[TallulahBelle]

Iv always LOATHED the mechanic of ok I have X points/slots for abilities/talents/traits but if I'm building a character that i feel needs three of them rather than two I have to take a negative trait which gives a penalty especially things like 'nervous' or 'impulsive' where I'm then expected to react as the grpup/gm defines those things and being told/pressured into having to react a certain way.

IMO inquisitor doesn't NEED to change anything because of the tired trope of 'evolving with the times' and id be very wary pf changing things in order to 'attract roleplayers' especially when in the same breath a reason for the suggestion is 'to avoid writing lpads of background to justify your skills'  Inq is not and should not be an RPG with miniatures ala 2nd ed Iron Kingdoms (it uses the warmachine/hordes rules for combat and damage etc) it's a narrative war game ot needs to be a war game first and the negative traits system..honestly people need to play the characters negatives rather than use a rule to show it.

E.g Tallulah Belle my Inquisitor, looks 16-17, I tell the other players this and in social/investigative situations she plays up to that, she is somewhat brash and flighty and indulges her whims precisely as spoiled nobles are expected to do, she will take risks to show off and be really act like a teenager but when she needs to use her station and bring the rosette out she becomes colder, more confident, somewhat arrogant and commanding. If i had to play bed with a negative trait to do that i couldn't have the dramatic switches between her cover and her true identity.

For firearms I have always been partial to the Cthulu mechanic where a gun has ranges where they are effective but a shooter can go beyond those ranges with a modifier to his skill to represent the difficulties with sights and holder and at extreme ranges a penalty to damage. So Yes you can shoot your snub nosed .357revolver at a target 100m away despite long range for that pistol is considered 50ft but you will have an additional modifier because your hold over is about 6" (too lazy to do the maths offhand) you have low profile combat sights on the gun as to not get snagged on the draw and your projectiles will be hitting at 380acp level vs the full power screamer 357+++p you have loaded.


For melee weapons I would love to sit and work out some rules to separate the weapon types and give then more flavour in the same way the RIA does guns because currently a sword could be a backsword or a shieldbreaker or a sabre and they are still one handed swords. I'd like to see more than tweaks to parry penalties. I know allot about different melee weapons but don't have the experience with INQ necessary for such a project as some of my suggestions end up being unbalanced (usually too conservatively) or clunky. Anyone who would like.to help hit me up.

I do have some suggestions for things like batons and nightsticks and knuckleduster type weapons something I'm toying with for my ex commisar. A 'sub' damage system based on my time in larps. Basically vs permanent damage breaking bones and death, sub damage is designed to subdue someone. It would be harder to do and pretty much a blunt weapons only type skill but your swinging to render cpmpliant/unconscious to be captured for questioning. The reason for a negative modifier is for example with a baton to subdue someone you are limited by areas you can't strike like the head or the hands or the grpin because you can cause real serious damage that way.


As for rock steady aim... The eulebooks description isn't great its a skill about firing acurately on the move but as it is currently its something you could make an argyemwnt for pretty much everyone with a longarm having.

[MarcoSkoll]

IRE doesn't, won't and, in my opinion, can't include a points mechanic or any other "hard" costing system.

(And, it will, with time, update any official abilities that I feel fall into "ruleplay" rather than "roleplay"; one example is the bodyguard skill - the original version forces the bodyguard to stay within 6 yards of their charge, but this obviously precludes the possibility for "Run! I'll hold them off" or "I'll draw their fire".)

IRE is also not a project that is trying to attract new players to the game. It's not inconceivable it might do so - a more refined version of the game could potentially fix things that some detractors didn't like - but it's not a specific objective.
As far as whether it could be described as evolving with the times, I don't know. The reaction mechanics are perhaps that way, as it's an idea that is common in a lot of more modern wargames, but as I've said before, I've done a lot to try and keep them within the existing style of game mechanics.

The shooting rules for IRE are relatively unmodified. Placed shots have been replaced by called shots, and the semi-auto and full-auto mechanics have been changed.
(I'm not yet necessarily sure the new semi-auto mechanic will stick, but I put in the current version because it's mechanically very similar to the full-auto rules, and therefore allows the overall concept to be tested more thoroughly than the relative rarity of full-auto would normally allow. That said, it did work reasonably well at Dark Sphere).

As it happens, there is more differentiation in melee weapons. Or at least the changes to the mechanics better represent the differences in how weapons are used (and there are a couple of additional stats that help increase that variety). There are limits on how far that can go though while remaining broadly compatible with the existing rules.

