Main Menu

News:

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

2014 Dual Scale Spring Event -- Ancient Rites -- WHW, May 3rd

Started by Koval, September 28, 2013, 10:35:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Keravin

I can tell you that operating on the basis that getting gamers to do what they said they would do is nigh on impossible that all Loidis events have always had back up scenarios written for no specific characters/players to allow for drop ins and to give to a GM to run so they didn't need to prep anything.


Heroka Vendile

I think 90mins will be fine, we manage to squeeze games out in under 75mins at the IGTs (well, sort of) and without the additional time sinks like organising the P&M and the quiz sheet, adding 15mins to each game block is feasible. In fact if you knock the changeover time down from 15 to 10mins and add in time from the "freeplay" segment that everyone normally just ignores and moves into Bugmans during, you can easily up each game slot to 100mins.
It's all fun and games until someone shoots their own guy with a Graviton gun instead of the MASSIVE SPIDER.
The Order of Krubal
Rewards Of The Enemy

Koval


Holiad

90 mins is enough for most games, and may even be too long-inquisitor is, after all, a game which can end very fast and violently, leaving one player with little or nothing to do for the remaining time.
One of the reasons I liked the events I did was that I felt they had a very strong internal narrative to them, but I think it's important that these narratives remain largely self-contained, even where they connect to a larger plot. The main reasons for this would be the time between events, and the obstacles to regular attendance placed by the distance some of us travel-at best, it would be three or four months before the next installment, much more likely six or more, and there's a pretty big risk an important player may not make it. Much as I might enjoy a more detailed inter-event narrative, it doesn't quite feel practical.

A couple of bits I liked specifically about my favourite events, partly because I felt they significantly strengthened the narrative-
The 'faction' systems in the Saint and Kaede Mack. Loose as they were, they were a big improvement on simply having unaligned characters.
Similarly, and partly because of faction-specific objectives, the scenarios themselves were strongly tied to the narrative theme of the event. This was particularly apparent in the finales, with linked tables giving a very good sense of the endgames of various dramatic plots.
I feel that the plot cards gav used might also have great promise when combined with a faction system-one of the problems was that they felt a little too generic, and therefore didn't really fit with the warbands using them, and I feel that making them faction specific might improve that a bit.
Poor noble Marech
Noone 'till the end could see
Your brave heart of fire

Koval

QuoteThe 'faction' systems in the Saint and Kaede Mack. Loose as they were, they were a big improvement on simply having unaligned characters.
That's a very good idea. Thank you for suggesting it.

A faction system will definitely help me throw together games where we avoid blue-on-blue incidents (and you yourself saw how awkward the encounter was between Lyra and Alice), and minimises mismatches as far as possible. It also offers a sense of narrative cohesion, as characters can stay "in character", and should be able to pursue their own goals without having to detract from the overall story. However, an obvious disadvantage there is that we risk having multiple games where the same two players end up facing each other rather than mingling with other players, just because they're of appropriate factions.

We also risk having too many characters of a given faction -- or not enough! At the 2013 INQvitational, for example, I distinctly remember Molotov having a lack of Radicals, and so my own Inquisitor Schwertwald had to get drafted in as "the one willing to consort with Eldar" for the simple reason that she won't kill one on sight.

I'll definitely try to implement factions, but it may end up being rather loose and won't be as simple as, for example, a Puritan/Radical split. It may end up being a simpler version of the word game Molotov asked INQvitational attendees to do prior to the event, but I've got time to weigh up all sorts of options.

Necris

I think to solve the "faction" issue you brought up Koval is to have agenda based factions as opposed to ideal based factions during the saint campaign my Puritan inquisitor found himself in what many could consider a radical faction in wanting to marytr the saint seeing her as a weapon that could be exploited by less than trustworthy manipulatorers he opted to side with the few radical inquisitors to see this carried out.

A good thing to remember is that puritans and radicals do work side by side it's only where their ideals solidly clash do they turn against one another, for example Inquisitor x a staunch Puritan and inquisitor y a know radical are seeking to route out and exterminate a cult they agree to work together but when Y seeks to capture a weapon the cult has acquired instead of destroying it the two diverge and come to blows.

So for the campaign y would be in the exterminate faction but would have secondary objectives for him to play with.

