Author Topic: IRE - Inquisitor Revised Edition project (or Musings on a fan made 2nd edition)  (Read 12241 times)

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2013, 07:28:26 PM »
I see what you mean.   :o 

I still believe having players pick a balance between Positive traits (Lightning Reflexes, Blademaster, etc) and Negative traits may bring a fresh breath of air to the game.  Inquisitor has plenty of positive traits but the only thing it has negatively is mutations and demonic possessions and they workout to be positive unless you're really hard on your own characters.  So new ones will have to be drawn up if this route is even an option.

As with Aspects in a large group this would be hell for a GM!  I tell my players (wife included) if they want more "me" time they need to be willing to Compel themselves and take the spotlight for a moment.  But that's a small group of four and I can't manage anymore divas than that!   :P

Have a great day!
Josh
Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2013, 05:14:09 PM »
Marco -- firstly, shame on you for posting this thread when you knew I'd be away :P

Rather than posting about it, would it be worth discussing it over Skype so we can get some ideas and notes down in real time rather than have the "post" "have ideas analysed" "repost" cycle? I've got ideas, but they'll need refining anyway.

Online MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2013, 05:30:15 PM »
Marco -- firstly, shame on you for posting this thread when you knew I'd be away
I plead boredom.

Quote
Rather than posting about it, would it be worth discussing it over Skype...
I'm amenable to discussing it in any practical medium (telegram is discouraged and smoke signals will be ignored. Owl mail is acceptable only as long as the damn thing doesn't bite me again), but the minutes would still need to be carbon copied over to the forum, as this is an open project - suggestions aren't just about what I personally think of them.
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

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2013, 05:43:31 PM »
Oh, don't worry about minutes, I'll remember to dig out a notepad.

Quote
Owl mail is acceptable only as long as the damn thing doesn't bite me again
Please. This is the grim darkness of the far future; nobody uses owls anymore, it's all about psyber-eagles.

Offline Dosdamt

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Old Guard
    • The Mind
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2013, 09:58:58 PM »
Forced character flaws are a massive no go for me. "Unbalancing" positive traits with "negative" traits almost never work out well.

Is your character prone to falling over? Drop his agi
Is your character physically weak? Drop his str

No need to add bloat to rules in my view

The area that is in need a complete rebuild for me - Shooting, the shooting rules have always been silly and the charts counter intuitive. Having flat modifiers per group of weapons seems better for me.

It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2013, 10:03:09 AM »
General notes from a Skype discussion with Marco last night:

General Dice Rolling: The proposed mechanic seems fine to me. We had to butt heads for a while over magnitudes of failure, though.
----Suppose you're making a Willpower test and you need a 65. If you roll a 12, you pass by 12 points. Simple enough.
----If you roll a 98, you fail by (98-65) = 33, which is what it is at present.
----So for a pass, you pass by how many points over zero you rolled; for a failure, it's how many points over your target number.

Actions and Reactions: This is a bit trickier. Early thoughts included defining what each type of "stored action" might be (so giving examples of how Sacrificed Actions, Wary Actions and Ready States work), and having the upper limit for stored actions be dictated by your Speed stat. Again, early days.

Risky Actions: Turning currently Risky Actions into Hazardous Actions seems like a decent idea as it eliminates the messy higher-Speed-means-greater-risk-of-failing-Risky-Actions thing we have at present, although we need to define what constitutes a Hazardous Action and how one can fluff it up. Providing examples would help to illustrate the point, but it does currently revolve around individual actions rather than the action roll at the start of the turn.
----How to define fluffing up a Hazardous Action? In the RIA, it's currently "if the units die comes up as a 5", though if it's percentile I'm more partial to "if you roll a double".

Movement: I had nothing meaningful to add here, but the jury's still out on whether getting rid of Sprinting is a good idea or not. I'm tempted to keep it, but impose a hefty penalty on Awareness checks and such like, as your focus is on pegging it.

