More to the point: In a large, somewhat violent city, you CAN pretty much expect to get away with administering a beatdown to someone under many circumstances. Would a dangerous psychopathic mage type go to the cops and file assault charges? Does he even know WHO really did the beatdown. I mean names and the like?  I don't know the parties history with Seaton, but how did they get roped into assualt and kidknapping charges? I know... read the link motherfucker. Got me, I'm lazy.

Unless the police had them in the act, or Seaton is a lot more rational than he should be (obsessive compulsive mage type with serious masochistic issues? Right? And a recent murderer to boot...), the party can get a bye on the assualt stuff. Corrupt cops in a dangerous city wouldn't care unless they were on the spot and bored.  That entire scene should have been a non-issue for the most part.

Quote from: SpikeMore to the point: In a large, somewhat violent city, you CAN pretty much expect to get away with administering a beatdown to someone under many circumstances.

Yes. Unless he's the son of a detective constable in the Armed Offender's Squad. And you knew it.

Quote from: SpikeWould a dangerous psychopathic mage type go to the cops and file assault charges? Does he even know WHO really did the beatdown. I mean names and the like?

He's not psychopathic, but he is dangerous. Will he bring charges? Not likely. He will tell the story to his dad, and his dad will recall the conversation he had just hours ago with the detective in charge of the investigation into the murder of his son's girlfriend. "Hmmm... these people the homicide cop says are accusing my son... they bear a remarkable resemblance to the guys my son says beat him up..."

NPCs talk to each-other, you know?

Quote from: SpikeUnless the police had them in the act, or Seaton is a lot more rational than he should be (obsessive compulsive mage type with serious masochistic issues? Right? And a recent murderer to boot...),

It's true that he's obsessive and disturbed. So he mightn't go running to Daddy, I'll have to think on it. My reasoning is that his obsession is "magick", so he's likely to try that, instead. I mean, that's what an obsession is supposed to be, it's what you always come back to.

Quote from: Spikethe party can get a bye on the assualt stuff. Corrupt cops in a dangerous city wouldn't care unless they were on the spot and bored.  That entire scene should have been a non-issue for the most part.

Except of course, as you could have read in the original post, one of the members of the party is also wanted for causing grevious bodily harm to two police officers. So if they can throw an extra charge at him to give him some more years in the klink, they'll be delighted to.

I get that he's the son of a cop.  No problem with that, and it does make for some complications for the party, no doubt.

Still, assualts are one of those things that are still pretty marginal as far as the police are concerned.  They don't get forensic testing ususally, crooks only get aprehended under the most optimum circumstances, and without even that, trials for them are mostly a joke, even attached to a murder investigation.  Raimundo? Sure, he's meat if the cops catch up to him (I forget if he's on the lam...) especially corrupt cops.

MAYBE Seaton would go 'Dad, these assholes beat me up!"
and dad MIGHT go 'Shit son, let me get my buddies to round up the perps". Maybe.   That leaves this: Does Seaton know who beat him up? I mean, he certainly knows WHY but who?  He saw them, sure. Maybe heard a name (dunno, wasn't there). But I assure you that even a cops son, in the middle of an unexpected asswhoppign and interrogation isn't going to be exactly noting down details to make identification... you know... easy.

'So, four guys..."

"Well, four maybe... and I think one was a girl... yeah, at least one girl. Or crossdresser maybe, she hit pretty hard..."

"So four... or more... guys, and one in a dress, maybe a girl, maybe a cross dresser...what else?"

"Well, they... I think they looked like college kids?"

That sort of thing.

You're forgetting a couple of things.

Erica called the press during the fight with the cops. She's a former minor celebrity, as her player keeps reminding us. So they've been on tv.
   Channel Nine News, Monday: Former Olympic silver medallist swimmer Erica Miller [insert picture of Miller behind newsreader], who three years ago dropped out of competition after a very public nervous breakdown during competition, in which she accused a co-competitor of having cursed her with magic, was today arrested [insert picture of Miller being bundled into a police van] for assaulting a poice officer, and is being questioned in relation to the brutal murder of a young female student at BEU. With her was Gentle Rivers, [insert picture of Gentle behind newsreader] member of the prominent Rivers Organics family, who is also being questioned in relation to these tragic events. During their arrest, a young man of olive complexion assaulted two police officer, escaped custody and is on the run. The two officers are in hospital undergoind surgery, and are understood to be in a serious condition. A fourth man escaped the scene.