"Sub" damage is possibly a tricky one, as it needs to remain within the limits of the existing system without drastically complicating it.
I have got a mechanic from RIA's Beanbag rounds where the attack does Immediate damage but not Persistent damage (although there's also stuff about Toughness tests, etc). That's probably the avenue anything like that would have to go down.

And the issue with Rock Steady Aim isn't so much its own description, but the descriptions of aim levels (which assumed that an unaimed shot was taken from the hip, and one aim level was shouldering/raising the weapon); these descriptions have already been amended in IRE on the assumption that characters actually have a dang idea how to fire a weapon. (Aiming is now just described as taking more time over a shot).

[TallulahBelle]

I was just sort of responding with my view to a post on the previous page I probably should have quoted the person but the multiple quote mechanic is pretty clunky on a mobile browser and dpubly so when you use speech to text to do it.  I agree with you on the role play > ruleplay side of things 100%


Iv always ignored the bit in the book where a normal shot is described as from the hip because that's just silly even in fast paced CQB/FISH combat where I am pretty much always pointshooting my longarms are on the shoulder I may not be taking time to line myself up between each shot and carefully shooting on the outbreath but I'm always supporting the weapon properly with either it being on my shoulder with a solid cheekweld or using sling tension and a push pull setup as appropriate. Possibly the only times iv shot from the hip in my force on force training experience is if I'm using NVGs on a helmet mount but even though I'm not using my sights or optic, I have a zeroed IR laser mounted to the weapon.


Yeah I always thought sub damage would be cool but difficult to do well as it can't just do injury level style damage because that doesn't give the effect you want of knocking someone unconcious and them coming round after a while without a penalty beyond being dazed and confused for a little bit Plus it can't be so clunky its never used as an option because if its easier to do lethal damage and patch the guy up later rather than using stuff from the less than lethal toolbox its pointless to have the rules there tbh.

[mcjomar]

The closest thing we have to "sub" damage, off the top of my head, is the "subdue" skill which came with the Arbites Brava character (the alt barbaretta sculpt). I'd pair that with shock-based weapons, as it makes sense to me that a shock baton or similar would apply such damage (in addition to any blunt weapons, such as clubs, blackjacks, etc). In fact, at least In my head anyway, that's how I've always felt it should be treated. I'd go so far as to say that if the subdue skill was re-written, then it would include lines stating such things, so as to ensure it could not be used with anything that wasn't blunt, shock, or some other variation of direct force non-lethal attack.


On the other topic, for me, mechanically (and for me sort of thematically - yes I'm aware I'm ruthlessly misusing that word a bit), I'd say (as I think Marco said, if I'm reading that right) that IRE is largely just an improvement/upgrade/alteration to the existing system.
However, outside of any potential it might have to speeding things up (I hope? - I like anything that gives us more time/games on IGT days, or campaign days at various venues) I doubt it'll bring back any of the detractors of the current =][= system.

One side (the RPGers) will decry the lack of balance in the current or new systems due to coming from systems that have such things as Combat Ratings, or Point Buy systems for character generations, or similar. In short, they like to have more bounds for their system than Inquisitor currently has. They're the pure Narrative types I guess. Even in Fate they have some vague sort of restrictions to give them structure for chargen or similar. And in addition to wanting more limits in terms of chargen or combat balance, they'd also (ironically?) want ~less~ rules in terms of things like shooting/melee or similar (unless they're fans of Hackmaster or something like that I guess - exception to any rule I suppose). Best to point them at Fate, or the Cortex system, or something like that.

On another side are the Wargamers, who are also looking for points systems as balancing mechanics, but less CR (and the involved GMs for sweeping on/off rails storylines) and more something to the tune of Killteam or the Necromunda/Inquisimunda/Shadow War Armageddon type stuff. Something fast paced, and less cluttered with charts, rules, and details. In short, less Inquisitor. An RPGer might find some fun with Inquisitor, as there are ways to do it, but a wargamer straight up wouldn't (unless they become an RPGer). They're better off pointed at SWA, Necro, KillTeam, Infinity, or similar.

And both groups will complain about things like the Actions system, the detail density of range tables, injury charts, etc etc.

After that you get the people who complain about 54mm scales, but that has been debunked repeatedly through use of both 28mm and 54mm models, and both 28mm and 54mm scenery, vehicles, etc etc, so for those people the fastest current way to sort them out is to point them at Blanchitsu, or discuss the suggestion that Saussure made long ago in an SG article regarding the fact that 54mm models in 28mm scenery makes the board feel cramped - which it's supposed to!!

As to the first two groups, I don't know that you could (using current mechanics) bring them to the table.

