Quote from: Bloodpact on March 27, 2012, 09:44:14 PM
i think a few limitations would go a long way to reducing the power creep of warbands.
If you do run an event with limitations on characters I'll be interested to see the characters that people bring. I do wonder if a lot of people would brings characters that are right up on the limit of what is allowed because they feel that to go much less than the limits would penalise them too much. (E.g. if the limit was one power weapon per warband, would pretty much everyone bring a power weapon.) I'd definitely try to attend, mostly because I really enjoy these events, but partly I'd want to see for myself how it turns out compared to previous events.
What sort of limitations were you thinking of? I'm now curious as to how many of the warbands I've taken to events, or faced at events, would be outside the limitations you're considering.
You should definitely organise an event - it'd be good to see a different approach in action...
Quote from: Kaled on March 27, 2012, 11:04:40 PMYou should definitely organise an event - it'd be good to see a different approach in action...
On which note, I've been reading the Shadows of Chaos article, and there are some ideas in there that I think could be very worth trying to incorporate into an event.
Quote from: Bloodpact on March 28, 2012, 07:52:09 AMI'm not sure how many players would enjoy the restrictions I would put on character equipment!
That's gonna depend on how tight and strict the restrictions are. I wouldn't really be happy if the rules meant I had to start something new rather than get some of the things I want to get finished tidied up.
The easy example is the Ecclesiarchy warband I want to do, which will mostly be exploring characters whose focus isn't combat (a Preacher, non-militant Sororitas, penitents, pilgrims, etc), but will also include a Battle Sister. If the restrictions stop me taking her, the warband is then pretty much invalid - it destroys the dynamic I have in my head and I'd find myself very undergunned.
If you think an event with restrictions would be preferable then chances are that you're not the only one. I've certainly seen people asking whether events have restrictions on characters in the past, so I think there may well be a 'market' for something like that. And I wonder if it would appeal to new players and tempt them to join in as I know that creating appropriate characters for these events does cause people anxiety.
I think it's worth trying - the worst that can happen is that it won't work and we'll know to try something different for next time.
If you do come up with a proposal I'd be happy to take a look.
If you do create a event proposal and post it here you have the advantage of knowing that you will get lots of fair feedback, As well as a few fair of us willing to travel to the event and see how it goes, I can think of at least 3 people who are unable to attend the up coming IGT and are desperate for something to happen with the Summer Clave just so they can get there Inquisitor Fix. Despite Marco's complaints about starting yet another warband i am fairly certain that he probably would to attend an event (he starts a new one every clave anyway why should this one be different) and Kaled obviously has a wealth of models to choose from and will be looking to play in an event instead of manage one. I am sure if you do wish to go ahead with such a Venture you wont be short of participants.
Quote from: Stormgrad on March 28, 2012, 05:34:42 PMHe starts a new one every clave anyway why should this one be different
Because perhaps Marco would like to
finish some of those warbands he's started and doesn't want to push back any more projects further than they've already been pushed.
But really, what I don't want to hear is that the event will introduce highly restrictive rules that catch on in future and stop some of my ideas ever coming to fruition.
Quote from: Bloodpact on March 28, 2012, 07:52:09 AMI would be interested in running an event, but im not sure how many players would enjoy the restrictions i would put on character equipment! Im happy to write up a proposal for an event later in the year though. Let me have a think and i'll get back to you.
A handfull of loose thoughts for an event along these lines (from someone that's been awake far too long today):
- I think rather than strict equipment restrictions, you make an advisory set of guidelines that make it clear that it is the intention of the event to be operated in a very narrative and potentially non-combative way.
- These guidelines wouldn't have to be hard and fast rules, but would give players a strong indication of what sort of attitude they are expected to approach the event and games with.
- If firmer rules are wanted however, these could include the likes of;
- "no military or militant character archtypes" or "no character may have more than one stat exceed 60"
- "the stats of every warband member should reflect being inexperienced in their field, as the campaign story focuses on overwhelmed rookies"
Quote from: Heroka Vendile on March 29, 2012, 12:56:10 AMbno military or militant character archetypes
Would this include inquisitors/acolytes, and would this be open to interpretation (an inquisitor theoretical, for instance)?
