Quote from: O'BorgI'm not a UA player, but it sounds to me that the characters arent the type whod be up to organising and carrying out a jailbreak if one of their number got caught.

That's very possibly true, but as others have said, you never know, players can surprise you with awesome plans.

Also, a campaign set in prison would not really be too much of a stretch for Unknown Armies. You've got all your essential elements there - fucked up people, addicts, violent people, lots of people who just took a wrong turn one day and got hit with a harsh sentence... I mean, the old narco-alchemist's work would not be at all hindered by time behind bars, he could still be cooking up his "magick"!

Quote from: TonyLBWhat sort of stuff would you and the players like their characters to be involved in?

The theme of it is meant to be "learning things you'd rather not know." This can be things about the criminal underworld, things about the occult underworld, or things about yourself. That's why they begin as "urban explorers" - they're curious about the dark places everyone else has forgotten or never knew about.

Prison would be a very natural development of that. I just didn't expect the possibility to come up so quickly!

As I said, only one of the players would, I think, look ill on the idea.

Sounds like you want to run it to me, so why not? A prison game could be really cool.

Quote from: droogSounds like you want to run it to me, so why not? A prison game could be really cool.

Well, you know how I am, if I think of (almost) any campaign setting for more than ten minutes I get keen on it. But then, I might just be conning myself so I can avoid having to tear up all their character sheets - we've only had two sessions!

Most of their crimes are related to vigilantiism, if the police covertly approve of vigilante activities much of that might be quietly ignored.

What would not be ignored though is the assaults on police officers, those would be taken pretty seriously.

Raimundo I think is over, GBH of a police officer means serious jail time, the rest though even in the real world might escape serious penalty if the local police were sympathetic.

Quote from: BalbinusRaimundo I think is over, GBH of a police officer means serious jail time, the rest though even in the real world might escape serious penalty if the local police were sympathetic.

Yeah, I thought of that. Problem is, the PCs fucked with the evidence. They'd found the murder weapon, Seaton's father's Glock (Seaton had swiped it off his dad, his journal said), naturally they picked it up, and only after that did they find Lucinda's bloodied remains.

Two of them handled the thing, so though the killer's prints were on it, so were theirs. That's why they took it away when two of them fled the cops, and why later when they turned it in they... wiped it down with Windex. Of course Windex won't destroy DNA. The pattern of the prints would have shown who'd fired it; the smudges of DNA will only show who's handled it. So by wiping down the prints, they actually incriminate themselves as much as Seaton. They also add something to the chances of "reasonable doubt" in the case, depending on how Seaton frames his case; he may accuse them of the murder. Remember that Seaton's father is a detective in the Armed Offender's Squad, so he'll get a halfway competent solicitor and barrister. So, you know, closing argument:

   "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the evidence has shown that my client is a disturbed young man, but not one capable of murder. His four accusers, on the other hand, have resisted arrest, assaulted police, robbed my client's home, removed and tampered with evidence from the scene of Ms James' death, and after being told by Detective Senior Sergeant Martin to leave my client alone, followed him in the street, kidnapped him, beat him viciously, and then, in a show of utter callous disregard for human life and dignity, threw his unconscious body into a rubbish bin. Are these the actions of honest citizens?  Are we to take their word against the son of a serving police officer?"

So the police may approve of vigilantism in general, but in the specific case where the PCs fuck up the case against the main perpertrator, I imagine they become less than thrilled.

I offered them every chance to do web research... they could have learned all about this kind of evidence and how to avoid incriminating themselves...

I don't see how the police could overlook this stuff. I guess that leaves us with either Unknown Armies: Oz, or else something spooky and "magickal"...

Did anyone read the full accounts of it all? Maybe there's something I'm missing.

If you really want to get them off, you can have Seaton hit by a bus (now that'll make them think). What do you think is going to work best for you and them?

In the movies that level of crimological exactitude rarely applies, realistic as it is.  It seems to me the issue is that the players expected movie level realism, whereas they have fairly accurate realism instead.

Could there be an expectations mismatch?  I have read the whole thing, played straight as it would in the real world and it's campaign over to be honest.

Quote from: droogIf you really want to get them off, you can have Seaton hit by a bus (now that'll make them think). What do you think is going to work best for you and them?

