Main Menu

News:

If you are having problems registering, please e-mail theconclaveforum at gmail.com

Ideas for a 'balanced' event...

Started by Kaled, March 27, 2012, 11:04:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bloodpact

Having had a bit of a ponder, and read through the previous posts, i do like the 'influence' style rules. I think there is the potential for a storyline which runs through several events (similar to the GW Studios Karis Cephalon campaign, with some regular major players and others coming in and out as and when. The idea of an over-arching authority judging the players and meting out rewards and punishments which affect future games in the story seems a good measure of control. A character with an aggressive streak and an impressive arsenal of weapons might find themselves assigned to a dangerous mission suited to their combat skills, whereas a cunning and manipulative character might find themselves assigned to an area of investigation that requires a more careful touch. Obviously things wont be quite perfect as the manipulator may be required to fight out of a trap, or the Fighty character may be required to solve a puzzle or riddle. And some characters will have missions which arent necessarily suited to their particular skills, but hey, the 41st Millennium is not a forgiving place!

A storyline such as this would require a collaborative effort in terms of writing and GMing, but with the potential to span several 'claves, i think it could be very rewarding, as well as leading to the same 'Kessel vs Lichtenstein' character devolpment, storylines, rivalries and allegiances which made the White Dwarf battle reports so enthralling.

Is this a good idea, or am i aiming too high?
Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

MarcoSkoll

QuoteI think there is the potential for a storyline which runs through several events
We get that somewhat with Carthax, but I think there is a problem in tying everything into this in that that many, if not most, of us have more models than we get games to play them in.

While Myriad, Holiad and Cortez like to use the same characters frequently, there are those of us who want to bring along something new every time, which isn't all the most conducive to a sustained storyline. Players also tend to want to play with as many people as possible at events (which we should be much more efficient at now we've got play sheet solutions that stop players meeting twice), so... um.

I think in six 'Clave events and twenty five 'Clave games, I've only had a set of my characters come up against the same opponents more than once on four occasions, of which three were repeats on the same day. (The only time it was at different events was when Inquisitor Skoll and Inquisitor Goddard's agents met at both Spring '10 and IGT '11). It's often nice when it happens, but that's not often.

While a cool idea, I'm not sure it's sustainable alongside people's urges to make and use new toys and also get to play against other people's new toys. I think if you want to see a Kessel/Lichtenstein/Tyrus story again, it'll only happen within a regular group or if if three or four people gatecrash WHW (perhaps for a full weekend) and knock out some game reports for Dark Magenta.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Kaled

I've been thinking some more about an 'influence' based event and am trying to combine it with my thoughts for a kind of team event in which players are randomly assigned to a 'faction' on the day of the event and as a group they have to allocate players to games - so the 'faction' might allocate the player with the most combat-oriented warband to a scenario that sounds like it'll be won by force of arms, and the player with the sneaky assassin to a scenario that sounds like it will require stealth. Of course, the amount of information that the 'faction' are given will be limited, so for example the sneaky assassin may well have walked into an ambush and need to fight his way out.

As well as their faction, warband will also have an 'alignment' such as Imperial-Inquisition, Imperial-AdMech, Heretic-Chaos etc. A player who openly initiates Imperial on Imperial combat will lose influence, but not as much as one who initiates AdMech-on-AdMech combat, but an Imperial-Inquisition warband will obviously not be penalised if he starts a fight with a Heretic-Chaos warband.

'Influence' will also be gained through achieving objectives in each scenario.

The most influential characters would eventually to compete for the main objective in the final game and the rest of their faction would be competing for minor objectives on other tables.