Assuming i put limitations in plave (which i wouldnt)... I'd go for a points based system:
players recieve 1000 points across upto 3 characters. each stat has a minimum value of 10. non-damagedealing skills/ equipment are 10 each. damage dealing skills / Weapons are valued by max damage, armour by amount of armour value.
Unspent points are given as a bonus points at end of day.
Quote from: Draco Ferox on March 29, 2012, 07:28:20 AM
Quote from: Heroka Vendile on March 29, 2012, 12:56:10 AMbno military or militant character archetypes
Would this include inquisitors/acolytes, and would this be open to interpretation (an inquisitor theoretical, for instance)?
With further thought, a better wording would be "all character archtypes must be non-combatants."
This then puts a dead halt on the appearance of arcoflagellents, storm troopers, mercenaries, assassins, etc, etc. But does leave the door open to "deskjob" Inquisitors and others who work directly for the military, bt don't "bare arms".
Although if I was personally running a non-combatant style event, I would prefer people bringing what might be termed as "the background support crew", i.e. the likes of savants, archivists, priests, quartermasters, administrators, pilots, political attachés, medical staff, etc, etc.
I think discussion of this other possible event should perhaps move to a new thread, as it's starting to take over this one a bit much.
However, I will add that the idea of a non-combatant only event doesn't hugely interest me - firstly, I can't see that the games will pick up that "action movie climax" feel if there's no characters prone to thrilling heroics.
Second, I can't really see how the whole concept would be justified. If an Inquisitor sends a team of savants, political manipulators and information gatherers to investigate something, he's very unlikely to not add a couple of badasses to the team to act as bodyguards or to swing into action if it turns out the situation requires it.
split :)
I think a campaign focused on non-combatants could be done, but Marco is right that if not done well it could lose the action movie feel that characterises Inquisitor. Inquisitor doesn't really have rules for much more than combat, which is perhaps why POs rules for persuasion and intimidation have been so popular - they give players options other than violence, but I can't imagine a campaign that focuses on talking rather than violence working too well without it being done as more of an RPG. And if we're going to do that we might as well play Dark Heresy rather than Inquisitor. That said, if someone has a good way to do it then I think it could be interesting - but it'd take a lot more planning by the event organiser and probably require stricter GMing than we usually have.
Maybe the thing we need to get better at is scenario design to give players other ways to win without them always being trumped by the player who just decides to kill everyone
non-combat objectives are always handy, as are environmental conditions:
- The objective lies at the other end of a rickety, exposed rope bridge, or a circuitous route with placed explosive barrels
- Volatile gas leak, gets ignited by energy weapons if they cause more than a certain amount of damage
- Isolated supply lines limiting ammo
- Tarantula sentry turrets/Praetorian servitors you need to sneak past, because attempting to combat them is suicidal
- Indigens. Nasty, Nasty Indigens forcing players to divide their attention.
- Persistent injury effects. Sure, you could take your hard-as-nails character in every scenario, but he's more likely to accumulate debilitating injuries
So I'm firmly in the "Scenario Design" camp when it comes to dealing with overpowered characters, far more than a rather arbitrary external restriction (which can be gamed anyway, remember when I tore apart the Ready Reckoner?)
It would be very hard to make rules for social encounters, all the games I've seen trying to do so failed in making satisfying rules. I agree with Charax, the way to deal with it should be in scenarios that encourage creative thinking, which even ancourage not engaging directly.
I like the persistent injuries and limited ammo ideas - in the past we have run events where characters don't recover or replenish equipment between games, but I wonder if it might backfire and cause people to bring more equipment and tougher characters in the first place.
The other ideas are fine and I've used them or variations on them in quite a few games, but I was thinking more about ways to encourage different styles of play through the objectives (either scenario or campaign objectives) rather than terrain or environmental effects.
I'm thinking about a campaign where players start with a certain amount of 'influence' which can be won through achieving objectives but which could also be lost by things like attacking other members of the Inquisition. Maybe it could also be traded to 'buy' into some games where the stakes are higher or for some other campaign advantage. Then players would have to decide if it was worth risking a loss of influence by getting caught attacking their peers, and they might start looking for alternative ways to achieve objectives instead.
Hmmm, I actually quite like that idea...
It would be fairly easy to write up Influence as an Asset as per the rules in the "Where's My Backup?" article - give each warband a number of points to spread across assets, and then introduce scenarios and objectives that are made easier or harder by certain assets - because the players don't know ahead of time what these effects will be, they can't min/max - or if they do, the advantage is minimal because they'll ace one scenario while failing the next.