Damage and Injury: I had a few things to say here.
----The Injury table needs some serious cleaning up. This is abundantly obvious. Taking the Abdomen chart as an example, we currently have a lot of "see the previous level, which redirects you to the previous level". That's a lot of messy bookkeeping that could and should be simplified and streamlined with discrete entries that don't refer you back to an earlier point.
----A suggestion I had was to scrap the current "one point into the next injury level forces that level of injury" mechanic, and introduce "floating injury points". Say you have a BIV of 6, and you're hit in the abdomen for 14 points of damage: that becomes two full levels (14/6 = 2.something), and then the remaining damage becomes "floating injury points" that can be transferred to other locations on the next wounding hit. So a subsequent hit to the chest for 4 points of damage might just add to the floating injury total, but because we already have two points saved up, that 4 becomes a 6 and that's enough to cause a Light Injury.
----I realise that the above means more bookkeeping and generally tougher characters, but sorting out the injury tables should balance that out, and it also gets rid of Four Slaps To The Head.

Close Combat: More actions and action types would be useful, but there's a danger of overcomplicating things if we go too crazy.
----Movement actions would help immensely.
----I took a hint from a couple of other games I used to play, where weapons were subdivided into such categories as "slashing", "stabbing", and "blunt". This has two implications.
----Firstly, we could incorporate "slash", "bash" and "stab" actions, each with their own additional effects. Stabbing actions, for example, could increase the likelihood of scoring a Critical Hit.
----Secondly, some weapons could be naturally suited to certain types of attack action and provide some measure of benefit -- a hammer would be a poor choice for stabbing someone, but ideal for inflicting blunt trauma and causing Knockback.
----I will freely admit that this needs more thought, as I came up with that at around 11pm. :P
----This branched off into ideas for a Close Combat RIA, or creating melee weapons where things like power swords and shock mauls are "upgraded" versions of normal swords and hammers. Needs more work.

Shooting: This needs more discussion, but basically, the current range modifier chart is a complete mess.
----I proposed a short/medium/long/extended range chart, so that each range band has discrete sub-ranges. That would be paired up with a single fixed modifier for each range; it wouldn't matter whether your weapon has Range A or Range F, firing at long range would still have the same fixed penalty, but what Range A might call long range, Range F might call medium or short.
----That ran into a problem where half an inch one way or the other might determine whether something gets slapped with a light modifier or a significantly heavier one.
----Cutting down the number of range categories (not range bands; I'm talking about 0-5, 6-10 et cetera) would be a compromise, making the table less messy without sacrificing too much granularity.
----What we do with Semi and Full Auto then depends on what we do with the range modifier chart.
----Aiming could be reined in to +10 rather than +20. This brings it more in line with Concentration and stops the silliness of a character's BS going well into triple figures*.
*At the most recent INQvitational, Sergeant Visstra managed to stack up no fewer than seven aim actions and ended up with an effective BS of 203. The DMR he was carrying made a very big mess of his unfortunate target's head. We decided that this made sense given the circumstances, but was otherwise a bit silly in practice.

Psychic Powers: Different systems can at the very least be used as starting points. This needs more thought.
----The "power dice" suggestion would only really make sense if we ported in Dark Heresy 1E's system (which IIRC was itself ported from WFRP 2E?). I'm personally more partial to Willpower tests than power dice, as that preserves a measure of the existing system, but then again, we can always playtest different options.

Online MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2013, 11:02:05 AM »
To touch on a couple of comments I don't actually recall you making last night:
Quote from: Koval
How to define fluffing up a Hazardous Action? In the RIA, it's currently "if the units die comes up as a 5", though if it's percentile I'm more partial to "if you roll a double".
Doubles does fix it as a 10% chance though. The RIA does include increased Hazard ratings such as Hazardous(2) which expands the threat band to include rolls that end in 6s, Hazardous(3) adds 7s, and so on - allowing percentages of any decimal fraction (so 10%, 20%, 30%)

Shifting the percentages with a doubles system would be a right mess!

Quote
*At the most recent INQvitational, Sergeant Visstra managed to stack up no fewer than seven aim actions and ended up with an effective BS of 203.
Robey had a suggestion of capping aim levels for his INQ2.0, such that most characters were limited to only so much of a bonus (those with some kind of marksman skill might be able to take more, but still limited to a degree).