Obviously the idea requires more thought, but I think there's the basis of a good event in there...
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Bloodpact

I have written an event (due to a very slow day at work).
This is the first part of the pack, which covers some ideas for an 'influence' style system. Constructive feedback would be very much appreciated:

Quote
The setting
Several Inquisitorial warbands has gone missing whilst investigating unexplained seismic events on the small industrial planet of Tchar. The planet lies close to the Maelstrom Zone and its main tithe is psycho-reactive crystals, used in as amplifiers aboard ships for the psychic abilities of its navigators. Tchar's surface is dominated by nitrogen oceans and the population is confined to 3 large cities which dominate the largest landmasses. The seismic events affecting the planet have been driving the usually passive local fauna to the surface, and there have been reports of damage to structures and attacks on civilians by swarms of burrowing creatures. Several warbands have been drafted in by Lord Inquisitor Marcus Barontin to investigate the phenomenon. At the same time, a number of known criminals, xenos and malcontents have been sighted in the system, apparently disrupting any investigation by the planetary authorities.
The day will consist of 3 games contested by 2 factions (Pro-Imperial interests and Anti-imperial interests). Each faction will have a Faction Leader, who will allocate players to the 4 available areas of investigation, based on their strengths.

Renown Score
Players will be awarded 'Renown points' at the end of each scenario by the GM, based on playing in character, achieving objectives, and co-operation with team-mates. This influence can be used to unlock extra information or equipment to help them in their next mission. Should a player behave out of character, be unreasonably aggressive, or hamper their factions efforts to achieve their objectives, this may result in negative renown points being applied. If at the end of the scenario a warband has a negative Renown Score, they will receive penalties or disadvantages in their next scenario.
Players start each scenario with a renown score of 0, and their actions within the scenario will either add or subtract from this score. A score of below 0 at the end of a game will result in the displeasure of your commander and penalties being applied.
In the final round of games, the renown points earned in each game by each side will be totaled up, and this total will be turned into 'Karma' points which can be allocated to your faction. These Karma points will take the form of positive modifiers which can be used on any d100 roll. They may be split up between missions as needed by the Faction Leader before the final round, but do not need to be allocated to specific players.
For example:-
The imperial faction has a total of 100 renown before the final game, and the Faction Leader chooses to allocate them equally between the final 2 scenarios. In turn 3 of the game on the main table, Player one has to make a particularly tricky shot, and after conferring with his team-mates decides to use 15 of the 50 Karma points to give himself a +15% modifier on the shot. This leaves 35 Karma points for the remainder of the game.
Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

Kaled

Quote from: Bloodpact on April 03, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
Several Inquisitorial warbands has gone missing whilst investigating unexplained seismic events on the small industrial planet of Tchar. The planet lies close to the Maelstrom Zone...
I like the background you wrote, however I'd move it to the Carthax sector just because so many of us have our characters there and it's easier than explaining why all our characters have found themselves somewhere else.

QuoteThe day will consist of 3 games
In the past we've always done 4 (or, on at least one occasion, 5) games over the course of the day.  I assume you'll GM all day and then look for other participants to volunteer to GM one game and play two games.  Personally I prefer playing to GMing, and GMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three - if other people feel the same you may struggle to find volunteers.  It also gives more time to events to take their course, for players to get involved in what is happening, to build up their resources etc.  Having just two games of resource building (in this case, gaining renown) before the finale doesn't seem like enough.  Three games in a day seems better for the informal event idea where players are focusing on their characters rather than taking part in an over-arching story.

Quotecontested by 2 factions
I was thinking of doing three factions - that way if each faction puts one player on each table, plus a GM, you have tables of four (with the odd table of three).  That seems an efficient use of the people we have, maximising the amount of playing time everyone gets and meaning less people have to GM each round.  If you have two factions, but tables with three players and a GM then you'll always have 2 vs 1.  I'm not against being outnumbered occasionally, but I'm not sure it'd work well for every game in a day.

Quote(Pro-Imperial interests and Anti-imperial interests).
I'd thought of slightly less defined factions that I can randomly assign people to and they can figure out their own motivations.  With your example, if I turn up with Inquisitor Kaled I'd want to be on the Pro-Imperial side.  If three-quarters of people have characters that would feel the same way then you'll have to force some to switch to keep things even which will mean their characters having to act out of character.  The less defined the factions the more scope to figure out why your characters are on a particular side without it seeming out of character.