Randomness is actually a great equaliser, a while ago I thought up a variation on 2nd edition 40K's Mission Cards - you set up a board and place three labelled objectives, then you give each player a random card which will tell them their goal in relation to the objectives. Player 1 might have "Destroy all the objectives" while player 2 might have "capture objective C and bring it off the opposing table edge."
They sound bland but those are just examples of mechanics. So a powerful warband is all well and good, but if they have to bring a fragile objective, intact off the board moving at a max of 4 yards per action? suddenly warband power is irrelevant. Likewise, because neither warband know what the other wants (apart from through guesswork or IC interaction) you get a much more interesting game than "Everybody rush towards X, last man standing wins". Also brings about the possibility of playing mind games with your opponent - fire off a shot at Objective B, but deliberately do so with your warband's worst shot and the other band may attempt to protect it - while one of your characters sneaks towards your mission goal, hacking objective A with a few consecutive Sg tests and escaping
Charax, I now have the mental image of a space marine having to go and fetch an item that happens to be on a narrow walkway that's not up to supporting a great amount of weight. Could be interesting.
that's pretty much the idea, because you don't know the nature of the objective, you can't maximise your warband for it - you can either make a relatively balanced band, or make specialists and hope you luck out on the mission. Add into that environmental effects and things like persistent injuries/resources and you get games that are interestingly challenging for most warbands, but also manages to neuter the bejeesus out of power-builds
I'm also slightly mean when it comes to objectives, so speaking as a GM, giving squats objectives that are about 6 feet off the floor has hilarious results (ok, so, speed 3, and my squat's going to jump up and down and try vainly to reach that dangling artefact ffor 3 actions, and then pause to get his breath back) [/evil] I would be concerned about llittle things that can upset tha balance however- to use a non-inq. example, a "go here, retreive this" scenario in necromunda can be extremely un-challenging if one or two of the characters have grapnels...
However, players at Conclave events are already in the situation of not knowing the nature of their objectives (although certain scenarios types do crop up regularly), so I'm not sure that in itself is sufficient to get around the issue that Bloodpact brought up - which was around players who just turn scenarios into one big brawl.
Similarly, persistent injury effects are less likely to affect the 'power weapon armed, psychic and heavily armoured characters' but rather their less powerful opponents who are more likely to get injured. And environmental effects could be designed to be 'roadblocks' for the powerful characters but I'd rather see a solution that rewards interesting play rather than that is designed to punish certain types of characters.
Random game lenth & an emphasis on the objectives will tend to focus people away from massive brawls - if you're on turn 4 and you don't know if your next turn will be your last, but you have your objective, will you make a dash for your board edge, or stick around fighting for the sake of fighting?
Especially if completing the objective is the difference between gaining assets and not...
Lord knows I've had my problems with focus before, I printed myself a sign saying "Remember the objective" for 40K games because so often I'd just concentrate on killing (not an exaggeration, ask Nathan) :D
and the power weaponed, armoured and psychic characters are the ones who are likely to be on the receiving end of the heaviest fire - resulting in more injuries. Failing that, things like a need to sneak, or a prohibition on Psykers for a mission would be useful (If you have a powerhouse of a character and the mission card you pick says "Psychic models may not use their abilities in this scenario" or "Models with a combined AV of X or more suffer an initiative penalty in this mission", then you can either choose to play on and take the hit or leave him at home and take another member.
At the end of the day, even the powerhouse characters are Characters, and they shouldn't be excluded or unfairly penalised, because you may as well just ban the player in that case, but if the scenarios are fair (any restrictions apply to both sides) and random (so they can't claim to be being targeted) then you can steer people away from the "Stomping the enemy into oblivion = win" mindset and towards the "different characters are used for different things" mindset.
Quote from: Charax on March 29, 2012, 08:50:27 PM
Random game lenth & an emphasis on the objectives will tend to focus people away from massive brawls - if you're on turn 4 and you don't know if your next turn will be your last, but you have your objective, will you make a dash for your board edge, or stick around fighting for the sake of fighting?
I'm not sure if random game length is really an option for an organised event though - there could be some element of randomness, but not too much.
