealth & intrigue. There's not going to be much combat, so make Social/Mind focused characters (I'm a big fan of 'a Dipsomancer based on the movie Arthur'). You can even have them write their character's Instagram handle on the sheet. Then drop them into the Festival.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:It seems incredibly unlikely that the intent was to remove Godwalker assumption as a thing that's possible for players or NPCs, so I'm going to assume it's still attempted and achieved in 3E, airplanes or not. Sure, but the problem is it makes it vague and fudgy rather than having reasonable rules as in previous editions. Now, true, those previous editions did tend to break them (here's a really clear cosmic rule about how ascension works! Now here's an adventure that requires a totally different and unexplained method to work too because god forbid I come up with an interesting story in the setting I wrote!) but they were there. In 3E, a lot more of the occult seems to be vague, and while this is arguably more atmospheric it weakens the "you did it" principle common to older editions because if you have no idea what the consequences of your actions will be then you can't direct them or feel much responsibility. I mean, that section on assumption in the book is really missing an "so here's how they get around it..." at the end.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
I kick-started You, and while I was redeeming my PDFs, I decided to buy Godwalker. Just finished about ten minutes ago. Exactly at 3:33 AM. And now I've got a.serious case of the creepies.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Of the various ORE iterations, which one do you think works best independent of its setting? I'm pondering making use of a GURPS sourcebook or two without actually using GURPS, and I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Honestly Reign probably is the most usable independent of the setting. Pick up the Enchirideon and you're probably gold. The mechanical rules for Skills, Disciplines and Martial Paths are pretty universally useful (and infact I've imported both Paths and Disciplines into Wild Talents without any difficulty). As long as the game is adventure focused, you're probably good. More character focused games are the domain of A Dirty World: RPPR even did a game of ADW in the Eclipse Phase setting. So if your goal is "uncovering the seedy side of humanity", ADW is a perfect choice.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
A Dirty World is not really setting focused at all. It is, however, very genre focused instead.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Now, true, those previous editions did tend to break them (here's a really clear cosmic rule about how ascension works! Now here's an adventure that requires a totally different and unexplained method to work too because god forbid I come up with an interesting story in the setting I wrote!) but they were there. I'm blanking on which adventure you're referencing here. To Go, maybe? I never really noticed that, because the "here's a big mystical MacGuffin that probably half the group wants, and here's a story about how you can only choose which of three NPCs to give it to, none of whom you have any reason to like or want to see succeed" thing was a lot more glaring, but I think I can see what you mean.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Honestly Reign probably is the most usable independent of the setting. Pick up the Enchirideon and you're probably gold. I already have Reign, so I'm good on that front. I just wondered if any of the other variations were better. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:A Dirty World is not really setting focused at all. Fred, what GURPS book are we talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
hyphz posted:That's from the same bit I quoted, and it was mentioned as a way to confuse incoming high-level Avatars of the Fool, not to dissuade the Archetype. This is a big spoiler for You, which is definitely set in 3E Unknown Armies, but it doesn't take very long between a Godwalker openly declaring war on their Archetype and a series of obviously supernatural coincidences leading to them being shot in the heart by accident. There are a couple of unintentional misunderstandings which pushes someone over the edge, a flat tyre, an argument and a ricochet. That particular Godwalker had used their 99% channel to make it very difficult for them to die, as well. Certainly I don't think the Archetypes are ever supposed to be anything vaguely close to omnipotent - part of the theme of the game is that ordinary human beings hold all the power, after all. Just that there's plenty of room for nasty coincidental poo poo to happen to you if an Archetype wants you dead and the cultists aren't doing the job properly. I have to say that the Elvii from To Go are my favourite manifestation of how the Invisible Clergy get things done in the real world. The gods use Elvis impersonators to do their dirty work because of course they do.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
