|
I've been playing/running UA on and off for about a decade. During that time I've seen two major charges produced, both of which were lost without being spent. Yes the players have the capacity to put junk in your trunk with majors, but if you realistically deal with acquiring them, the party should be just about where it started, maybe a little worse. Magic is bad for you, don't you know. Now I'm not saying that you should stop them from doing what they want with the charge. I say let that big boy fly. But if for instance you start a humongous riot as is required to gain an irracomancy major charge, there will be repercussions that follow you for the rest of your life. Kemper: Not entirely true. UA has the "Claws of the Tiger" rule, which tells you just how much damage your character takes when a huge unstructured riot breaks out around them, as is the inevitable result of using most magic in public. counterspin fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 26, 2010 |
#
¿
May 26, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
If you want to introduce people to UA run Jailbreak from the One-Shots book. Best adventure I've ever played in, run, or read. A masterpiece. There I said it, and I got gushy.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Yeah, but there's a fine difference with having rules that ensure that most of the time you won't even think of doing it, and rules that make you deal with the consequences. The Paradox mechanism in Mage is so drat punishing that I've actually never seen anyone do something blatantly vulgar magic poo poo in a game. I'm confused as to which of these two things apply to UA in your opinion. In mine both apply. I've never seen someone use "vulgar" magic in UA except at the end of a storyarc, and the rules very clearly state what the consequences of using magic are, namely that you will be immediately surrounded by a violent riot after which everyone will remember you started the riot, though no one will remember exactly what you did. A presumption that you will be hunted down like a dog in a multi-state manhunt(which is what happens to people who start gigantic riots resulting in fatalities) and then put in jail for the rest of your natural seems like making you deal with the consequences to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
But one of UA's largest factions does nothing but shoot people stupid enough to do magic in front of normals in the head. I was running a Sleepers campaign where things got out of hand, "vulgar magic" wise and another group of Sleepers came and killed several of the players(Sleepers function in cells, so they don't have an easy way to determine who is a Sleeper and who isn't). So the difference is between having the system punish you or the setting punish you? counterspin fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
I have to agree with Happyelf. If you're not going to run Jailbreak, don't even read the thing. Buy it and bribe someone else to run it for you.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
I've always played with adepts knowing their entire lists of spells. Charges are a good enough limiter that it's never struck me as important to limit spell selection.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
Making decisions for my character is such an important part of RP for me that I find it unlikely that allowing the other players to compel my character's decisions will minimize confusion(what does my character think now?)), disagreements(you convinced me of x, and that doesn't apply to y!), hurt feelings(stop controlling my character!), or maximize enjoyment(this sucks!). I understand the problem of the charismatic character that can't convince anyone of anything, but that is something that should be handled in NPC interactions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
I guess I'm just confused by the use of the word "combat" in "social combat." I fully support something that tempts people to respond correctly to the social capabilities of the other players' characters(GM included). My problem is that "combat" is not something that a)Produces an opportunity for your goal to be achieved. You want to kill goblins, you use combat to kill goblins, not to get the chance to maybe kill goblins. b)is dependent on your willingness to engage in it But this is probably something where that's just what it's called, and it's too late to change it. counterspin fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jan 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Thuryl: You're misunderstanding what I mean. Or I'm miswriting what I mean, more likely. Combat is not dependent on mutual consent. Only one party needs to want it. I was responding to the comments that you don't have to engage in social combat if you don't want to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Combat is in no way dependent on mutual consent of the two parties. People get forced into fistfights, gunfights, and other scuffles without their consent all the time. If someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting at you, you are in a gunfight, regardless of your thoughts on the subject. My assumptions come from the English language. Referring to an argument as a "combat" in English is a metaphor, which is a stretch for me. Call the thing "social conflict" and I have no beef. Or at least no beef that applies to this thread rather than the other.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
I didn't say you were fighting. I said you were in a combat. And in an RPG that fact is illustrated by the fact that the rules of combat have come into play. The guy shooting you has rolled his weapon skill and you have either utilized or rejected your defensive options.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
Because the shooter is nervous, because there may be other combatants who are resisting, because as much as people bluster about it, it takes a huge amount of mental effort for a human being to kill another human being, etc. If you're confused about my last post just ignore everything after the second sentence. Everything after that is an attempt to ground the real in the game, and is secondary to the argument, which is mostly about connotation. "I didn't say you were fighting. I said you were in a combat." Additionally, I figure I've taken up enough space here, as well, given that I'm the lone dissenter and we're talking about an admittedly minor lingusitic quibble. counterspin fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, it's weird. It's almost like the section on pointblanking in the UA book is in the combat chapter. It says that you make an attack roll to try to kill a helpless victim. Success means instant death, failure does firearms damage for melee or maximum damage for the weapons caliber for firearms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
The whole point of the pointblanking system as presented in UA is to present a gap in the process where you can decide against it. You shoot, you fail to kill, and then you take your first round of checks. If you're capable you can then proceed, followed by your next round of checks, etc. It could also come up if your are pressed for time, such as in a hostage situation. Did you really kill them? People get shot in the head and survive all the time, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Chance: Why do they keep failing rolls? Now, admittedly I was taught to run UA rather than reading the rules and applying them directly, but my understanding has always been that you roll under the stat for most skill checks, and under the skill for opposed checks or checks made in combat. They shouldn't be failing that much. Or am I just used to a houseruled skill setup?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Wouldn't the default for the expert die be 10, unless otherwise noted?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:I managed to run the Jailbreak one-shot for a mixed group of newbies and RPG veterans yesterday. I can confirm it is still The Best One-shot Scenario For Any Game (that I know of). I've been saying this for years, because it is true. It is almost worth making new friends in batches of 8 to run this again for new people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
I had a successful REIGN game where the party played the Queen and her immediate advisors. There was a little D&D style adventuring, but it was quite centered on parties, diplomatic missions, and children as political pawns.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
GladRagKraken posted:Old UA was amazing because you could fit your character sheet on a cocktail napkin. Does the new edition change things up enough that you now need a whole 8 & 1/2 x 11? The new version is even more compact than the old, but is different enough that you do need a new sheet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Bodybags are never going to stop being amusing to me. First you tell your bound demon to kill a bunch of fish cultists. So far so good. Then you tell it to protect you, and it burns down the hotel and destroys your car, and all the other cars at your isolated desert hotel. Not great. Then you tell it to get you a car, and it disintegrates the head of a passing driver, you fail your check and freeze, and it floats away. You have to abandon it, of course, because the police ARE coming, but how could that possibly go wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 04:07
|
|