The events I've ran in the past I tried to find out who was bringing what so I could slid in some personalised objectives for the campaign, but this never really manifested as many players were unsure who they would be using on the day or it was dependant on whether or not they got a certain character finished for the day.

Another good idea you could use as inspiration for this is the Mlifaux objectives and schemes idea with the campaign having a set of overall objectives and each inquisitor having their own secret scheme
This here is my very favourite gun...I call her rita.

The Order of the Iron Rose - Necris' Inq28 Plog

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Heroka Vendile on October 03, 2013, 11:56:58 AMIn fact if you knock the changeover time down from 15 to 10mins and add in time from the "freeplay" segment that everyone normally just ignores and moves into Bugmans during, you can easily up each game slot to 100mins.
Not sure on your maths there! 100 minutes times four games, plus at least two changeovers adds up to 420 minutes, which for an eight hour day leaves only an hour to combine between morning briefing (including time for people to get coke/beer and make toilet stops) and lunch.

Four 90 minute timeslots, with two 10 minute changeovers, an hour for lunch, half an hour for the morning and 10 minutes spare (if there isn't any/much totting up to do) just about manages to fit between 10 and 6 o'clock, but longer than that is probably a no go.

Quote from: Holiad on October 03, 2013, 02:32:40 PM90 mins is enough for most games, and may even be too long
I'm not necessarily sure I agree.
It's long enough for some games with the right people around the table, but in what is now four years of Inquisitor events, I've seen only a single case where a game has ended with a large excess of time to spare (and it was a game I had deliberately written to run quickly - I'd just wildly overcompensated and it thus ran wayyy too fast), but I've felt that a significant fraction of games could have done with an extra turn or three. 

Quote from: Holiad on October 03, 2013, 02:32:40 PM[More words about internal narrative, factions and plots.]
A lot of this, as I've discussed with Koval, was things I was trying to do with the Twin Arches.

If it had ever actually been realised in the full form it had been envisioned, as opposed to having had some of the details a bit rushed (partly due to having to be so heavily cut down and redesigned), it would have been trying to get players to trade leads, clues and all that, forming their own factions and alliances along the way.

Quote from: Koval on October 03, 2013, 03:11:09 PMWe also risk having too many characters of a given faction -- or not enough!
As I did it, the factions weren't strict ruling as to who was playing against whom. In theory, two players in the same faction could find themselves vying for the credit from any given situation - either deliberately, or should they have happened to choose to conceal their intentions from each other.
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

greenstuff_gav

Quote from: Necris on October 03, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
Another good idea you could use as inspiration for this is the Mlifaux objectives and schemes idea with the campaign having a set of overall objectives and each inquisitor having their own secret scheme

which was the inspiration behind Data Transfer :)
i like this system; doesn't always guarantee you end up interacting with the opponent tho....

on the "factions" part i thought about it for Eramus but you either;

know all the main PCs and their intentions beforehand

announce the factions beforehand so people can decide which characters / motivations they're aiming for

and due to quantity of writing i had to do, decided against it and left things a bit vague... possibly too vague :(
both have their problems, such as when only 6 people arrive or everyone follows the same ideal (the finale at Twin Arches; 3 of the 4 votes were the same weren't they?)
i make no apologies, i warned you my ability to roll ones was infectious...

Build Your Imagination

Koval

I remember more than just four votes, and I also remember Alice -- barely even an Interrogator -- coming within a chainsword's Reach modifier of literally beating some sense into most of the Inquisitors involved (remember that we didn't nuke the table from orbit :P )

Quotebut you either;

know all the main PCs and their intentions beforehand
This might be how I end up doing it in practice, as I can then put characters of like mind into loose groups and just not put them together during the Intrigue games if I think a scenario will turn too much into PvE (or PvGM). There needs to be some conflict!

Necris

As said knowing all player characters before an event can prove trick especially when some of us like to bring "new" characters for the day

But if you can get an idea of who's bringing what it does help
This here is my very favourite gun...I call her rita.

The Order of the Iron Rose - Necris' Inq28 Plog

Bloodpact

Quote from: Keravin on September 30, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
Bloodpact likes to talk crap about Inq28, but given he couldn't be arsed on the day to actually put some effort into Inq28 models and then still complained he didn't feel invested.   Well I wonder why there was a lack of investment in the game.   The actual getting games at 28mm on the day was also a little messy given some people still really only wanted to play 54mm.   That's what I mean by not really feeling welcome, compounded by Bloodpact making asinine comments on the forum later.

