Providence

Providence is a LARP game using Trent Yacuk's Kingdom Come system. It is a game of Fallen Angels and their struggle to survive against the forces of Heaven and Hell and some things in between.

Who is online?

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest

None


[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 15 on Sun 19 Jul 2015 - 8:55

Gallery


Blog Posts

Latest topics

» Shutting down the Forums
Tue 3 Aug 2010 - 11:47 by cenobyte

» Magic Creation-Zeal Table
Tue 3 Aug 2010 - 11:28 by cenobyte

» Houses of the Blooded in Regina, August 28th
Wed 14 Jul 2010 - 15:02 by Bal

» The Sentinel's journal
Thu 8 Jul 2010 - 20:13 by Dorian Mason

» Character backgrounds
Tue 6 Jul 2010 - 12:19 by Corral

» The dreams of Edward
Sun 4 Jul 2010 - 0:32 by Edward

» Some of Eliel's secrets
Sat 3 Jul 2010 - 17:35 by Corral

» Question/June Game
Thu 1 Jul 2010 - 22:51 by cenobyte

» "Map" of the Fallen
Thu 1 Jul 2010 - 14:17 by Molior

Navigation

Statistics

Our users have posted a total of 3440 messages in 394 subjects

We have 47 registered users

The newest registered user is Cyurus


    Can of Worms

    Share
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:39

    I find it is an interesting combination of Story First, AND brutal "let the dice fall where they may". Unknown Armies is the type of game where you can be facing down some nervous twitchy dude with a gun sometime in the first hour of play, you spook him, gun goes off, fluke chance causes the bullet to exit through the back of your cranium, leaving you dead and with your buddies with a corpse and a now-panicking hobo to deal with. It is sort of still Story First, but in that "Fucking weird random shit happens and then people die cause sometimes that's how it happens" is very much the type of story Unknown Armies tries to tell.

    What, you say, you don't want your character to die due to a random gunshot? THEN DON'T FUCKING HANG AROUND PEOPLE WITH GUNS. It is sort of a game where "But it wouldn't be dramatic for my character to die/be maimed/go freaking insane here!" is answered with "Well then, maybe you should do something safer and bow out of this whole crazy occult conspiracy business. Or you could (WO)MAN UP, GROW A PAIR, AND ROLL 'DEM BONES!"
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:41

    Yeah. Y'all would TOTALLY hate it.

    avatar
    Shamus

    Number of posts : 141
    Age : 39
    Location : Regina
    Registration date : 2009-07-27

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Shamus on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:43

    You are just trying to hog all the UA for yourself. I call shenanigans.
    avatar
    Tara

    Number of posts : 14
    Registration date : 2009-07-30

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Tara on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:53

    Yeah, in order to enjoy UA you have to be at peace with the fact that one jerkass with a gun (who doesn't even know how to use it very well) could brain your character all over the sidewalk in one round. The game is freaking LETHAL.

    And if you want a dramatically appropriate death, you basically gotta stay away from fights that don't mean the world to your character. It is definitely not a "combat happens and everyone flocks just to get some fightin' in" kind of game.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 19:11

    It is honestly a good rule to generalize - if a fight isn't worthy dying over, you shouldn't be freakin' in it.

    And because we're talking about it, I now quote one of my favorite passages from Unknown Armies - this is how the Combat chapter opens:

    Unknown Armies, 2nd Edition wrote:
    Somewhere out there is someone who had loving parents, watched clouds on a summer's day, fell in love, lost a friend, is kind to small animals, and knows how to say "please" and "thank you," and yet somehow the two of you are going to end up in a dirty little room with one knife between you and you are going to have to kill that human being.

    It's a terrible thing. Not just because he's come to the same realization and wants to survive just as much as you do, meaning he's going to try and puncture your internal organs to set off a cascading trauma effect that ends with you voiding your bowels, dying alone and removed from everything you've ever loved. No, it's a terrible thing because somewhere along the way you could have made a different choice. You could have avoided that knife, that room, and maybe even found some kind of common ground between the two of you. Or at least, you might have divvied up some turf and left each other alone. That would've been a lot smarter, wouldn't it? Even dogs are smart enough to do that. Now you're staring into the eyes of a fellow human and in a couple minutes one of you is going to be vomiting to the rhythm of a fading heartbeat. The survivor is going to remember this night for the rest of his or her life.

    Six Ways To Stop A Fight

    So before you make a grab for that knife, you should maybe think about a few things. This moment is frozen in time. You can still make better choices.

    Surrender. Is your pride really worth a human life? Drop your weapon, put up your hands, and tell them you're ready to cut a deal. You walk, and in exchange you give them something they need. Sidestep the current agenda. Offer them something unrelated to your dispute, and negociate to find a solution.