There are ways, but it would require an overhaul of the Inquisitor mechanics, such that it would not be the existing system, and to do such a thing without sacrificing the raw "feel" of what makes Inquisitor what it is would be difficult.It would probably necessitate a complete gutting and rebuilding from the ground up. I do not consider it impossible or unacceptable, however. I would go so far as to say I consider it worth the attempt, even if only as a learning experience, if nothing else. But it would not really be something for this thread/topic, as this is about the IRE, and not about a complete overhaul and gutting of the system. Perhaps such discussions on such subjects, mechanically or thematically, should be in a separate thread.

[MarcoSkoll]

On the other topic, for me, mechanically (and for me sort of thematically - yes I'm aware I'm ruthlessly misusing that word a bit), I'd say (as I think Marco said, if I'm reading that right) that IRE is largely just an improvement/upgrade/alteration to the existing system.

Pretty much. IRE is a fan edition - it has to remain faithful to what it's based on. There are certainly a lot of things that could be done with a complete ground-up rebuild, but the result wouldn't really still be Inquisitor.

A good fan edition is a purified version of the game, keeping the best bits, changing what doesn't work and keeping other tweaks to a minimum.
In that respect, IRE is supposed to be a relatively uncontroversial update to the game.

But it would not really be something for this thread/topic, as this is about the IRE, and not about a complete overhaul and gutting of the system. Perhaps such discussions on such subjects, mechanically or thematically, should be in a separate thread.

IRE is to an extent predicated on any discussion of what players want out of a fan edition, but (admin hat on) it probably would be better kept for another thread, particularly if it's going to spiral out into things outside IRE's existing design principles. (e.g. trying to keep existing character sheets)

[TallulahBelle]

Exactly, it can't be about changing the game. To please none players at the expense of the fans of the game, it's one of the reasons I'm hoping if GW ever reattempt inquisitor they either do something obviously inspired by but not a rewrite ala the new shadow war killteam thing if its done in 28mm rather than redoing Inq in 28mm tearing out iconoc parts of the game to appeal to new players

There are things that need changing like some of the skills but we are used to that with DM/Conclave versions of things. Some of how combat works needs tweaking and certainly how weapons work in some cases but the core game needs to be recognisable and i think Marco you leading the project will have that in mind throughout it.

Dunno what help i will be other than maybe some advice on melee weapons and the more active part of shooting but i do want to help anyway I can.

[mcjomar]

When it comes to a non-fan official edition of Inquisitor, I think GW is relatively more likely to rebuild it from the ground up, and go pure 28mm to leverage their existing range, rather than risking 54mm again. I don't think we can expect a SW:A style edition from them. They're getting better, but I doubt they'd be adventurous enough to risk stepping too far outside the box they've created. They're more likely to attempt to speed things up (as they did to a lesser extent with the campaign system in SW:A).

How well that works will, I think, be entirly subjective, and will depend on the target market they go for out of their existing supporters. And how well they write it, of course.


As to more topical discussion, I do agree that the existing skills do probably need a review - although I would prefer to relabel them as abilities, rather than skills, on the grounds that semantically, I tend to think of things like shooting, or swordsmanship, or lockpicking, or playing the piano as skills.

I see skills as a general umbrella, within which fall certain abilities demonstrating specialisation and/or talent within that skill. Some warriors will be skilled with delicate attacks, and deserving of the Feint ability, while others will be more brutal, and be superior with blunt, heavy weapons, like great hammers, and so be better off with some other ability to better reflect that (Furious Assault would work better for a manic attacker with fast reflexes, and pure rage, but no fine control).

However, this relies as much on the pre-existing descriptions of the abilities, skills, and stats, rather than purely on the raw mechanics of the abilities alone. It is this sometimes workable, and sometimes disconnected combination of mechanics and description of an Ability that tend to bother me most.
Prime example is probably Heroic, which gives the user the ability to reroll 1s.

Heroic as described suggests that the user is courageous "willing to brave tasks that would leave lesser mortals quivering in fear". Somehow this translates as being able to avoid/reduce Risky Actions by rerolling a single die roll of a 1? The mechanic sounds more like luck protecting the user from their own screwups. Heroic as described sounds more like something that should affect Nv or Ld, rather than actions - to ignore pinning, or willingly stand up to fearsome, or even terrifying situations. We end up having to extrapolate the description to suggest that the user is "pushing themselves extra hard" to justify the disconnect between description and mechanic. I would absolutely have rewitten this as "Lucky: the user is gifted with extraordinary luck, either because of the blessing of the Emperor, or gifts of the Dark Gods. Regardless, the user is less likely to suffer misfortune in the course of their duties. The user may reroll a single action die result of a 1 per turn." as this still gives the mechanical benefit (rerolling a 1, preserving the ~actual~ functionality), but gives a much more believable description to fit how or why the character may have it, as compared to the original writing. The writer then has to justify in the character history with suitable but believable situations where this "ability" may have occurred.