FredMSloniker posted:I already have Reign, so I'm good on that front. I just wondered if any of the other variations were better. Thanks! If you're perchance looking to run a game online, please do let me know -- I'm itching to play Reign!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Other than You and Godwalker, are there any other novels set in the setting?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Other than You and Godwalker, are there any other novels set in the setting? There's another Greg Stolze book which is kind of Unknown Armies but not at all actually called Switchflipped. It's him playing with similar ideas but not the same world.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Also in the "not really Unknown Armies but similar" genre, the works of Tim Powers. Especially Last Call.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
And the book that Greg Stolze himself called "the Unknown Armies novel" - Big Machin by Victor LaValle (which is a pretty drat sweet book, and you should give it a go!)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
not sure for how long the sale will last, but amazon has the special edition of 3E unknown armies on sale for 33% off right now, so $88 instead of $120-ish. i just got my delivery, and the three hardbacks plus the GM screen / case are sweet.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Fred, what GURPS book are we talking about? At the moment, I'm swaying between Swashbucklers and Bunnies and Burrows. Subjunctive posted:If you're perchance looking to run a game online, please do let me know -- I'm itching to play Reign! At the moment, I'm still in the pondering phase, so don't get your hopes up. That said, you are, of course, welcome to keep an eye on the appropriate subforum!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:not sure for how long the sale will last, but amazon has the special edition of 3E unknown armies on sale for 33% off right now, so $88 instead of $120-ish. i just got my delivery, and the three hardbacks plus the GM screen / case are sweet. yeah that's a sweet deal
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
I created an Unknown Armies adept school (about 95% complete, just need to flesh out a few sig spells) based on board games and would love feedback and criticism. The link, if you're so inclined.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Everything Counts posted:I created an Unknown Armies adept school (about 95% complete, just need to flesh out a few sig spells) based on board games and would love feedback and criticism. The link, if you're so inclined. This is cool. I feel like there should be a way for a Gambler Avatar to follow it, but they'd have to walk a narrow line. I'd suppose that they could play for money, but the money can't be the purpose. If you're entering a chess tournament with the goal of winning the prize, you'd taboo. Giving away or forfeiting the prize should certainly be a way out. Also, playing to increase ELO, or win titles should be permitted even though those aren't magical, you're not playing for fun, you're playing to win. Hustling people at bars to earn some beer money, that's a taboo. King Me is cool, but it's an extraordinarily powerful effect that permanently damages people it's cast on. If they're already an adept, they're permanently insane. I suppose you could tweak it so that it's not automatically their obsession skill, and it decays at 1% per day until it hits zero, unless they decide to make it their obsession and then they're on the path for good. An adept is probably still going to have some issues until it wears off. Edit: Here's the gambler for reference: http://www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/TheGambler.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:This is cool. quote:King Me is cool, but it's an extraordinarily powerful effect that permanently damages people it's cast on. If they're already an adept, they're permanently insane. I suppose you could tweak it so that it's not automatically their obsession skill, and it decays at 1% per day until it hits zero, unless they decide to make it their obsession and then they're on the path for good. An adept is probably still going to have some issues until it wears off. quote:I feel like there should be a way for a Gambler Avatar to follow it, but they'd have to walk a narrow line. I'd suppose that they could play for money, but the money can't be the purpose. If you're entering a chess tournament with the goal of winning the prize, you'd taboo. Giving away or forfeiting the prize should certainly be a way out. Also, playing to increase ELO, or win titles should be permitted even though those aren't magical, you're not playing for fun, you're playing to win. Hustling people at bars to earn some beer money, that's a taboo. Oh, thanks. I've only read 3rd ed., and haven't done a deep-dive yet into the older stuff. I did toy with having some sort of Avatar version of this but having it tie to the Gambler is pretty cool. I'll take a look and see how it might work. Everything Counts fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Maybe have it incur a rank 2 unnatural check, and a rank 2 self check for a non-adept. Rank 10? if it's successfully cast on an Adept because they suddenly get a peep that everything they know about the universe is wrong. The Adept should probably get a feeling during the games that something really messed up is going on, so they'd better have a good reason to keep playing (like a gun pointed at them), and they must always have the option to try and lose on purpose (which turns it into a different kind of game entirely!) If the person holding a gun to their head insists that they try to win, then it's not really a game anymore, so the spell fails, all charges lost. Gambler rules offers this: Furthermore, it’s probably not the individual’s obsession skill, and without that kind of consuming focus, the winner gradually loses that initial understanding of What It’s All About. In game terms, the skill degrades by 1 point every couple days — so our sample 57% winner is going to be back to zilch in six months or so.  