    Disarm. Knife on the table? Throw it out the window. Opponent with a gun? Dodge until he's out of bullets. Deescalate the situation to fists, if possible. You can settle your differences with some brawling and still walk away, plus neither one of you has to face a murder charge or a criminal investigation.

    Rechannel. So you have a conflict. Settle it in a smarter way. Arm wrestle, play cards, have a scavenger hunt, a drinking contest, anything that lets you establish a winner and a loser. Smart gamblers bet nothing they aren't willing to lose. Why put your life on the line?

    Pass the Buck. Is there somebody more powerful then either one of you who is going to be angry that you two are coming to blows? Pretend you're all in the mafia and you can't just kill each other without kicking your dispute upstairs first. Let that symbolic superior make a decision. You both gain clout for not spilling blood.

    Call the Cops. If you've got a grievance against somebody, let the police do your dirty work. File charges. Get a restraining order. Sue him in civil court for wrongful harm. You can beat him down without throwing a punch.

    Run Away. The hell with it. Who needs this kind of heat? Blow town, get a job some place else, build a new power base. Is the world really too small for the both of you? It's a big planet out there.

    Oh well.

    Still determined? Backed into a corner with no way out? Have to fight for the greater good? Up against someone too stupid to know this is a bad idea? Or maybe just itching for some action? So be it. The rest of this chapter contains rules for simulating the murder of human beings. Have fun.
    avatar
    Tyg

    Number of posts : 21
    Registration date : 2009-04-20

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Tyg on Mon 3 May 2010 - 19:40

    me likey
    a lot
    avatar
    Corral

    Number of posts : 359
    Location : Leaving myself behind...
    Registration date : 2008-06-25

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Corral on Mon 3 May 2010 - 22:11

    In my own defense (because I have a feeling Malicia was at least part of the reason this topic got started) I didn't actually have a chance to roleplay this right. I had every intention of starting and not being able to finish, but then we zoomed forward a ways. (Also, Malicia was a pretty detestable person.)

    EDIT: Also, my point about demons has never been that killing demons shouldn't be immoral, but that you could theoretically have a person who manages to do it without being affected. Rarely, perhaps, but theoretically. I don't want to start the discussion again, I just wanted to say that if you think I was one of the people saying that, then I didn't make my point very well because that's not what I was trying to say.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 23:21

    It wasn't you who prompted the post, Laura; it was something that happened to my kids a few weeks ago that has got me thinking about Morality ever since.

    And there's no theoretically about it; an Irredeemable person could kill all the demons s/he wanted to, snack on their genitals, and leave the entrails for the demons' former family members to find on their doorstep, wrapped around the daily paper. I think what gave *me* pause about that discussion was the idea that someone could kill demons *without any repercussions*. Trauma is a repercussion, and Trauma is what causes your Morality to shift. Anyway, point taken. But rest assured, this post really had nothing to do with what happened on Saturday night; it's something I've been thinking about nearly constantly for the past three weeks.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Tue 4 May 2010 - 9:50

    Bal wrote:Hrm, combining with above, it means that Innocent, Typical, Hardened, and Hardcore all take automatic trauma the same way from seeing a Heinous Act. That seems bizarre. It actually means a Hardcore character is far less likely to take trauma from torturing someone than by seeing someone tortured.

    Yes. I find that odd also, and have not been running things that way. I'm not sure if that's what was intended or if that's how it now appears after all the edits, but I really try to take a far more 'common sense' approach to this.

    Bal wrote:There also seems to be a distinction in the text between "Prohibited" and "Cannot be performed willingly" - they sound like two different classifications in the Typical write-up, even if that isn't borne out elsewhere. If that is the case, I have a feeling that for the witnessing thing, what is intended is you take trauma if you witness an act "You cannot perform willingly", instead of just "Probited". That'd mean autotrauma for witnessing Questionable and Heinous for Innocents, and for witnessing Heinous for Typicals.

    I think this may be a throwback/leftover to when you did have to spend Devotion or Zeal or whatever to commit a Prohibited Act. And, to be honest, I do kind of like that idea...if you really want to murder that person and you're Typical, you have to spend Devotion to do it...I like that. But it's not being used, so now it's the after the fact trauma or trauma tests. And the way you describe it is *more or less* how I've been running it, although sometimes I choose a trauma test at a higher difficulty rather than forced trauma.