Lightning reflexes is another one that - as originally written - is both questionably powered, and relatively disconnected with mechanic and description. And has received multiple justifiable rewrites because of this. Based on description alone I would suggest reducing this to allowing the user to be able to choose when in a turn they can act, rather than purely going by initiative order. It would still end up being justified by a high Init stat, which would be functionally similar, but not quite the same.

Nerves of Steel and Force of Will, just by name alone, never mind description vs mechanics, have problems. The latter - in a sense, based on name alone - sounds more like a term that could be better applied to a psyker, relying on their willpower to control a particularly tricky bit of psychic witchery, given that Wp is one of the primary (if not THE primary) stats for psychic powers. Possibly by allowing a single reroll of a WP test in a turn when using a psychic power, but being forced to use the second result, maybe.

Nerves of Steel is more appropriate in terms of application ( given that it applies to Nv and pinning tests), but still has its own set of issues. Perhaps it could be softened to only applying to pinning from being fired at, but not to things like explosions, or warp phenomenae.

Ambidextrous is another one, with an almost acceptable description, but a somewhat overpowered application mechanically. I'd probably carve it to only applying to non-combat actions, given that combat requires a certain degree of focus. Plus Gunslinger already exists, for those that want to use gun-fu, or act like Neo.

All of these need either rebalancing, rewriting, or at the very least redescribing, or renaming - something that has already been applied to Lightning Reflexes to one degree or another.

And this is before we even so much as look at psychic powers themselves. Or non-LRB Abilities, like Subdue, or Plain Dumb Luck (which I still have a copy of somewhere).

[MarcoSkoll]

When it comes to a non-fan official edition of Inquisitor, I think GW is relatively more likely to rebuild it from the ground up, and go pure 28mm to leverage their existing range, rather than risking 54mm again.

I'm doubtful that it will get remade. It's an acquired taste, isn't exactly a candidate for massive sales (only needing a few models - although I concede that Shadow War may only be selling a box or two) and would need quite a heavy rework.

I suspect that Shadow War is actually already doing quite a good job of filling people's desires for 28mm Inquisition conversion (and has more familiar gameplay for most people), so I'm not sure that a 28mm Inquisitor would be worthwhile, and a 54mm one just doesn't really make sense any more.

However, this relies as much on the pre-existing descriptions of the abilities, skills, and stats, rather than purely on the raw mechanics of the abilities alone. It is this sometimes workable, and sometimes disconnected combination of mechanics and description of an Ability that tend to bother me most.

While I do agree with most of your points, one challenge is that IRE is not a blank slate. Changing around ability names and descriptions messes up existing character sheets.
If there's a better way to make the abilities do what they already do or their rules need to be updated because of IRE mechanics changes, then by all means I'm happy to go with that, or should it be possible to rewrite their descriptions to better match their role - but outright renaming and swapping around effects will impact on how well character sheets can be made to work for both IRE and the LRB.

So far, the only abilities that have been renamed in IRE are the Dodge ability (which is renamed to "Agile", because "Dodge" is already a reaction in close combat and I wanted to remove that ambiguity) and Blademaster (which has been rolled into the more general "Weapon Master" skill, which can apply to any category of weapon in which the character specialises - and as that can include hammers, armoured gauntlets, etc, the name "blademaster" was no longer appropriate).
Even then, these abilities specifically reference the old ability name.

Still, to look at the specific cases you mention:

- Heroic's description has been changed to "never hesitates in the face of danger". If the character is the right combination of insane and magnificent that they don't stop to think that a jump might just be a bit too far, then it does make sense that they're less likely to panic and get it wrong.

- Lightning Reflexes now ties into the reaction system, much as one community version of the skill provided the chance for one (possible) reaction per turn.

 - Nerves of Steel and Force of Will. When it comes to FoW, I can't really justify turning it into a completely different class of skill. While I agree the name is more appropriate for something like psykers, I don't want people to look up what Force of Will does in the new rules and then find out that their daemon-hunting, psyker-hating Monodominant now has a re-roll on psychic tests.

And Nerves of Steel already applies pretty much as you say. Blast weapon pinning already explicitly ignores special rules, and supernatural horrors don't use the pinning rules.

- I've never really found Ambidextrous to be overwhelmingly powerful. For example, when it comes to the guns akimbo desperado archetype, the Gunfighter ability is certainly more significant (as it removes a -20 penalty from both hands, not just one of them).

