A new type of game - how to fit it in?

[hyphz]

Well, I had the shock of a lifetime last week.  My standard group, normally D&D fiends, went through a playtest of Epic D&D I'd prepared, and then one remarked that he was a little bored of D&D and wanted to do something modern-day (general agreement) so how about that Unknown Armies thing I'd talked about before?

I'm not sure how it'll go, but I'll try it if they will.  General consensus that they will, and they even sound quite keen.  I grab the book for the following week.

"Ok, everyone suggest a trigger event."  The entire group suddenly take on the looks of deer in the headlights.  I read them some of the examples from the book and remind them that they aren't constrained here.  "What bonuses does this give you?"  Asked one.  Ok, no sweat - I expected this sort of thing, so move on to the rest of the generation first.

So, obsessions.  I point out that this *does* indeed give you a bonus.  "COMBAT!" comes the roar of the crowd.  I sigh a little and point out that this isn't quite that kind of game, and although I will make it actiony it won't just be that.  Several of them simmered down at this point, and started trying to think.  Then the original player (the one who suggested UA, and the one who cried COMBAT loudest) pointed to me and said "Gadgets?".  "Fantastic," I said.  

But the others still struggled... until suddenly they got a great idea.  Pick characters they knew from films and TV.  So we now have a group containing: The Punisher, Mr. T off the A-Team, The Equalizer, and "a hacker" (who, while being more original, is seriously generic: Fear - imprisonment, Rage - large corporations, etc..)

Now, still, I somewhat expected this sort of thing.  And the odd thing is that these guys can actually role-play when they need to - I just figure they're so heavily used to combat gamist games that they're using that in making their UA characters.

I then ask for a group type and trigger again, and get back "We're a group of mercenaries who have started to think that our clients aren't quite as defenceless as we thought."

Jackpot.  Plan hits my head in a second, and a little refinement later I get it down.  Rich gambler hires these PCs to defend his mansion, as he's had threats from a group he believes to be armed and dangerous.  Tells PCs to get into place and not allow others in.  A moment later, group of guys holding guns, and stocking masked, jump out of a jeep and charge in.

Of course it's not that simple.  The guy who hired them is an entropomancer, and is also scum.  The group he thought was attacking him were the Sleepers, who just found out how he got his money.  (They're not armed, but he didn't know that.)  But he didn't hire the PCs to defend against them, and the guys in the masks aren't the Sleepers - they are the man who hired them and a bunch of people who think he's generously let him use his mansion for a corporate team-building weekend.  The guns are fake.  He figures, as long as HE lives, he gets a major charge (via putting himself and others at risk of their lives), with which he can put the Sleepers (and the cops) off the scent forever by coincidence.  (If it's useful, I might rule that one of the people in the group really *is* a Sleeper agent.)

Now, does this seem like a reasonable scenario?  Am I being unfair by putting the characters in a situation where things will probably lead to them unknowingly attacking innocents near the start?  Is it fair to assume that the weirdness of the situation will prompt them to start investigating what was going on?  Any, general suggestions for how to show them that it can be worth doing things other than fighting?

(One of the players remarked that "Well, fighting and doing magic are the only things we can't do in real life that we do in RPGing, so we'll concentrate on doing them - I can TALK in real life, right?"  A subtle theme for him is "Not about this, you can't..." but I'm not sure..)

[contracycle]

I think "tricked into slaughtering innocents" can massively challenge a players character conception.  But it might work if you get an opportunity for the person who set this up to tell them he thought their souls were so tarnished already a little more innocent blood wouldn't matter - that at least would give them someone to transpose responsibility too.

[hyphz]

I think "tricked into slaughtering innocents" can massively challenge a players character conception.  But it might work if you get an opportunity for the person who set this up to tell them he thought their souls were so tarnished already a little more innocent blood wouldn't matter - that at least would give them someone to transpose responsibility too.

Well, as soon as anyone actually gets hit, all the 'unknowing' guys will flee in disarrayed shock (nothing like a true attack team would do even if they were retreating - which should give the PCs a strong clue).  If they only hit one guy, I can easily fudge that it was the Entropomancer (who, as they'll find out, was an "evil" guy they could justify killing; but they'll know that they *nearly* hit innocents).  If they fire on the fleeing people, then well... welcome to responsibility.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey hyphz,

In my experience, Unknown Armies is a great game for a fairly structured, GM-driven "it all goes to hell in a handbasket" scenarios. In other words, if characters are made up with relationships to one another and to NPCs, and if there are some irreconcilable differences involved, then actual play concerns the final 25% of a showdown plot.

Almost all the published UA scenarios are like this, and reports from con play are similar. The game rewards pretty freaked-out, over-the-edge character play, so I recommend getting enthusiastic about letting it hit the fan. The players will figure it out, although they might try to stay "safe and strategic" for a while.

Best,
Ron