Edit: Random magic: Crossfire - only useful within the context of a third party between two adversaries shooting at each other. For the duration of the spell, all shooters are compelled to shoot at the third party, all shots causing them to be knocked back several feet with any hit, and every miss materializing as additional ammunition for the opposing side. If they're shot into the opposing side, the spell ends and they're hit with a significant blast with no damage cap. Edit2: Random magic: Don't Wake Daddy - substitutes for secrecy and can flip flop rolls. Only works against men who have a living son or daughter. Edit3: This is such a fun idea to think about. I'm a big math nerd, and there's a whole thing in math about solving games. Connect 4 for example is a solved game: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12396673-the-complete-book-of-connect-4 Spoilers, first player always wins with perfect play. In the same way that plutomancy has plutophagy, and Sociomancy has Motumancy, I like to imagine there's a very small group of anti-joymancers who gain charges by breaking or ruining games. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 07:20 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
I feel like the idea of a magic school that leans on board games that are built around randomness...rolling dice, spinners, etc...is kind of at odds with the idea that chess and checkers are fine, but poker isn't. Like I kinda get what you're going for but that bit right there sticks out at me as not being very cohesive because chess is like the exact opposite of a game that's all about leaving yourself at the whims of fickle fortune and is in fact largely about things like memorizing various openings, strategies, etc. We've taught computers to play chess to the point they can compete with grandmasters, but a computer playing Sorry! is just as beholden to the pop-o-matic bubble as the rest of us. This is the tradgame nerd in me talking but I also feel like, in the same vein, there's a lot of unexplored territory with the current designer boardgame boom in America where tastes have generally (not totally of course) been shifting away from games like Monopoly and Clue and more towards games like Pandemic, Kemet, Twilight Struggle, Food Chain Magnate, 7 Wonders, hell, even Cards Against Humanity. A lot of popular designer boardgames these days minimize or even do away with randomness the way people usually think about randomness in boardgames, you might have to draw some cards or something but it's not in the same vein as "landed on the wrong space because the dice came up 11, go back to the start." I feel like the school would be thematically stronger if you emphasized that the games in question have to rely randomness in order to qualify for charging purposes, with dice or spinners being of symbolic mystic importance to the process...Monopoly qualifies as does Sorry!, Chutes & Ladders, Candyland, Settlers of Catan, and the Game of Life, but Gloomhaven is a rather weak vessel for such an endeavor despite having an element of randomness. Kemet would be right out, being purely deterministic, and consequently neither would chess or checkers qualify. This has the added upside of giving Joymancers that special dose of Unknown Armies-esque offputting weirdness that all good adept schools require, because someone who gets together with people to play boardgames super-seriously, I mean, that's not that weird these days, but a group of people getting together regularly to play games that most people consider garbage or children's games, that's kinda weird. In terms of the actual magic school itself, it doesn't seem very cohesive to me, by which I mean that while not every magic school in UA needs to be written along narrow lines (dipsomancy gives you telekinesis, okay sure, why not) in general I feel like a little more thematic focus and consideration as to "what is this school of magic all about" would help because at the moment it just kind of looks like a grab-bag of random spells with boardgame pieces as material components. Fulminaturgy is all about drawing attention to yourself, standing your ground, and being intimidating in addition to general gun-o-mancy spells, Cinemancy is about turning TVTropes into magical spells, Sociomancers use magic to leverage the collective embodiment of a particular subculture, etc. What is Joymancy about? What's its thing? You mention in the opening description that "where most people see cheap plastic spinners, broken boxes, and scratched-out scorecards, joymancers have found tools of divination[...]" and honestly I was hoping for a bit more of that, I think that's actually a really cool avenue for something like this, a school of divination where instead of tea leaves and palm lines it's a bunch of serious nerds scowling over a copy of Monopoly and interpreting things based on the position of the dog and the shoe, or using the Game of Life to predict the future. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Well, old boardgamegeeek.com looked like GNOMON anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