In any case, as someone who can comfortably shoot both left and right handed (it helps that I'm left eye dominant), I'm happy that the skill remains as it is. It doesn't seem worth complicating with conditions about exactly when characters are and aren't ambidextrous.

Or non-LRB Abilities, like Subdue, or Plain Dumb Luck (which I still have a copy of somewhere).

I'm not yet focusing on non-LRB stuff. I will get around to it eventually, but it's kind of necessary to get the core mechanics nailed down first.

[mcjomar]

RE: Heroic descriptions, I suppose it comes down to how you treat the action system (and Inquisitor in general).

I mean, during a simple non-combat section of a scenario, perhaps you want to walk (menacingly or otherwise) towards someone/something.

You are using an "average" (by Inquisitor standard) 4-speed character.
This gives you four actions.

Thus it takes roughly ten second to walk 16 inches.
Assuming an average of 1.8 metres = 54mm = 2 inches, that gives us an extremely rough estimate of 3.6m x 4 or 14.4m in ten seconds. Reasonable.

Now let's assume you get the usual average of about half your rolls. Now you're doing 7.2 m in ten seconds.
So I guess you slowed down to add to the menace. Or apparently you got sidetracked by a pretty butterfly.
Ditto, but moreso if you rolled only one success (or none, which ends up the same for actions).

From this perspective it makes sense if we describe Heroic characters as more decisive. The Heroic character will be able to be more menacing (or more likely to draw fire to protect their comrades, if that is their intent).


As an aside, I find it also highlights an issue that is shared with games like D&D - namely that rolling tests for mundane actions, because RAW suggests that this is required (assuming we have a GM who is completely RAW - a regrettable circumstance, I find), ends up placing supposedly competent characters into situations where they end up bungling (because statistically rolls of the dice will cause this to occur) simple things that people of their talent should not objectively be bungling.

Thankfully, with GMs who work with the spirit of the rules, and occasionally ignore the letter, this can be avoided. But the same is true of any RPG, RPG-lite, RPG-like, or RPG-related game, and basically requires that GMs essentially are fixing things that rules break when applied RAW. Not that this is something that can be changed in IRE - merely that it's a logical bugbear that I have found increasingly bothersome in many different gaming systems, both wargame and RPG, due to the type of abstraction and how it is applied.

To reduce it to something quotable:
"We should not be rolling for mundanities, but instead for interesting things based in chance (such as shooting). We should not use dice rolls as a means to limit our gameplay. Instead we should encourage decision-making, OODA loops, player interaction, psychological warfare, and ultimately freedom of choice within a sandbox."

Or to paraphrase Charax;
"Why are you relying on random dice rolls? Do the dice have a gun to your head? Are they holding your family hostage?"

But again, this is all an aside, separate from the IRE project.

[MarcoSkoll]

I wouldn't call movement a mundanity. It's one of the most important things in the game.

It can determine whether a character can rush to the rescue in time, can get to the escape capsule before it launches or dash across a street while a sniper is reloading. At its core, movement affects pretty much every other aspect of the rules. It affects whether a character is in cover in a firefight, it affects whether they can charge into combat, it helps them hide from their enemies.

I once spoke with someone who said he'd ditch the action mechanic, and asked him what he'd do instead - how do you make it exciting and tense to rush to that bulkhead door before it slams shut? He said "Oh, I'd make them roll a test".
But that's what the action roll is. (I actually compare it to how the Fate/Fudge system rolls all of its tests).

At its core, Inquisitor's action system conforms to a pretty standard concept in RPGs. Pretty much every RPG gives a character two (or sometimes "one and a half") actions per turn. It's sort of the biggest chunk of time where the active character isn't at an absurd advantage by being able to do too much before his opponent can respond.

And Inquisitor does just that, an average character, Speed 4, will normally get two actions per turn.

But not always. And for me, that's important. It stops players knowing that they can definitely make it across the street in time, or that they definitely can't draw a pistol and shoot their two opponents in time.
That would be unrealistic - reality doesn't work that way. Giving players a clear idea of exactly how much they can do encourages unrealistic behaviour where characters always make safely it into cover, or don't even try because they can see it's too far and they know they'd get shot.