This was also in addition to reducing the bonus (which you did say, yes). I'm open to either or both - but if it were staying at +20, I think I'd definitely cap it... possibly to three, maybe four. Seven is daft.
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

Offline Cortez

  • Inquisitor Lord
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2013, 04:46:14 PM »
Ok my thoughts on your Skype discussion.

Dice rolling mechanic: I don't see the necessity for this change. It seems to be a confusingly similar method to the current one, which is just going to cause problems with people forgetting about the change. Either change the mechanic completely, which should probably include the entire stats system, or leave it alone.

Damage and Injury: I agree that this needs some work and I like the idea of floating injury points. This may make characters tougher but will also make bolt and power weapons less overpowering.

Risky actions: Rolling a double sounds like would be a simple and easily remembered method of determining a risky action. I don't know how the hazardous action from the RIA works at the moment so no comment.

Close Combat: I like the idea of having slashing, stabbing and blunt weapons with each having a slightly different effect. I have had some ideas along these lines in the past with slashing weapons causing large wounds and so making the victim bleed, stabbing weapons having a bonus d6 vs armour (to represent sticking them in a weak spot) and blunt weapons causing knockback with a chance of knocking the victim prone.

Shooting: The range table could be simplified with fewer bands and possibly making the range degrees in 0-10" rather than 0-5". Other than that I'd probably leave it alone.
 - Aiming: I'd restrict characters to a maximum of 3 aims without some kind of marksman skill. This would fit with what the aiming sytem is trying to represent. i.e the first level of aim represents bringing the gun up to your shoulder, the second represents using the sights, and the third represents actually pausing and making sure of the shot (adjusting the sights, your breathing etc.).

« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 04:54:39 PM by Cortez »

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2013, 04:51:29 PM »
I don't know how the hazardous action from the RIA works at the moment so no comment.
At the moment, Hazardous Actions are used in the RIA for plasma weapons. Basically, if the units digit of your hit roll is a 5, something's gone wrong and you roll on a plasma malfunction chart (which got expanded into a D10 table). Hazardous(2) has things go wrong if you roll a 5 or 6 on the units, and so on.

Though if we're not doing doubles, I'd be tempted to have it as "if you roll a 0", as that way it can scale down so that Hazardous(2) becomes "if you roll a 9 or 0" and so on.

Offline Dosdamt

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Old Guard
    • The Mind
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2013, 06:14:27 PM »
I would strongly suggest more complex actions for melee combat be restricted exclusively to Talents, or bake them into weapon profiles

Remember, we're looking at core rules here. All I spy so far are pushes for more complexity - complexity is the enemy of narrative games, and we should be mindful of that.

For ranged, I'd scrap the A-J range bands, and go with something like classifications

Pistol
Rifle
Flamer
Heavy

And link that with ranged penalties (i.e. anything over 20m is a penalty for pistol)

It's a rationalization and re-branding of the system which I didn't have any issue with, per se, but I felt was over-elaborate. To keep players engaged, I would avoid crunch.

Lastly, I'd push for a divide between Core rules and More rules. As I've stressed before, it's my belief overelaborate and crunch ridden rules should be avoided.
It is never too late! - Mentirius

http://thementalmarine.proboards.com/index.cgi <- The Mind, for all your irreverent nonsense needs

Offline Koval

  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Well, that was unexpected...
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2013, 09:52:49 PM »
The problem with the rules as they are at the moment is that they seem to use a lot of words to say very little. If presented sufficiently well, I'd say stripping out bumph and adding a bit of crunch might actually enhance the overall narrative experience without making things too complex.

Besides which, this is early days -- we're still hammering out a multitude of possible solutions for an alpha test that hasn't yet taken place.

Online MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2013, 11:58:54 PM »
Dice rolling mechanic: I don't see the necessity for this change.
If we're going solely by necessity, I might as well tick the "lock this thread" box in my post options. Inquisitor works as it is - it doesn't strictly need any changes.