QuoteEach faction will have a Faction Leader, who will allocate players to the 4 available areas of investigation, based on their strengths.
Would this scale, so if there were nine players you could have just three areas of investigation and so on?  How would you allocate faction leaders?

QuoteThis influence can be used to unlock extra information or equipment to help them in their next mission.
What sorts of things were you thinking of?

QuoteShould a player behave out of character, be unreasonably aggressive, or hamper their factions efforts to achieve their objectives, this may result in negative renown points being applied. If at the end of the scenario a warband has a negative Renown Score, they will receive penalties or disadvantages in their next scenario.
How would you define these things?  What is 'unreasonably aggressive'?  Would it vary depending on the character?  How would you know what was out of character?

QuoteA score of below 0 at the end of a game will result in the displeasure of your commander and penalties being applied.
What sort of penalties?

To sum up, I think it's workable (after all, I was thinking of something along similar lines), but I don't understand some of the rationale or how some things will work (like the bonus/penalty system.  Hope what I've written is useful anyway...

- Dave
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

MarcoSkoll

#35
Quote from: Kaled on April 03, 2012, 08:53:53 PMGMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three
Yeah. I'd also add the point that relates to both of your points here, in that if there's only two intro games, if you GM one of those, you've only got half a chance to place for the finale. This may actually be more likely to encourage "desperate measures" in the one game they do get, and those "desperate measures" may be exactly the kind of thing we want to avoid.

While a three game day sounds good for something like Karandras' event, because in that case the extra time to run "that scenario" (whatever "that scenario" might be for any given GM) would be worth losing out on a game, I don't think it'd be so great when the GMs have to just run whatever part of the plot it is that needs to be run.

As for the scoring system... I'm not sure. I think I have to hear more as to how many points players were expected to accumulate, and I'm not really sure how useful bonuses totalling to a few dozen points overall might prove to be in the finale. I'd be more inclined to have the renown translate into something a bit more gutsy, like Dark Heresy's "Fate Points" (obviously not on a 1:1 basis though!)

Bonuses of only a few points aren't going to do much to affect a game, and it wouldn't be easy to agree on exactly how many of the team's points could be spent - but negotiating with the others to spend one of the "fate points" you have would probably be easier.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Kaled

Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 04, 2012, 02:42:20 AM
it wouldn't be easy to agree on exactly how many of the team's points could be spent - but negotiating with the others to spend one of the "fate points" you have would probably be easier.
My other concern here would be the time taken to negotiate how many points to spend - it'd be kind of frustrating if my opponents wander off for five minutes to decide how many points to add to a dice roll (especially if they then roll an auto-pass/fail).

Also, how were you planning to decide who plays on the main table? At first I'd assumed there wasn't really a main one, but looking back I see that there is. Just having the leader who was allocated at the start of the day play on there doesn't seem fair on everyone else. In my outline I was thinking that the the player in each faction who had the most influence would play on the main table and would become leader of the faction and allocate the other members of his faction to side tables. That way in the first three games there's also competition within factions to become the leader and so get to play in the main table, as well as cooperation to ensure the faction as a whole wins.
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Bloodpact

Quote from: Kaled on April 03, 2012, 08:53:53 PM

QuoteI like the background you wrote, however I'd move it to the Carthax sector just because so many of us have our characters there and it's easier than explaining why all our characters have found themselves somewhere else.

Easily done

QuoteIn the past we've always done 4 (or, on at least one occasion, 5) games over the course of the day.  I assume you'll GM all day and then look for other participants to volunteer to GM one game and play two games.  Personally I prefer playing to GMing, and GMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three - if other people feel the same you may struggle to find volunteers.  It also gives more time to events to take their course, for players to get involved in what is happening, to build up their resources etc.  Having just two games of resource building (in this case, gaining renown) before the finale doesn't seem like enough.  Three games in a day seems better for the informal event idea where players are focusing on their characters rather than taking part in an over-arching story.

I'll have a rewrite today, sort out the mechanics of it.