In the same way that cryptomancers had two sides to the same school, it'd be neat if there was a war between the old school monopoly folks and the newer catan people.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:In the same way that cryptomancers had two sides to the same school, it'd be neat if there was a war between the old school monopoly folks and the newer catan people. Pretty sure Catan and Monopoly are both on the same, filthy, incorrect side. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
the new school is wargamers who charge off of recreating events as historically accurately as they possibly can in different war game systems. You get a major by playing a game about an ongoing conflict that models it accurately as it happens. (Or maybe that's what you do with a major charge?) The taboo is that you can never de-escalate conflict. The random magick domain is about causing feelings, events, and action to recur, but changing their context.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
The taboo is agreeing Hitler knew about holocaust.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:You get a major by playing a game about an ongoing conflict that models it accurately as it happens. (Or maybe that's what you do with a major charge?) The opposite, get a major charge by getting a conflict to accurately portray a wargame.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:great points You've given me a lot to consider here; thank you. I know the chess/checkers thing sticks out a bit from the theme but felt they'd sort of "muscled in" due to the weight of human belief--a mirror of the Invisible Clergy and archetypes. I could try to rewrite it and emphasize that a bit more (there could be something interesting there in the idea of platonic ideals) but I think it's more interesting to instead emphasize the split between "traditional" games and the new designs that have been gaining popularity. I'm glad you picked up on that as there was a deliberate intent to hew closer to older, "childish" games (though I did cheat a bit with a Catan reference). I'll rejigger the spells to be more cohesive. Like you said, UA schools can have some oddities to them that don't always seem to make sense, and I think I just got a bit overwhelmed at all the different effects I could use rather than finding multiple ways to use 2-3 effects well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
avatars are the ones that have to respect human belief. Adepts are about hosed up idiosyncratic individuals with hella obsessive paradigms who don't give a gently caress that no one else thinks watching anime is the gateway to the Divine Eternal. The reason schools fall is because the external circumstances that give rise to their paradox collapses.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
My biggest disappointment in that school is you didn't find some excuse to make a "Taboo" joke.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Everything Counts posted:You've given me a lot to consider here; thank you. I think if you wanted to do a split school ala cryptomancy that the way to go would be "random games" versus "deterministic games," i.e. on the one side you have adepts that are all about Sorry! and Monopoly and on the other end you have chess and checkers and go, then you can tie that split into the modern boardgame renaissance and how each side is taking it so you can actually play up the occult parallel between the non-magickal arguments over "Eurogames vs. Ameritrash" and the rise of games that borrow elements of both. Who lays claim to a game like Tash-Kalar which features gameplay that's reminiscent of strategic piece placement like go, but also has randomly drawn cards which influence how you play those pieces? Is the rise of this sort of designer boardgame part of a plot to weaken Joymancers by diluting the metaphysical concepts each school clings to through hybridization, an attempt to give rise to a third "unified" school of Joymancy, or is it simply because non-occult gamers happen to like that sort of design because they actually play games for fun and Joymancers are weirdos getting caught up in the shifting tides of popular culture ala Videomancers?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Alternately, Joyphagy, game eaters. There's actually a bit more to it than it sounds. They're about ruining or trivializing games, rendering them pointless. This could involve repeatedly playing tic-tac-toe to a draw for an hour, or solving chess/go puzzles. At higher levels it might involve trying to solve games like the Connect 4 example I gave earlier. The entire point is that you transform games from strategy and chance to perfected solutions where there's only one correct move in any situation. Also you can eat a board game if you really need a charge.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Getting a charge of some magnitude for being the first to "solve" a game so that there are no longer any meaningful decisions to make while playing, only a formula to follow, sounds like a fun idea. Not least because you'd probably have adepts inventing games just to solve them, or if that's verboten, hounding game designers so they can be the first to take a crack at it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Inventing games just to solve them sounds like it would be in violation of the "no such thing as a free lunch" rule to acquiring charges, otherwise it would be a ridiculously easy way to gain tons of effortless mojo unless you designed it to be similar to one of the easy-come easy-go schools like Dipsomancy.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:37
|
|