How many times Inquisitor takes the opportunity to really grab on to the margins of success on its rolls?
Placed shots, critical hits and counter-attacks might just count, but it's just a second target number. You can't ever get a super placed shot or a mega critical hit. And, to be honest, it's not uncommon to hear things like "28? Is that a placed shot...? Yeeeess... no, it isn't. 42 minus 15 is 27, right?"
Some psychic powers do it, but mostly in bands of 10. This is mostly because evaluating margins of success with the default rules always takes backwards maths.

But how often do I see people roll REALLY well and feel disappointed that doesn't actually mean anything? Pretty often.

It's a good thing to introduce more importance to how well a roll has been passed, but the current method is too slow. If we have to ditch the "roll high" idea because players don't think they can get their head around it, we'll either have to find some way of teaching everyone better mental maths or have to heavily dumb-down/ditch a lot of possibilities in kind.

Quote
Risky actions: Rolling a double sounds like would be a simple and easily remembered method of determining a risky action. I don't know how the hazardous action from the RIA works at the moment so no comment.
I'm really not keen on fixing the percentage at 10%, as it misses the opportunity to make different actions different risks.

Koval has already explained the basics of RIA hazards... but on that note:
At the moment, Hazardous Actions are used in the RIA for plasma weapons.
Not just plasma weapons (which are actually a 2D6 table, for what it's worth). It also applies to several special ammunition types, weapon flaws and a couple of the exotic weapons. I'll probably also bring grenades in line with it at some point.
However, working down from 10 is a possibility, and may well make it in.

Quote from: Cortez
This would fit with what the aiming sytem is trying to represent.
.... yeahhhh - I'd probably want to change those descriptions a bit, as not aiming is not really the same as not shouldering a weapon. Based on the descriptions as given, practically every character with a dang clue about guns should get Rock Steady Aim. It's not in any way hard to keep a weapon shouldered at a walk.

All I spy so far are pushes for more complexity - complexity is the enemy of narrative games, and we should be mindful of that.
I do have to argue otherwise. Complexity is not the enemy. Complicated rules - maybe. Slow rules - definitely. Dull rules - also definitely.
There is some natural correlation between complexity and slowness, but other factors also enter into it - so, if well designed, slow and dull do not necessarily have to be part of the package with complexity.

I've got some things in my sights because they're slow - such as the injury rules. I've got others in my sights because they're dull - reactive play is more engaging (literally so - direct involvement requires engagement) than sequential play.
And then there's things I have in my sights because they're slow and dull - such as the close combat rules.

Quote
For ranged, I'd scrap the A-J range bands, and go with something like classifications...
I'm not seeing that level of simplification being a universal hit.

The Revised Inquisitor Armoury is comfortably the most frequently downloaded file on the archive of Inquisitor files I run; I am personally highly surprised, as it would be logical that it would get overshadowed by the official files that really don't exist anywhere else any more... but, still, that wordy pile of waffle I've been writing is apparently popular.

One of the core premises of the RIA project is greater variety - the repeated questions about things like what the rules for a bigger stubber should be what kicked that whole project into life.
If we change it so that pistols are all identically ranged and the only big ways in which they can be different are effectively damage or number of shots (given the weight of a pistol is usually unimportant), this is a great loss of depth.