Quoteand the power weaponed, armoured and psychic characters are the ones who are likely to be on the receiving end of the heaviest fire - resulting in more injuries
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In my experience they might draw more fire but are far more likely to survive it with only light injuries compared to a lightly armoured character when anything more than a glancing hit is likely to do a couple of levels of damage at least.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on March 29, 2012, 03:15:41 PM
However, I will add that the idea of a non-combatant only event doesn't hugely interest me - firstly, I can't see that the games will pick up that "action movie climax" feel if there's no characters prone to thrilling heroics.
Just because your warband aren't necessarily the best-equiped for the job, wouldn't mean they won't have to fight/escape/avoid tough goons.
An added incentive for exciting play could perhaps also be given by ruling that every character gets the
Plain Dumb Luck ability (to be used at GMs discretion?).
There would maybe be a greater need for an armed NPC threat to replace the threat of powerful PCs.
QuoteSecond, I can't really see how the whole concept would be justified. If an Inquisitor sends a team of savants, political manipulators and information gatherers to investigate something, he's very unlikely to not add a couple of badasses to the team to act as bodyguards or to swing into action if it turns out the situation requires it.
To be honest the ideas I've presented are much more suited to a narrative campaign rather than an event like the IGT, because in such a situation the Campaign Masters word is gospel, with any GMs merely being his disciples.
As an example one very quick and simple set-up for a game/campaign focused on low-stat characters would be:
"Your small support team has been sent to research something relatively minor of interest to your master while he and most of his acolytes focus on an on-going major investigation. After your initial investigations however you slowly realise you are in way over your heads and desperately need to find a way to get word of your discoveries to your master ."Joining into more recent comments,
Random game length is already somewhat enforced with the hour-ish slot you get at the IGT (or any of our big events).
Persistent injuries is only really suitable for narrative campaign days, whereas it would over-complicate the IGT by adding spanners into the works of GMs and players.
One thing that I think holds back "more creative/outside-the-box" scenarios at the IGT, is that fact that the tournament rules state that all player models must remain WYSIWYG. The specific example in the rules being that the GM may change the pattern of lasgun a PC is armed with, but may not change it to an autogun. This inability for the GM to put PCs into a state of being unarmed without breaking tournament rules seems kind of incongruous.
Sure we don't want GMs willy-nilly ruling that player character "X" is now armed with power armour and two chainaxes, despite being a weakling sniper whose model is touting camouflage and a needle rifle (and really, I don't think anyone would be silly enough to do that - and if they do and players object, that's why we give marks out of 10). But when you consider everything else we imagine our models doing, is it really a stretch to say "all your characters start this game unarmed"?
Quote from: Charax on March 29, 2012, 08:50:27 PMRandom game length & an emphasis on the objectives will tend to focus people away from massive brawls
I don't think it that random game length can really help, because a game that deliberately ends without a resolution could be as disappointing as one that devolves into a big brawl. And ultimately, if there's an objective one side wants to destroy and the other needs to escape with, it is going to be the big brutal characters who are more likely to get their say.
Quote from: Heroka Vendile on March 30, 2012, 12:33:44 AMJust because your warband aren't necessarily the best-equiped for the job, wouldn't mean they won't have to fight/escape/avoid tough goons.
Fight/escape/evade is not congruous to "thrilling heroics".
As a rough rule, thrilling heroics is the kind of thing for which music like The Raiders March, Rock Anthem for Saving the World, the LotR "hero theme", or the climaxes of either the 1812 Overture or Beethoven's 9th would be a valid (or even compulsory) soundtrack.
My non-combat characters, generally being a lot more cautious about their well-being and less capable of the physical feats required, are going to be much less likely to do something which deserves that.
QuoteAs an example one very quick and simple set-up for a game/campaign focused on low-stat characters would be...
Which seems very out of character for an Inquisitor. With an organisation that will includes any number of mercenaries, veterans and thugs, as well as the money and authority to hire more on the spot, to send a team out that didn't have anyone that could protect it if things went sour is on the wrong end of plausibility.
QuoteOne thing that I think holds back "more creative/outside-the-box" scenarios at the IGT, is that fact that the tournament rules state that all player models must remain WYSIWYG.
I agree that the restriction probably should go the way of the dodo, but in practice "You've run out of ammo" or "It's broken" would work if you need characters to be less armed.