Whenever I'm playing Dark Heresy, I often end up in these loathed situations where I know straight up whether I can or can't try to make a move.

~~~~~

Also, the action system ties heavily into the injury system. In a PvP game with so few characters, it's important that characters can take progressive debilitation. (Because hits need to mean something, but there also needs to be more granularity than whether you have two or three fully active charcters).

The action system provides a very good compromise here. Loss of speed does reduce a character's effectiveness, but only by a fraction of an action (and even a moderately wounded character can still get lucky and get a standard two actions)
Imagine what it would be like if you had a fixed two actions per turn and you just straight up lost one of them.

The action system, while often criticised for its uncertainty, is to me actually one of the most profoundly clever things about Inquisitor. No, it's not what other RPGs do... but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[mcjomar]

I don't know that I'd agree that it's not what other RPGs do - by definition, much like testing RAW for picking the lock on the door (or taking 20 - which in D&D terms is apparently an hour or some other oddly long amount of time) you're testing for success/failure. It's just in this case, it's a success/failure on how much you manage to do, in addition to testing for success/failure on your ability to shoot a gun/swing a sword/walk ten metres/etc.
And when this is applied to simple situations (for example, walking to a door) to suddenly discover you failed to make it, and have to retroactively describe it as stumbling, or being distracted by something ends up seeming rather odd - especially when applying it to the kind of capable characters used in Inquisitor.

The two situations (walking to a door, vs sprinting to the escape capsule) are the apples and oranges of mundanity vs exciting. Currently the existing action system is blind to this difference. RAW the action system treats the two situations as exactly the same with no mechanical difference whatsoever. It is this that causes the logical problem for me.
Sprinting for an escape capsule and not knowing if you'll make it in time? Exciting!
Walking over to a door to open it because someone just knocked on it? Something people do every day, so why are we testing for this again? Start rolling tests after the mutants break down the door, by all means, but not beforehand!

This is the core of the criticism, and the meaningful difference as to why we should not test for mundanity. Should we have a test to see if you achieve the goal of getting to safety in a dangerous and exciting situation? YES! But in a diplomatic, peaceful situation, when the guns have not been drawn, the swords are not swinging, and the daemons aren't distracting you with a little bit of attempting to devour your soul?  It's a firm no.

Should you possibly be making social rolls to see if you convince the governor that perhaps he should lend the Inquisitor a few units of PDF to go down and root out the Genestealers? Yes. Should you roll a test to see if you successfully pick up the teapot, or walk across the room while discussing things with the Governor? Nope, not even a little bit.

And the Actions system should see the difference between these two kinds of actions, not just in movement, but in everything - movement is just the most obvious example. The Actions system should be applied contextually, but currently is not, and it is this lack which I rail against, not just in Inquisitor, but in any system which is blind to these differences.

There are some things which should be uncertain (your example of successfully escaping), and some which should be certain (being able to calmly walk around in a non-combat everyday situation - probably before the horrible heretics manage to successfully ambush you because you failed the interesting test to see if you were aware of them).

Interesting and exciting things, like escaping, shooting, dodging, casting psychic powers, etc should be tested for, absolutely. But mundane, boring, everyday humdrum things should not require a test. They should just happen. The focus of our games in Inquisitor is about interesting things happening - the boring things should just happen in the lead up to those exciting things. As I said, a good GM will already be handwaving this sort of thing, but this basic concept of focusing on the interesting things should be a core component of any RPG rules system, even the hybrid ones such as Inquisitor. We play games to see interesting things happen. To be excited, because that is fun.

I want to test to see if I made it to that escape pod. I want to see if I successfully blew off the heretic's head before he could summon the daemon. I want to know if I managed to detect the infil-traitor before he could reach the Governor's office. I don't want to have to roll to see if I successfully walked somewhere during a diplomatic or other non-combat situation. Sneaking, running, sprinting, yes! By definition, at least for sneaking or sprinting, these are things which require focus, and require the user to attempt to be capable in a stressful scenario. Especially in a combat situation, at any rate. But walking? Pshaw! If I'm walking through the underhive as a distraction, then I don't want to be testing for walking, I want to be testing to see if the local toughs are intimidated by me (or if I'm intimidated), and react to that.

Maybe if you're walking over a tightrope bridge, or trying to walk calmly through a storm of bullets, sure - although both of those seem more like Nv tests, really. But walking before the ambush happens that you didn't know was coming? I'm strongly on the "no" side of that sort of situation, because by definition, if the character doesn't know it's coming, then they'll be acting normally, rather than under high stress conditions. And most people can successfully walk at 1.4m/s in non-stressful conditions (so says wikipedia), which amounts to the 14.4m deduced by my previous post.

In short, in Inquisitor I'm far more interested in Inquisitor Hapshant's adventures in executing heretics than I am in Administratum Drone Gordian 592's adventures in filling out his three-hundred-and-seventh form of the day. I don't want to test for either person's ability to successfully walk ten metres to the front door. I do want to roll to see if both of them will successfully reach the escape pod before the Daemonette of Slaanesh catches them and takes their heads off. There are scenarios where both of these things can happen (clearly they both are currently inhabiting an orbital station!), and under current rules for the Action system I still have to test for both of these things unless a suitably flexible GM (who will ignore said rules) is available, RAW. I would far rather find a superior alternative to this situation, that allows for this contextual flexibility.

[MarcoSkoll]

The Actions system should be applied contextually, but currently is not, and it is this lack which I rail against, not just in Inquisitor, but in any system which is blind to these differences.

IRE already has a contextual dynamic. Not one that bypasses randomness entirely*, but characters outside combat situations do act faster and more reliably in IRE. It's an integral part of the reaction mechanics.

* The contexts of whether something should or shouldn't be random are far too complicated to handle without human interpretation. It's something for a GMing guide, not something to try and write into the rules.

And most people can successfully walk at 1.4m/s in non-stressful conditions (so says wikipedia), which amounts to the 14.4m deduced by my previous post.

My current draft version of IRE deliberately elects for the more vague "several seconds", rather than any specific number of seconds.

It's a deliberate change, because all of these systems have to be non-exact. It's a game - balance and gameplay trump precise realism.

Even if we take a system that has no randomness, it's still inevitably wrong. Dark Heresy describes a turn as "approximately five seconds".
But it takes three full turns to empty a 30 round autogun on full-auto; Quoted rates of fire for autoguns (e.g. from the Forge World books) should mean that it should be possible to get rid of that many rounds in about half a turn.

[mcjomar]

IRE having a contextual mechanic (in my head I was calling it combat vs noncombat) is absolutely a good solution in the IRE context.
Ditto your current draft about nonexactness due to balance and gameplay trumping realism (though I do consider our discussion regarding movement under various forms of circumstance to be an exception to the rule).

However, in a counterpoint nonIRE consideration, there are a lot of rolls in GW games. In Inquisitor (classic nonIRE) not only am I rolling to see if I blow off the zombies head, I'm also rolling to see if I even get the chance. In other games I'm just rolling for the thing rather than the chance to do the thing. I think that's as much part of the issue for the Action system as anything else. Someone else said it better so I'll just quote them: "choices provide player agency. Dice rolling does not.". In the former we encourage OODA loops. In the latter we cause reliance on randomness of dice rolls. In general not a bad thing but when overused it hurts the former because we're letting possibly too many things be controlled by dice. And it's the former that causes the most interesting and fun things to occur. Some randomness and/or definite things are good. Obviously too much of either is bad.

[MarcoSkoll]

Following up on the feedback and playtesting from Dark Sphere:

~~~~~

For melee, it seems to be a case of rebalancing.

The current plan is to reduce the attack penalties (possibly to be renamed "attack modifier") by about 10 points, so many weapons will (again) have a modifier of 0. Quick, agile weapons might now get +5 or +10, slow cumbersome weapons might be -5 or -10.

This somewhat simplifies interaction with old character sheets (where weapons don't have an attack penalty, minimising the need to look up new profiles or have the GM wing it), but as far as balance, it will mean that by making it harder to beat the attacker in the opposed roll, it will somewhat reduce the number of counter-attacks a defender can get; although I am very happy with the kind of back-and-forth trading of blows that allows, the balance probably does need to be shifted slightly more to the attacker.

I may also give Dodging a slight bonus to its roll again. Although I nerfed that because Dodging was overly dominant as a reaction in 1stE, I underestimated the extent to which IRE allowing parries to counter-attack against missed attacks was a boost to parrying, so the balance needs to be redressed.

Maybe not the full +20 of before, but +10 is certainly viable.

~~~~~

The stunning on falling has been reduced from D3 turns to one turn. Most likely a character who's taken a really serious fall will be stunned by the injury tables anyway; any fall more minor than that shouldn't be taking characters out for several turns.

~~~~~

When it comes to psychic powers, I'm inclined to agree with Cortez's point. Although Isabella is supposed to be a very powerful psyker, she didn't actually break much of a sweat to manage everything she did in the playtest games.

I think the main issue comes from IRE no longer automatically cancelling powers when there's a Risky Action; That choice is deliberate, as Risky Actions always felt like a very tedious way to fail a psychic power; it also meant that even the most skilled psykers couldn't rely on their powers unless they had some form of special rule that stopped them failing roughly a third of their attempts before the Wp test was even taken.

However, it has upset things.