Channel Nine News, Tuesday: Former Olympic silver medallist swimmer Erica Miller [insert picture of Miller behind newsreader] has been charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, and released on bail to appear in court to answer these charges in March. Gentle Rivers [insert picture here] was released without charge, but is expected to continue assisting police with their enquiries into the murder of Lucinda James. The man who assaulted  the police officers is still unnamed, and is the fourth man, who apparently escaped with evidence from the crime scene, possibly the murder weapon. Both men are wanted for questioning in relation to the murder.

Channel Nine News, Wednesday: In the Lucinda James murder case, the third man has been named as Brazilian student Raimundo Valentim de Reboucas [insert Raimundo's picture behind newsreader]. He is wanted for assaulting a police officer, escaping police custody, and the police wish to question him in relation to the murder of Lucinda James. He is not believed to be armed, but is believed to be extremely capable and dangerous. Members of the public sighting him are advised not to approach, but to call the Crimestoppers hotline.

So all Edward Seaton has to do is watch the evening news, or read the papers. That's the sort of thing that happens when you call the press and are a former minor celebrity.

I've been lurking here for a little while and this is my first post (I'll go and introduce myself directly after this) here, driven by the fact that UA is one of my favourite games (but I haven't yet played long-term, just a couple of one-shots).

Even though I'm wary of game mechanics that control players, what about the madness meters? Could they give you an out? Even though some of the characters were responding to their rage stimulus, what about a delayed Hardness check?

One thing I would suggest is that during their next downtime, whether it be coffee at a cafe or a few beers at the local, or even a casual police patrol, is to hit them with some type of madness meter check, with the view to using its impact to shift the players focus off the extreme behaviour. May be in in-game option.

For example, if Erica Miller failed a hardness (for the violence) or self check she could get some therapy. A rival journo could hunt up the dirt on her and start publishing the fact that she's had another breakdown and just isn't coping with the ignomity of post-olympic life. Make it a bit of an exagerated Sally Robbins case. Then her journo friend could start publishing the "facts", eg depression, abuse of prescribed sedatives, responding well to therapy etc.

This could muddy the waters enough from a criminal investigation perspective that it diminishes police involvement but now they're on the radar and better not fuck up again.

A second option, would be to fuck them up with sympathetic or coincidental responses. For example, on their next public transport ride (even if it's simply waiting at a bus stop to be picked up by the others) have them run afoul of potential violence. For example, the street becomes locked down when an unattended bag is reported to police and is treated as a potential explosive device. Make them paranoid that the police are gunna pull their faces out of the crowd. Or set up the situation so that the waiting player is sitting next to the unattended bag (it's been there for an hour, a shopkeeper noticed) and the police, trying to be discrete to avoid panic, quietly approach the player. If they spook and run then they get done for being a potential terrorist. Then play the feds off against the locals.

The other thing to remember is that, at least under NSW law, police pretty much have to fully disclose their case to the defendant prior to trial. It may be the same for Victoria, if not, it's still something to play with. Write up the case so they have the book thrown at them. Then have the prosecutors from the Office of Police Integrity take the case (they investigate police corruption). Let the players sweat through a pretrial process before copping a lesser plea (misdemeanor or the like) and community service but now being beholden to someone.

To sum up, I would use the madness meter system to ramp down the escalation of violence and its game implications. Then I'd hit them with a reminder of real life problems but give them an out.

Hope this helps, cheers

Quote from: JimBobOzYou're forgetting a couple of things.


So all Edward Seaton has to do is watch the evening news, or read the papers. That's the sort of thing that happens when you call the press and are a former minor celebrity.

Sure, but obsessive types are not exactly well known for being news junkies.  So maybe he does, maybe he doesn't recognize her during the beat down, you've already pointed out that Erica is the one with the worst position vis a vis the cops, so this is just par for course for her.

Look, this isn't going anywhere. I wasn't at the table, i don't know what really went down. Sure you posted it, but even that is just second hand information.  All I've been trying to say all along is it takes two to tango, and that it's easy to get caught up in how YOU THINK stuff should go down and forget your players might think things should be going down differently.  In a vaguely cinematic game (as you've posted realism 2/cinematic 2 or something like that... making it just as cinematic as realistic) then the cops are a plot device rather than a major threat.  Dodge threats, solve crime, poof! Magically the cop thing resolves itself. That's how movies and books almost always work, regardless of how 'realistic' they present themselves. Maybe your players are working under the same assumption?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI suppose the biggest issue is that most of the players (myself included) are not used to playing in a modern setting. With organised police that have access to forensic technology. Beating up the bad guy is fair game in many campaigns. In a day-to-day, realistic setting, that shit isn't going to fly.