He almost got hit by a car (onto the road was the only place to run), but instead they grabbed him to pat him down and see if he really was Seaton, and then to beat him up and interrogate him.

I've no idea what'll work best. The vicious thug in me says, "put them in prison together with Eddie."

Quote from: BalbinusIn the movies that level of crimological exactitude rarely applies, realistic as it is.  It seems to me the issue is that the players expected movie level realism, whereas they have fairly accurate realism instead.

Could there be an expectations mismatch?  

Well.... the campaign description said, under "Game Style",
   Cinematic (2 parts), Realistic (2 parts) – you're real as people, but the things you encounter will sometimes be unreal.
Hack (1 part), Thesp (3 parts) – power has consequences. You can beat a guy to death with a spanner and steel-capped boots, but that shit is going to stay with you.
Schtick (1 part), Drama (3 parts) – the world's a scary place.
I honestly don't think there was a mismatch, I just think they got carried away by the momentum of the events. It's also just part of the structure of rpg sessions, the GM says something, the players respond with their actions. That encourages players to think of things to do, even if those things are crazy.  

Quote from: BalbinusI have read the whole thing, played straight as it would in the real world and it's campaign over to be honest.

Well... I made the game world center about a fictional city, the Aussie capital but on the coast, and gave it a Washington, DC, or Jo'burg level of crime, 300 murders annually for 650,000 people, with corresponding amount of assaults, rapes, drug offences, etc. The idea was to create enough noise so that the occasional scream of agony created by PCs would go unheard. I just didn't think they'd go this far.

Also, one of the players created a character who was a minor celebrity, a former silver Olympic medal swimmer. When the cops got nasty, she called the press - the idea being that the media attention would make them nicer. It worked, but the flipside to it was that it created more pressure on the cops to get a result. Absent the press, Lucinda James could be just another murdered girl, "that's life in the big city, kid." But the PC raised the stakes by bringing in the press. The second session, after having said that once she was on bail, the press would only make things worse, I tried to quietly let that aspect drop, but the player insisted, "what about my journalist friend? We could send him the evidence! At least I'll call him," etc.

So I've been trying to make enough smoke to let them hide, but they keep charging out!

I'm not keen on the idea of "campaign over." I've experienced it myself a number of times, the players take it somewhere the GM didn't expect to go, and it's, "you fucked up! campaign over!" It's like the GM's disciplining unruly children or something. That ain't my style. My players are adults and deserve to be respected as such. That means that if they fucked up, they have to roleplay it to the bitter end!  

Or at least, you know, to more than two sessions...

Glancing at the campaign website, I noticed you were promising something with the flavour of the X-Files, Twilight Zone and the Sopranos.

The X-Files option (have the Conspiracy help the players off, in return for favours) has already been suggested, but how about going the Sopranos route? Maybe there's some very devout dons who don't like supernatural bullshit happening on their turf, and think what happened to Seaton was entirely admirable and worthy? The players might find themselves defended in court by high-powered lawyers brought in by an "anonymous benefactor", who - after they are found innocent - sends a limo to pick them up from the court house because he wants to give them an offer they can't refuse.

EDIT TO ADD: Maybe in the course of recruiting them the don could explain the concept of "lying low" and "smokescreens". The "tiger in the middle of the room" analogy in the main rulebook is a really good piece on why getting the public's attention is a poor idea - perhaps you should acquaint the players with it.

That's a good idea, Warthur.

Of course the other point is Eddie Seaton's Obsession - his "magick." It's his obsession - is he going to leave the resolution of things to the legal system, or is he going to come out blasting?

Of course, that could be even crueller than prison...

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's a good idea, Warthur.

Of course the other point is Eddie Seaton's Obsession - his "magick." It's his obsession - is he going to leave the resolution of things to the legal system, or is he going to come out blasting?

Having Seaton flip his lid over this might actually be very helpful to the PCs, even if it means someone is coming at them guns blazing. If Seaton decides to complain to his father, but - because he's mad as hell and isn't going to take any more - his complaint is rambling, shouty, a little bit crazy and lets slip a little too much, Seaton Senior may decide that there's a lot more going on than meets the eye. In that case, it'd be reasonable for Seaton Senior to track down the PCs and try to have an honest, off-the-record talk with them, and might even become an ally of theirs if he decides that his kid has gone off the rails.