I think I will have to fix it by making Perils of the Warp again automatically cancel the power. Psychic Phenomena won't cancel the power though, so the Perils of the Warp test will act as something of a save for skilled psykers to not automatically fluff their power in the same "because frak you that's why" kind of failure as the Risky Action used to be.

That said, I also plan to have any Psychic test modifiers also apply to the Perils test (previously, it was unmodified Wp). This will make Psykers have to think slightly more carefully about taking complete "long shots" with their powers. It kind of makes sense that a psyker is more likely to royally screw up if he's trying to do something really difficult - I just don't want that to be in the same way as before, where any failure weakened a psyker.

Cortez did also suggest that there needs to be more use for Psy Rating for existing powers that I've yet to update. I'm not sure what my answer to that is yet, but it is a valid point.

~~~~~

Also, some of the IRE armoury.

As I've said before, I've said that I find the current daemon weapon mechanic to be fairly basic. The user is usually given a Wp just slightly higher than their weapon, so they generally just end up as pretty powerful weapons that are only dangerous to their user if they fluff a psychic power.

The IRE rules make it so that daemon weapons are now no longer a binary question of whose Wp is higher - instead, they capitalise on their master's moments of weakness, such that even a high Wp user has to be somewhat careful about carrying a daemon weapon.

This version, although not finalised (some modifiers may get changed), incorporates some of Raghnall's suggestions from the thread, although slightly streamlined.

Daemon weapons
Daemon weapons have had the spirit of a daemon bound into them, imbuing them with some of the daemon's unnatural power. Daemon weapons can be truly powerful weapons, but using one can cost a man his soul...

Daemon weapons will have one or more special properties, depending on the power of the entity bound to the weapon.

Entity           Warp Power   Daemon's Willpower
Daemonic Servant       1       55+D10
Daemonic Beast         2       60+D10
Lesser Daemon          3       65+2D10
Daemonic Herald        4       70+2D10
Daemon Prince          5       75+3D10
Greater Daemon         6       80+3D10

Warp Power defines the number of daemonic traits that the weapon may have. A daemon weapon may have any combination of traits costing up to their total Warp Power, as long as no single trait requires more than half of the daemon's Warp Power (rounding up).

Daemon weapons, as sentient entities, also have their own Willpower value, which may influence the effectiveness of some of its traits.

Daemon weapons also have a Possession Modifier, equal to the Sagacity of the character who bound the daemon, minus the Daemon's Willpower. For example, if a character with Sg 78 had bound a daemonic beast with Wp 66, then the weapon would have a Possession Modifier of +12 (Sg 78 - Wp 66 = +12).
Make a note of this value on the weapon's profile.

The cost of power
At the start of each of their turns, any character carrying a daemon weapon must test against daemonic possession.

This is a Willpower test, modified by the weapon's Possession modifier. There may also be additional modifiers depending on the character's status.

A character is weakened if they are Pinned, Stunned, Fleeing, or wielding an unfamiliar daemon weapon. Weakened characters take no additional modifier.
A character is vulnerable if they are Out of Action, on Fire, or suffered Perils of the Warp last turn. Vulnerable characters test on a -30 modifier.

If a character is neither weakened or vulnerable, then they test with a +30 modifier, and will not automatically fail their test on a roll of 96-00. (If this should make a character's Willpower 100 or more, it is not necessary to roll for the test).

If this Possession test is failed, then the character succumbs to the daemon within their weapon and is possessed.
The character must pass their Possession test at the start of any subsequent turn to regain control. They are automatically deemed to be at least weakened while possessed.

In the event that a character needs to test for carrying more than one daemon weapon, roll in order of the daemon's willpower values, starting with the highest.

Daemonic Traits
List is work in progress

Possession rules aren't set in stone yet, but I plan on having those as a standard framework, as they'll also come into play during certain Perils of the Warp results.

[Cortez]

Just realised that I'd forgotten to respond to your latest post  .

I like the sound of the Daemon weapon changes. I've always liked the idea of the sword taking control during a moment of vulnerability/distraction and it means that non-psychers (who would almost never lose willpower) would still face the risk of possession from time to time.

Pscychic powers definitely felt too strong, but I would like to have more testing as Isabella is definitely not a standard psycher (I will also need to revise the rules for Isabella's sorcerous tome to fit in with the changes to the psychic rules which will help somewhat).

Perils of warp cancelling the power would certainly help as would adding the modifier to the perils test. I completely agree that the loss of Wp used in the original rulebook should be avoided as all it did was make it so that psychers failed one or two tests and then probably never used another power as their brains were dribbling out of their ears. I certainly don't want another game where three powerful psychers were all reduced to vegetables before the final turn (although that was quite funny).