Now, I recognise I'm firmly in the weirdo camp here; give me a blank range table and I could probably fill it in from memory. Still, I don't think that invalidates my thinking - it's clear a lot of people like the detail. Let's not axe more of it than we need to.

~~~~~

And yes... as Koval says, this is very early thinking. Any genuinely crap ideas won't make it through gauntlet of being discussed, compared, drafted, play-tested, tweaked, and all that.
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

Offline Quickdraw McGraw

  • Inquisitor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2013, 01:55:58 AM »
Forced character flaws are a massive no go for me. "Unbalancing" positive traits with "negative" traits almost never work out well.

Is your character prone to falling over? Drop his agi
Is your character physically weak? Drop his str

No need to add bloat to rules in my view

The area that is in need a complete rebuild for me - Shooting, the shooting rules have always been silly and the charts counter intuitive. Having flat modifiers per group of weapons seems better for me.

First, I agree ” Forced Flaws” are a bad Idea! 

Secondly, I'm not talking about forcing flaws upon the characters.  Only about players building characters with personality flaws! If you want to build a character with 1 Special Ability, then Great!  But if you want two or more you’ll have to “balance” out the scales with other traits that allow the GM and other players can take advantage of your current situation much like the “positive” traits you currently have let you take advantage of their situation.  When these personality traits pose a problem for the individual they could earn temporary fate points (like the ones in Dark Heresy) which could be spent to help them with impossible tasks???

Thirdly, you may be right Dosdamt!  Providing such a "balance" into any  tabletop miniature wargame may not be a good idea. As balances are ready baked into the character stats or equipment. But It almost always works out in RPG's which use this mechanic of defining character abilities during the game and focus on rewarding players who are willing color outside the lines and stick to their beliefs in spite of the consequence.  Inquisitor sits somewhere in between both.

There is thousands of posts/re-posts on this forum about players whose characters are overpowered with Special Abilities!  I seek to add to the game play by purposing a balance.  A compromise that everyone will be subject to. I hope these will aid flavor to characters without having to writing volumes of books to justify why they're characters have “this and that” special ability. A character background that has a game effect not just a “stat” modification. Everyone who has been around for a while should by now know how to properly build/set a character’s “stats” realistically.  I'm really picky on that point myself. I make every character with a personality and function in mind first and keep their stats "Real". 

Inquisitor is a very different game than most because it's caught between two worlds...RPG and Table-top.  It has been abandoned by the producers and fans are becoming scarce and the model line is becoming extinct. My gaming group of 5 years now has no real interest in Inquisitor! But I love it!  I read the rule book the first day it released and GMed several games at my local hobby shop shortly after.  My gaming group doesn’t want to try it because they’re into RPG’s, not narrative table-top war games!  They create characters on other games that overcome, grow and change with every story arc.  If Inquisitor part "deux" is to succeed, it's important that it catches up with the times and what people really want.

I believe the creators intended for Inquisitor to be more than just squad based combat game. Others have come to the same conclusion by creating back stories for their characters. I admit, its fun shooting it out in the streets or a warehouse but it's simply not enough. Lots of people create ultra-cool characters to live vicariously through.  But to me that's just boring!  I personally like to play individuals dealing with real problems (social or personal) all the while saving the world.  Sure, I believe this could be done through player decisions during play.  But I've seen a lot of people say it's all about the story, turn around in the same breath and stomp everyone with a "win at all costs" type of attitude. I've been guilt of it myself.   :(   Any step in this direction is better than someone saying "My three character here have Cat Fall, Fearsome, Quick draw and Blade Master. And that one over there has True Grit, Heroic, Lightning Reflexes, Hip Shooting, Rock Steady Aim...  Oh! I almost forgot the Psychic powers."   Then expecting everyone to be OK with it just because they wrote a long background.

There has been much discussion about these Special Abilities over the years (as I've already said) and nothing really wrong with any of them.  However, it would just be nice if players were given more options and little less excited about taking lots of Powerful abilities without hampering their creativity.  We could just simply leave it up to the individual and their GM as we always have.  If that is what is later decided upon, then I would support that, of course.

The same goes for the combat rework.  The combat mechanics are defiantly cumbersome and need help. I have full confidence that the combat wrinkles will ironed out in time, but it would be a shame not to focus on the Narrative possibilities more. 

Sorry, this has turned into a rant, but I wanted to explain where my thoughts were at the moment.

Edit:  I would be willing to post a few 12 dozen traits if any one is interested in this.  If not no worries.  :)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 02:03:28 AM by Quickdraw McGraw »