On the other hand, if the players would honestly prefer a game with more casual violence (remember, they're expecting a "Sopranos" atmosphere!) this doesn't solve the long-term problem.

My advice: be honest with the players that you weren't expecting such an extreme level of violence and criminality from the PCs. Ask them whether they want to back away from the precipice or continue their lawbreaking ways. In the former case, make sure that whatever the PCs do, Seaton comes back at them with something vastly more illegal and inappropriate, so that in the final tally the police are more pissed off at Seaton than the PCs. In the latter, throw the book at them, have the mob lawyers shoot the case down in flames, and introduce them to a friendly Don who can help them out in return for their help taking down other supernatural nuisances...

(Edited to make the last paragraph more clear.)

If you want to be explorers of the lost nooks and crannies, you could also transition into a Stern Chase scenario:  Abandon the idea that you're going to base the campaign around a city, and instead have them get the hell out of dodge before the consequences of their actions catch up with them.  Then you can introduce a new Adventure Town each session, have them discover and explore the wierd magic creepiness going on in it, and then force them to move on by the threat of police pursuit.

Quote from: WarthurOn the other hand, if the players would honestly prefer a game with more casual violence (remember, they're expecting a "Sopranos" atmosphere!) this doesn't solve the long-term problem.

I expected violence, I just expected them to be more subtle about it.

Like, they go to his place, and before they've laid a hand on him, he calls his father - a cop. They flee, see the cop car pull up, the cops talk to the kid, then leave. Later, they talk to the cop in charge of the investigation and send him the evidence. He confirms that Seaton's dad is a detective in the Armed Offender's Squad, and tells them to go home and do nothing. So far, so good.

But after that they went and grabbed Seaton, dragged him into a muddy alley behind a skip bin, beat him up - remember at this point they still weren't sure if he was the killer, they had only circumstantial evidence (he had stolen a pistol from his dad, same model as the murder weapon, the victim was his girlfriend, they were both into self-harming) - get a confession, then toss him in the skip bin.

In the Sopranos, they don't usually beat up the sons of cops in muddy alleys just yards from a main street with people coming to work. They pick victims less likely to squeal, and do it in quiet places with no-one around. You know, they think ahead and stuff

TonyLB's idea is also a good one. Australia is full of tired old little towns in the bush and the desert!

Quote from: JimBobOzI expected violence, I just expected them to be more subtle about it.

Okay, this - and your point about people's ideas running away with them in game sessions - makes me want to suggest a few other things:

- Level with your players. "Guys, seriously, I don't mind that you're beating on this guy but you should try to be a bit more subtle about it. I've done my best to make sure you have freedom of action but I'm not going to wreck the internal consistency of the gameworld just to keep your PCs out of jail - really, if you don't meet me halfway on this there's going to be headaches for your characters in the near future."

- Add a "confirmation step" to your GMing procedure. When you're mucking about on your computer, you normally get a warning before you do something irreversible, and you'd be damned annoyed if you didn't. Work from the same principle in the game: when people declare violent, unsubtle actions, don't immediately narrate what happens/ask for a dice roll. Don't use negative language like "Are you sure you want to do that?", just throw their plan back at them and make sure you highlight the consequences. "Okay, so you're going to grab this guy in the middle of a crowded street, push him onto the sidewalk and shoot him twice in the gut in broad daylight, with all these people watching. Have I got that right?" Give people time to think, and be forgiving about allowing "takebacks" if the action in question would have been disruptive if it had gone ahead.

- Make sure people understand the consequences of their actions. The player who thought of getting the media involved probably didn't think there'd be any negative consequences - that journalist was her friend, after all! Again, don't be overly negative in your language, but saying something like "You're aware that getting the media involved will put more pressure on the police to crack the case, right?" at least makes sure the players understand what the stakes are. (I think it is entirely possible that you and the player in question don't see eye-to-eye on how the media involvement would have panned out. Saying "this gameworld runs according to my assumptions about the real world, and isn't meant to be 100% realistic or something which is up for debate" is cool, so long as you make sure the players know what your assumptions are at every juncture.)