Quote from: Keravin on September 30, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
To be honest both groups need to get past themselves and maybe stop dragging up the past quite as much.

Always nice to feel appreciated. Nice to see im still being crucified over an off the cuff (if somewhat poorly judged) joke about my preference for 54mm.

Whilst i have no objection to a dual scale event, and would actively encourage people to try and expand our community, i would also like people to respect my position of only wanting to play Inq is 54mm. 28mm simply doesnt interest me, in the same way that im sure 54mm doesnt interest many people. I think as Necris said, trying to mangle the 2 communities together is sadly doomed to failure.

AAAAANNNNYYYYWAY...


As far as the event goes, im always interested in more opportunities to play games of Inquisitor. A dual scale event is a great idea, but i cant see it attracting any more players than the usual crowd. It was great to see new people at Gav's event, but we only seem to be able to get a revolving door attendance of around 12 people. 

Whilst Gav's player/GM's was a great idea for helping to make sure we had as many players as possible, i think it stifled the narrative of each scenario a little as most games i played devolved into a fight with no real plot develpoment. This could be in part due to the amount of new players, but also because a dedicated GM can often veto certain aggressive actions in favour of a more interesting and challenging encounter (and one that comes with a proper resolution). As a result i couldnt really do anything with the warband i had brought with me as they aren't designed for a stand-up fight, and were fired up without provocation a couple of times simply because they were the most obvious target. A neutral GM can help to avoid these situations and move the scenario along.
With this in mind, assuming the usual turnout of around 12 players, i would aim to have 3 gaming and a GM over 3 scenarios, rather than trying to get everybody gaming.

I'd be intrigued to see if anybody shared my experiences from the Eramus Affair?

Repent! For tomorrow you burn!

Cortez

I found the player GM's worked ok. The only scenario that degenerated into a shootout was the one which was supposed to (Shotgun Diplomacy in round 2). The other scenarios all had quite a lot of negotiation and conversation between the players, and I think the third scenario (for me) didn't even have any player character attack another at all. I'd be quite happy to see the system used again as it meant it didn't matter who was GM as you were still playing (I ended up GMing three of the four games).

As I said earlier it will take a certain amount of effort to get a larger attendance of players at both scales but it would be worth it. I would think that three or four tables of players at each scale per round should be possible.

MarcoSkoll

Quote from: Bloodpact on October 03, 2013, 10:19:30 PMWhilst Gav's player/GM's was a great idea for helping to make sure we had as many players as possible, i think it stifled the narrative of each scenario a little
I am inclined to agree that scenarios are generally (if not universally) better for having a dedicated GM.
That's not to say that all scenarios have to have a GM or that scenarios are automatically bad without one, but the presence of a separate GM will almost certainly improve a game.

It is nice to play in all the games in a day, but I'd usually consider the trade-off a fair one. Three games with the benefits of a GM and GMing one round is fine by me.
I'm sure not all will agree - but hey... I enjoy GMing almost as much as playing (it's quite a different experience to GMing for standard RPGs - much like I was saying in Bugmans last weekend, the outcome of a game is much less scripted than in PvE RPGing), so provided it's an interesting enough scenario, I'm happy with 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

Koval

Quote from: Cortez on October 03, 2013, 11:15:17 PM
I think the third scenario (for me) didn't even have any player character attack another at all.
If that's the same scenario as the one I'm thinking of, Langley and Nowatschenko ended up shooting at Kaled's Tau.

Cortez

Ah I didn't remember that it went that far. I knew they were manoeuvring for a fight but wasn't sure if it had started or not.

Regarding the time limit of each round, I've found over the Conclave meets and GT's that I've attended that the games rarely require more than the 1hr 10 or so minutes usually allocated to them. Most games are usually at a position where the end outcome can be easily determined and I've had several games that were fully finished easily within the time limit. I can only really recall one game where we didn't really get close to achieving any of the objectives (although I do wonder if with my increased experience with the rules and the newer conversation method we would have the same problem today).

Have you got an idea as to when you'd like to hold the event Koval?