Well, speaking to both JimBob and Tyberious here, what shit flies depends on what you collectively decide flies.  Certainly I've been in various Men-In-Black, James Bond, or secret horrors games set in the modern world where violent tactics are the norm.  So it's up to you.  

To Tyberious -- are you liking the police cat-and-mouse?  It seems to me like it's splitting the party.  Which parts of the adventure so far have you enjoying most?  

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMore importantly though, at key points in the game, one of the players has pushed their own agenda a bit. It's damn hard when one of the players declares "I'm doing XXX", and the rest of the group thinks "What the hell???" There are only so many times when you can tell them to stop and think about their actions.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou can always just leave 'em swinging out in the wind by themselves!

A very realistic reaction would be for the group to split up and go on with their lives, and try to have nothing more to do with the murder.  i.e. Raimundo might skip town, Cadel lay low, and Edwards and Erica sit tight.  Erica maybe gets a good lawyer to argue that if the police are beating your handcuffed friends for insisting on their rights, that puts reasonable doubt on the charge of resisting arresting.  However, obviously this is bad for the adventure.  

I think you could work together to come up with reasons why they shouldn't do that.

Although I'm enjoying the discussion so far, I think the main problem is the thread title. Jimbob has phrased it in such a way, that it seems that the players have fucked up in some way and how does one deal with the aftermath of said actions.

I think the real issue is how do you retain key ideas from the original campaign while still operating within the framework of the pcs actions which were unexpected. I may be wrong. Just my take on this issue.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAlthough I'm enjoying the discussion so far, I think the main problem is the thread title.

Well, if people don't read beyond the thread title before responding to a thread, then their contributions won't be much help anyway.

Quote from: David RJimbob has pharsed it in such a way, that it seems that the players have fucked up in some way and how does one deal with the aftermath of said actions.

The PCs have fucked themselves up, they have not fucked up the campaign. That is, during the sessions everyone was having fun. The crazy shit they were doing was funny, and enjoyable, and everybody loved it. So it's a successful campaign, and their actions made it successful.

But - their actions are taking the campaign to a new place, either prison, or a rather dark and violent place, and I'm not sure this is a place they want to go to. Their actions have narrowed the range of options for their characters. It's in that sense that the PCs have fucked themselves up.

That was the essence of my original post. In the last paragraph, I said,

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat do you do when the PCs really fuck themselves up? Some GMs like to teach their players a lesson, I don't, I like them to have fun. But I like to have fun, too, which means keeping the game world plausible and more or less sane. What do you reckon?

The certainly have fucked themselves up, and yes, how do we deal with the aftermath of their actions without taking it to a place they don't really want to go to?

Quote from: JimBobOzI think the real issue is how do you retain key ideas from the original campaign while still operating within the framework of the pcs actions which were unexpected. I may be wrong. Just my take on this issue.

No, the real issue is "how do we keep all the options open for the PCs, since their actions have closed off many of their options." Remember my GMing philosophy, that the rules, the setting and the GM are there to offer the PCs options and choices. They've shut down some of those options, closed those doors on themselves. I want to open them up again, because the remaining open doors lead to places they don't seem to want to go.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo, the real issue is "how do we keep all the options open for the PCs, since their actions have closed off many of their options." Remember my GMing philosophy, that the rules, the setting and the GM are there to offer the PCs options and choices. They've shut down some of those options, closed those doors on themselves. I want to open them up again, because the remaining open doors lead to places they don't seem to want to go.

Actually I don't think I'm far off. By unexpected I didn't mean not fun and I certainly did not mean ruining the campaign. Furthermore I don't think we are talking about different things, when I said :

Quote...key ideas from the original campaign while still operating within the framework of the pcs actions which were unexpected..

and you said :

 

Quote...They've shut down some of those options, closed those doors on themselves. I want to open them up again, because the remaining open doors lead to places they don't seem to want to go.

I'm sure that the original tone of the campaign has been somewhat compromised by the actions of the pcs and you are asking for comments on how to open doors to get them back on the road they were originally on , and avoid routes they would rather not visit.

The conversation had seemed to drift a bit, focusing on the players actions.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm sure that the original tone of the campaign has been somewhat compromised by the actions of the pcs and you are asking for comments on how to open doors to get them back on the road they were originally on , and avoid routes they would rather not visit.