QuoteI was thinking of doing three factions - that way if each faction puts one player on each table, plus a GM, you have tables of four (with the odd table of three).  That seems an efficient use of the people we have, maximising the amount of playing time everyone gets and meaning less people have to GM each round.  If you have two factions, but tables with three players and a GM then you'll always have 2 vs 1.  I'm not against being outnumbered occasionally, but I'm not sure it'd work well for every game in a day.

Same as above, i'll have a wriggle on it


QuoteI'd thought of slightly less defined factions that I can randomly assign people to and they can figure out their own motivations.  With your example, if I turn up with Inquisitor Kaled I'd want to be on the Pro-Imperial side.  If three-quarters of people have characters that would feel the same way then you'll have to force some to switch to keep things even which will mean their characters having to act out of character.  The less defined the factions the more scope to figure out why your characters are on a particular side without it seeming out of character.

The original plan was to put up a sign-up form post on here, so people could declare for particular factions in advance, but again, i'll see if i can wriggle in a 3rd faction.


QuoteWould this scale, so if there were nine players you could have just three areas of investigation and so on?  How would you allocate faction leaders?

4 was a 'worst case scenario', assuming a large number of players. 3 is easily done, by dropping one out each round.


QuoteWhat sorts of things were you thinking of?

For the renown store, i had intended that once a player reaches a certain total of renown (through doing heroic acts, achieving objectives successfully etc), their faction leader would pick from this (currently WIP) chart-

Positive Renown Store-
Superior Ammunition: Your leader has made his own personal store of ammunition available to your warband for this mission. All ranged shots have a +5% to hit modifier.

Blessing: Your Leader allows his personal confessor to bless your warband for the coming mission. Your warband gains the 'plain dumb luck' ability for this game.

Satellite imaging: Aerial reconnaissance has given your warband a much better idea of the terrain for this area. The warband gains an appropriate amount of environmental equipment for the scenario as decided by the GM. This could include respirators, ropes and climbing equipment, or anything else etc


QuoteHow would you define these things?  What is 'unreasonably aggressive'?  Would it vary depending on the character?  How would you know what was out of character?

This is very much the GM's territory, but as a guideline i would say any action that cannot be reasonably justified. In the past i have seen a game where a character in a commanding shooting position with a powerful ranged weapon opened fire on a verbal negotiation between 2 other players based on the justification that one of them "looks like they deal with daemons", and the other because the character shooting also "didnt like techpriests". There hadnt been any other shooting yet in the game, and the purpose of the scenario was for the leaders to meet and negotiate. The shooters leader hung back from the meeting point, then got one of his party to hose down the other leaders while they were stood in the open next to each other.


QuoteWhat sort of penalties?
For the penalties, again, a WIP list, chosen by opposing faction leader-
Negative renown penalties –
Inferior ammunition: All the best ammunition available has been allocated to other warbands first . All shots made by your warband with ranged weapons suffer -10% to hit penalty for this game

Disruptive Psy-storm: Tchar's famous psychic storms cause even non-psykers to suffer headaches. For the psychically sensitive, these can cause crippling migraines. Psychic tests will incur a further -30% on top of other modifiers.

Sleepless night: The raucous cawing of spire-ravens during the night has left your warband suffering from severe lack of sleep. Mental characteristic tests are at an additional -10%

Software glitch: A fragment of malicious scrapcode has infected some of your equipment. Roll a d6 every time you want to use a gunsight, auspex or any other piece of equipment owned by the warband which might be affected. On a 4+ the item works normally. On a 1-3, the item may not be used this turn and the action is lost while the character bashes the item with their hand and swears colourfully.

(the psy-storm still need a bit of working out so it doesnt sound like i should affect the whole table, rather than 1 warband...)

Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

Bloodpact

Ok, the main table issue, was down to bad wording. My intention for the final game was to have 2 larger scenarios, both of which are equally important, are designed to run simultaneously in terms of the story, and will affect each other, depending on certain actions occurring.
Its very much a case of the leader assigning players based on strengths, rather than merit or influence. A good leader isnt going to send his best mate into a frontal assault if thats not his area of expertise, no matter how chummy they are.