~~~~~
In any case, I've taken the decision at rather short notice to re-write my IGT scenario to see if I can encourage some more thoughtful and less aggressive play. Let's see if it works.
Will be interesting to see if any of these ideas filter through into the IGT games :)
not that likely this close to the event, but bits may well trickle into other future events.
Here's a couple of my thoughts:
I don't think limiting the type of character that people can bring is that good a move - it would impact on the number of attendees as not everyone has multiple warbands they could bring, and try as we might, it can be difficult to buy and build a new warband to a set deadline. As a small community we can't really afford to turn people away on the basis of their warbands.
Scenario design can have a huge impact on how games pan out, and I think Charax has illustrated many good ideas. By making combat a negative outcome due to security defences and the like players need to get creative in how they go about achieving their objectives which all adds to the fun. One of the scenario ideas I put in my "Fickle Warp" article has bloodshed directly fuelling a daemon summoning that the PCs must stop. By coming up with a way of despatching the summoner without letting his blood flow will make the PCs' task much easier. By illustrating to players the downsides of the bullets and swords approach you can reign in those players that only want to chop up the other characters.
I like the idea of a campaign that revolves around influence with organisations within the Imperium. If each player has an organisation they wish to get friendly with at the outset, their scenario objectives can then revolve around doing things at the behest of that organisation while trying to keep a low profile in the eyes of other organisations that will make their lives miserable. Want to ascend the ranks of the Inquisition? Your sponsor wants you to steal artefacts from the Ecclesiarchy and the Adeptus Mechanicus. Want to summon a daemon for your Chaos Cult? You need to deal with the Adeptus Arbites and Inquisition cells blocking your path. In both cases, being identified by the opposing groups would be very, very bad, buying you an enemy and bringing down your reputation with your sponsors.
Not that I'm volunteering for this task or anything!
Ruaridh
EDIT: I'd also like to echo what Heroka Vendile said earlier about the IGT rule about being unable to strip characters of equipment: one of my scenario ideas for last year involved having the Primary PCs of each player waking naked and shorn of equipment in a cell with an explosive collar around their necks. One would have six bullets on him, another an empty revolver, and the third a vial of blood. The characters would have to work together to escape the diabolical maze they had been placed in by their mad captor - creatures would need shot, gene locked doors would have to be overcome with the blood in the vial, and the group couldn't stray more than five yards apart from one another before their explosive collars start beeping alarmingly... Anybody else think they would have fun playing in a game like that?
Sounds like you have been watching the saw movies. I did a game.based off of them this year and had the good fortune to run it twice and have two very different games, the first game descended into a frantic combat in the objective room as the characters chained up attempted to get free (One pc even tried to hack his own leg off sadly the rusty hacksaw failed to penetrate his armour). The second game was all about cooperation and clever thinking two very different groups of characters led to two very different games with the same scenario. Certain characters won't work with or can't work with others, a puritan Inquisitor and a Hrud are hardly going to make nice. Two moderate Inquisitors might however find common ground.
The intent of that rule was so that GMs wouldn't change characters drastically or confuse players by making them not wysiwyg. It wasn't intended to prevent GMs from running the sorts of scenario that you mention - and indeed Stormgrad did run a scenario like that. The rule could just be dropped for next time.
I suspect that GM's aren't about to go and say "Your Inquisitor is now a street urchin", not unless they want to get some very low GMing marks.
Perhaps it could be altered to being able to add/remove equipment, but if they're keeping it, it has to be WYSIWYG. So you can take away their lasgun, but you can't turn it into an autogun just for the hell of it. And/or perhaps there should be some scenario design note to the effect of remembering they're the players' characters and thus don't frak around with them in silly ways unless you want some unhappy players.
I do have to say though, I don't want to see too many "mad death trap" scenarios. While I scored Stormgrad well for his scenario (which turned out an entertaining lark with some good cooperation), I'm not turning up with my characters for the sake of finding out they're kidnapping magnets, I do actually want to be able to play some slightly normal games as well.