I don't care about "the original tone" of the thing. I have an idea which gets us started, that changes in play - I'm not going to try to drag things back to the original idea for its own sake. For example, I began Fate of Tiwesdæg expecting something like "high adventure", and it was quite intrigue-filled and political - I didn't then go and force them into fights with monsters to make it more "adventurous". They obviously wanted the intrigue, so I let them have it. But they always had the option to turn that into "adventure" again; none of their intriguing prevented them from just flipping out and killing things. After the flip-out, they could go back to the intrigue if they liked. The campaign's options would remain open for them.

Whereas if in this campaign they start cutting people's throats in back alleys, there's not really any turning back from that.

I don't care about the "original tone" or campaign concept or whatever, I just want them to be able to keep their options open, because some sessions you come and you want intrigue, and other times you want to kill things and take their stuff

Quote from: David RThe conversation had seemed to drift a bit, focusing on the players actions.

I think we've got a few Forger candidates here. "ZOMFG u r judging the players! u r an oppressorz!" So I had to expain that, well, no. I don't judge my players or teach them lessons, I just try to think of what will be interesting, fun and fulfilling, and I try to go with the flow of the group.

It's true what jhkim said, that we together determine the flavour of the campaign. If I as GM weren't laughing so much when they beat up Seaton and tossed him in the skip bin, they mightn't be so inclined to do it. Of course, I was laughing at how awful it was, like you laugh in the gimp scenes in Pulp Fiction, but there you go. But still I was laughing, and that probably encouraged the crazy ideas

So the GM absolutely does have a determining contribution to the play style of the group, more than just a single player's worth; the GM sets up the campaign, and has a strong voice in it. But GMs vary in how strongly they use that voice. I think mine is about equivalent to two active players, which makes two shares out of six in all (four players, two active, two reactive). Other GMs are more or less dominating in their game sessions.

But for me, the real issue is keeping those options open.

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't care about "the original tone" of the thing. I have an idea which gets us started, that changes in play - I'm not going to try to drag things back to the original idea for its own sake. They obviously wanted the intrigue, so I let them have it. But they always had the option to turn that into "adventure" again; none of their intriguing prevented them from just flipping out and killing things. After the flip-out, they could go back to the intrigue if they liked. The campaign's options would remain open for them.

Fair enough.

QuoteBut for me, the real issue is keeping those options open.

Well then the only idea I can thow into the mix, is have the cops investigate a bigger more horrific case that draws their attention away from the pcs predicament. That way, it buys you some time. They (coppers) can wrap up - maybe carelessly their investigation into the pcs - and leave the case hanging. Their still working on it, but they have bigger things to worry about. I'd go with a terrorist threat or something. So, the pcs have a little breathing room.

(Always with the Forgers...)

Regards,
David R

You've got Funk in on the act already. I reckon you should sit down with the group and say: "Guys, I'm a bit nonplussed at last week's game and this is why: Blah blah blah where would you like the game to go from here and what sort of tone are we taking?"

Easiest and best option, if you ask me.

Quote from: jhkimTo Tyberious -- are you liking the police cat-and-mouse?  It seems to me like it's splitting the party.  Which parts of the adventure so far have you enjoying most?  

I have enjoyed the sessions so far, but like JimBob has suggested, the problems occur when players become erratic in their behaviour (and inconsistent with the original campaign style and themes).

When we were arrested by the police, my natural inclination was to surrender and assume that since we were innocent, the charges would ultimately be dropped.  Or, at the very least, we'd make bail.  And whilst on bail, we could try and find the real murder.  I think Raimundo felt the same way, except he was hampered by his rage stimulus.

Why Erica tried to resist arrest, though, I have no idea.  Or why Cadel chose to flee the scene of the crime with the murder weapon.  That's not the sort of thing innocent people do... not in real life.  It's the sort of stuff PCs might do, in a high adventure style game.  But we started out playing a "real world" type of game.

I don't mind taking the game toward "Prison Break".  Four regular people being pushed into the harsh world of a corrupt and violent penal system?  I think that's very suitable for Unknown Armies.  I can see all sorts of checks against "violence", "isolation" and "self".  Add a hint of magick into the game and it could be a really kickarse way to resolve the game.  But as JimBob has pointed out, one of the players is a female and she wont play male characters.  So I'm not sure how that'd work.

I'm thinking we might need to take it in the direction of The Fugitive.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI'm thinking we might need to take it in the direction of The Fugitive.

UA : Fugitives :eek:

That's damn cool.

Regards,
David R