    Bal wrote:If I were redoing this, I'd use the Acceptable, Prohibited, and Cannot Perform Willingly perhaps, and do it like this:
    Innocent: Acts of Grace Acceptable, Minor Prohibited, everything else Cannot Perform Willingly.
    Typical: Acts of Grace and Minor Acceptable, Questionable Prohibited, Heinous Cannot Perform Willingly.
    Hardened: Acts of Grace, Minor and Questionable Acceptable. Heinous Prohibited. Nothing they cannot perform willingly.
    Hardcore: Minor and Questionable Acceptable. Heinous and Acts of Grace Prohibited, but have easy tests for them. Nothing they cannot perform willingly.
    Irredeemable: Acts of Grace Prohibited. Everything else Acceptable.

    And then I'd say you only have to make challenges for witnessing acts that you Cannot Perform Willingly, and are good if they are just Prohibited. That's how I'd clean it up. Obviously, the section is in need of much clarification.

    That's an excellent suggestion that I shall pass along to the Powers that Be.
    avatar
    Eliel

    Number of posts : 198
    Registration date : 2009-01-16

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Eliel on Fri 7 May 2010 - 21:13



    What happens if a character takes 4 or 5 points of voluntary moral and immoral trauma every month?



    Example: A hardened/hardcore divine who honestly cares about people and constantly performs acts of grace but also frequently tortures sinners for their own good to help them confess their sins.



    Could they just say Ive had multiple breakthroughs this month bounced back and forth between hardened and hardcore and now Im X


    _________________
    Eliel

    He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself". -Thomas Paine, philosopher and writer (1737-1809)
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Sat 8 May 2010 - 9:23

    Eliel wrote:
    What happens if a character takes 4 or 5 points of voluntary moral and immoral trauma every month?
    Example: A hardened/hardcore divine who honestly cares about people and constantly performs acts of grace but also frequently tortures sinners for their own good to help them confess their sins.
    Could they just say Ive had multiple breakthroughs this month bounced back and forth between hardened and hardcore and now Im X

    Nope!

    They'd sit down with Jill and figure out a) why they've chosen the Morality they have; b) why they're doing the things they're doing, and c) what would be more appropriate for them, based on where their character should be on the Morality scale and how much Lingering Trauma the character may have, etc..

    Just for clarity for those folks who aren't as familiar with the system, Hardened characters can perform Acts of Grace without penalty, but depending on the sort of 'torture' they would employ, may be asked to make Trauma tests, according to the situation, and in consultation with the Storyguide. Or, they could voluntarily take Trauma; whether it would be Moral or Immoral would be up to the player and the Storyguide, again, dependent on the situation.

    Conversely, a Hardcore character would have few problems torturing people, but depending on the situation and the kind of torture, may be asked to do trauma tests, or may choose to take voluntary trauma if it's particularly heinous (Immoral Aligned, most likely). If the character, while Hardcore, chose to perform Acts of Grace, she may have to make trauma tests, or she may choose to take trauma for it (Moral Aligned, most likely, although it isn't specified as such for characters other than Irredeemable).

    *ANY* time a character racks up enough Trauma (aligned or otherwise) that they would risk a Breakdown or a Breakthrough, the player should talk to me about it, and we'll work out together the whys, whats, and wherefores.
    avatar
    Cole

    Number of posts : 49
    Registration date : 2010-02-08

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Cole on Mon 10 May 2010 - 0:35

    cenobyte wrote:If the character, while Hardcore, chose to perform Acts of Grace, she may have to make trauma tests, or she may choose to take trauma for it (Moral Aligned, most likely, although it isn't specified as such for characters other than Irredeemable).

    Something that I personally feel very strongly about is that all trauma gained because of the *moral*ity system should either be im*moral* or *moral*. Even if the book doesn't specifically state that it is in every case, I don't think that it is a giant leap to draw that conclusion.
    avatar
    Cole

    Number of posts : 49
    Registration date : 2010-02-08

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Cole on Mon 10 May 2010 - 0:52

    Bal wrote:And then I'd say you only have to make challenges for witnessing acts that you Cannot Perform Willingly, and are good if they are just Prohibited. That's how I'd clean it up. Obviously, the section is in need of much clarification.

    You know, I think that is what it does say. This seems to be the only place where Trent uses the condition of "beyond one's Morality". I read this to equate to "cannot willingly perform" and not "Prohibited". I feel backed up by this in that in his example it talks of a Typical witnessing a Heinous act as a Prohibited Act, but if you look under the description for Typical, Questionable acts are prohibited but Heinous acts cannot be performed willingly.

    I think that in this case -- like others -- there is a problem in giving something a title and then using the word to describe it. Just like you never use a word in its own definition, you should never use a word in the description of the concept so titled -- it leads to confusion between the concept and the normal meaning. I realise that in the example Prohibited Act is capitalized, but I think that once you get used to using Upper Case letters for certain phrases it starts to happen Automatically.

    That's my few cents.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun 18 Feb 2018 - 23:17