As for how to decide who is the leader, its very much a ceremonial position, designed to give myself a point of contact within each faction. It doesnt confer any bonuses or penalties to that player, its simply and organisational device. We're all big boys, it shouldnt be too hard for somebody to volunteer, and the other players from that faction agreeing or volunteering themselves.

As for the renown points, its a case that it should be acheivable for each player, if playing in the right spirit, and successfully completing objectives to total around 30-40, with the average being around 15-20. This means most players (if you divide it exactly equally should be able to get a total of +20% bonus to use how they wish within the game. It still needs fully fleshing, but i think it has potential to encourage fair, but also adventurous and daring play, as well as trying to get people to do heroic things, rather than play it safe.
In terms of players taking a long time to decide how much bonus to use, again, this is something the GM for that game should have total control over. 30 seconds maximum i would say, but even that is a long time to decide. Each player, if paying attention, should know how important that action is, and whether is is worth using some of their 'Karma' bonus on.



Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

Kaled

Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
This is very much the GM's territory, but as a guideline i would say any action that cannot be reasonably justified.
The problem, as we often see with people justifying their characters stats, is that what one person considers fully justified another might not consider to be justified at all. That was why I added the alignment. If a player considers his character to be a member of the Inquisition he shouldn't be attacking other Inquisitors - they'd both have the same alignment so would lose influence. So there'd be some rules for situations when characters would lose influence rather than it being totally up to the GM. That way players know the stakes and could decide to attack anyway, reasoning that the potential gain is worth the loss of influence. I wouldn't want to make the system too complex, and the GM could always make other rulings if something unexpected crops up, but I think some rules are a good idea to ensure some consistency across the whole event and between different GMs.

Anyway, it seems like you have some good ideas - a possible Autumn Conclave?
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

Bloodpact

Yeah, Autumn sounds good.

I've had a bit of a rewrite today to add an extra faction, and to clarify some of the details on it.  I'll start a new thread for it in a mo so we can sort out dates and approximate numbers :)
Once i've got a date etc, we can always thrash out details on the renown system as a group consensus. Is it best to set a date before creating an event thread, or edit it to add a date to the subject line after?
Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

Kaled

Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 05:51:47 PM
Once i've got a date etc, we can always thrash out details on the renown system as a group consensus.
I wouldn't try for a group consensus, it's your event so do what feels right to you - but if you want a second opinion I'd be happy to take a look and can help you with some of the things I've learned from doing these things in the past.

QuoteIs it best to set a date before creating an event thread, or edit it to add a date to the subject line after?
If I were you I'd contact the WHW events team and see what options are available first (I can send you the details for the guy who I dealt with for the IGT if you like), and then ask people which of those dates they'd prefer.
I like to remember things my own way... Not necessarily the way they happened.

Inquisitor - Blood Bowl - Malifaux - Fairy Meat

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Kaled on April 04, 2012, 06:35:51 PMIf I were you I'd contact the WHW events team and see what options are available first
If I can recommend anything, RING THEM rather than faffing around with e-mails. My emails got lost in the system for weeks until I rang them - which solved it in five minutes.

Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 05:51:47 PMYeah, Autumn sounds good.
Hmm. Does this mean Karandras' in Summer and leaving the Kaede Mack Conglomerate until maybe next year (we seem to be avoiding Winter 'Claves these days). Although I suppose there's no real reason we couldn't have three events if they were well spaced, but we've also got the INQvitational to work around.
S.Sgt Silva Birgen: "Good evening, we're here from the Adeptus Defenestratus."
Captain L. Rollin: "Nonsense. Never heard of it."
Birgen: "Pick a window. I'll demonstrate".

GW's =I= articles

Stormgrad

A Event that some of us are not invited to so frankly since its being so selective about the members of this community that are going then i dont think it should play a major factor in dates for events for members of this community. If People choose to go to it then thats down to them

Bloodpact

#44

Im happy enough to run the event whenever. As far as i can see on the forum page, there arent any other definitive dates set for other events?

Im also happy to run my event near the INQvitational if enough people are interested since im not invited to that.
Repent! For tomorrow you burn!