Every time I see a math word problem in the warp it looks like this: 

If I have 10 ice cubes and you have 11 apples. How many pancakes will fit on the roof?

Answer:  Purple because Tyranids don't wear hats.   :P

Online MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2013, 02:18:04 PM »
First, I agree ” Forced Flaws” are a bad Idea!
I've said something similar in the past - I tend not to recommend enforcing character traits through rules. Encouraging, yes - forcing, no.

For example, I've disagreed with the official bodyguard ability; rules-wise, this forces the character to stay within 6 yards of their charge... which doesn't make sense. Where's "Wait here, I'll go ahead and make sure it's safe" or "Run! I'll hold them off" in those rules?
Bonuses for staying close is one thing - requiring it is daft.

Quote
If you want to build a character with 1 Special Ability, then Great!  But if you want two or more you’ll have to “balance” out the scales with other traits
I wouldn't want to enforce any strict limits like that. Special abilities are not equal, and are very often an alternative to stats.

Do we have a swordsman who is particularly talented at misleading his opponents? That could be some WS points or the Feint skill - if I have to go for the first because I've already used up my "free" skill slots, this is less representative and perhaps actually more powerful.

If abilities are looked on as extras to stats (or equipment), rather than alternatives to them... yes, then that would be a reason for limiting them, but it's a fix for a bad approach.

There are some characters that don't need special abilities, but there are others that can't work without them.

Quote
I personally like to play individuals dealing with real problems (social or personal) all the while saving the world.  Sure, I believe this could be done through player decisions during play.  But I've seen a lot of people say it's all about the story, turn around in the same breath and stomp everyone with a "win at all costs" type of attitude.
That, to an extent, is a player problem, not a rules problem.

As I started with, I'm a little concerned about the possibilities using rules to represent personality too much, particularly when it's subjective.

For an easy example, Silva Birgen tends towards being impulsive. She acts on her emotions - she'll be quite selfless when the heroic impulse takes her (and it does so quite easily), but she can also be very brutal if angered (also easy to achieve).

Still, I'm not sure how much I'd appreciate the GM or other players making their own interpretations about her thinking and trying to force her to be impulsive. It has a risk of exaggerating and stereotyping her character (what TV Tropes calls "Flanderization").
I know her - I know what'll get her riled up. Other people's interpretations are second hand at best.

Now, if, say, a compulsion involved giving her an carrot to act as per a GM's interpretion, rather than a stick for not doing so, that's another matter. But I'm not too keen on getting slapped because I'm apparently "not playing my character right".

Non-personality based short comings, such as being unlucky or having two left feet would be another matter. But personality... I'm wary about trying to enforce that. You don't really want to make players feel like they're not in control of their characters.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 02:22:01 PM by MarcoSkoll »
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

Online MarcoSkoll

  • Arch Data-Archivist
  • Grand Lord Inquisitor
  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Time for some thrilling heroics.
Re: Musings on a fan made 2nd edition
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2013, 11:09:34 PM »
Koval and I are hoping at trying to assemble some bits and pieces in the hopes we can hijack one of the games at the "Eramus Affair" event at the end of September to run some tests. It'll depend a bit on who else we have to game with, but it's plausible.

Our primary interests are probably reactions and close combat, given these are two of the bigger tasks; re-engineering the injury, shooting and psychic systems* are obviously other big ones, but any changes there will probably require lots of adjustments to avoid sudden shifts in character toughness or weapon effectiveness.
*If, in fact, we do go much further than Koval's revised version. It's not currently looking popular that we do, but I don't want to be taking ideas off the table too quickly.

So those two areas seem a good start - reaction is a new feature (rather than a changed one) that needs testing to make sure it don't slow the game down, and close combat shouldn't be too dramatic to re-engineer.

I'm also expecting to test of the more minor things like the modified dice rolling (it'll be important as a part of opposed close combat) and a replacement of the Risky Action rule at the same time; neither should be too large a task.

The modified rolling is essentially in a testable state already - and we've already got a basis for the replacement of Risky Actions.
It'll only take deciding on a default risk for any present risky actions and shifting a few Risky Actions that don't presently have a roll to using one - which is largely movement actions, so I'd expect a draft of things like new climbing, swimming and jumping rules.

Well, and deciding on a new way for Heroic to work too, seeing as I feel the effect on Risky Actions is an important part of the skill - their thrilling heroics wouldn't be very thrilling if they went wrong all the time.

It's possible we'll also throw in a very crude test of a (more) range dependent semi-auto too - the rules will likely have to change later on, after things like the range table have been adjusted, but it would be worth seeing how it plays out.
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