Having had a bit of a ponder, and read through the previous posts, i do like the 'influence' style rules. I think there is the potential for a storyline which runs through several events (similar to the GW Studios Karis Cephalon campaign, with some regular major players and others coming in and out as and when. The idea of an over-arching authority judging the players and meting out rewards and punishments which affect future games in the story seems a good measure of control. A character with an aggressive streak and an impressive arsenal of weapons might find themselves assigned to a dangerous mission suited to their combat skills, whereas a cunning and manipulative character might find themselves assigned to an area of investigation that requires a more careful touch. Obviously things wont be quite perfect as the manipulator may be required to fight out of a trap, or the Fighty character may be required to solve a puzzle or riddle. And some characters will have missions which arent necessarily suited to their particular skills, but hey, the 41st Millennium is not a forgiving place!
A storyline such as this would require a collaborative effort in terms of writing and GMing, but with the potential to span several 'claves, i think it could be very rewarding, as well as leading to the same 'Kessel vs Lichtenstein' character devolpment, storylines, rivalries and allegiances which made the White Dwarf battle reports so enthralling.
Is this a good idea, or am i aiming too high?
QuoteI think there is the potential for a storyline which runs through several events
We get that somewhat with Carthax, but I think there is a problem in tying everything into this in that that many, if not most, of us have more models than we get games to play them in.
While Myriad, Holiad and Cortez like to use the same characters frequently, there are those of us who want to bring along something new every time, which isn't all the most conducive to a sustained storyline. Players also tend to want to play with as many people as possible at events (which we should be much more efficient at now we've got play sheet solutions that stop players meeting twice), so... um.
I think in six 'Clave events and twenty five 'Clave games, I've only had a set of my characters come up against the same opponents more than once on four occasions, of which three were repeats on the same day. (The only time it was at different events was when Inquisitor Skoll and Inquisitor Goddard's agents met at both Spring '10 and IGT '11). It's often nice when it happens, but that's not often.
While a cool idea, I'm not sure it's sustainable alongside people's urges to make and use new toys and also get to play against other people's new toys. I think if you want to see a Kessel/Lichtenstein/Tyrus story again, it'll only happen within a regular group or if if three or four people gatecrash WHW (perhaps for a full weekend) and knock out some game reports for Dark Magenta.
I've been thinking some more about an 'influence' based event and am trying to combine it with my thoughts for a kind of team event in which players are randomly assigned to a 'faction' on the day of the event and as a group they have to allocate players to games - so the 'faction' might allocate the player with the most combat-oriented warband to a scenario that sounds like it'll be won by force of arms, and the player with the sneaky assassin to a scenario that sounds like it will require stealth. Of course, the amount of information that the 'faction' are given will be limited, so for example the sneaky assassin may well have walked into an ambush and need to fight his way out.
As well as their faction, warband will also have an 'alignment' such as Imperial-Inquisition, Imperial-AdMech, Heretic-Chaos etc. A player who openly initiates Imperial on Imperial combat will lose influence, but not as much as one who initiates AdMech-on-AdMech combat, but an Imperial-Inquisition warband will obviously not be penalised if he starts a fight with a Heretic-Chaos warband.
'Influence' will also be gained through achieving objectives in each scenario.
The most influential characters would eventually to compete for the main objective in the final game and the rest of their faction would be competing for minor objectives on other tables.
Obviously the idea requires more thought, but I think there's the basis of a good event in there...
I have written an event (due to a very slow day at work).
This is the first part of the pack, which covers some ideas for an 'influence' style system. Constructive feedback would be very much appreciated:
Quote
The setting
Several Inquisitorial warbands has gone missing whilst investigating unexplained seismic events on the small industrial planet of Tchar. The planet lies close to the Maelstrom Zone and its main tithe is psycho-reactive crystals, used in as amplifiers aboard ships for the psychic abilities of its navigators. Tchar's surface is dominated by nitrogen oceans and the population is confined to 3 large cities which dominate the largest landmasses. The seismic events affecting the planet have been driving the usually passive local fauna to the surface, and there have been reports of damage to structures and attacks on civilians by swarms of burrowing creatures. Several warbands have been drafted in by Lord Inquisitor Marcus Barontin to investigate the phenomenon. At the same time, a number of known criminals, xenos and malcontents have been sighted in the system, apparently disrupting any investigation by the planetary authorities.
The day will consist of 3 games contested by 2 factions (Pro-Imperial interests and Anti-imperial interests). Each faction will have a Faction Leader, who will allocate players to the 4 available areas of investigation, based on their strengths.
Renown Score
Players will be awarded 'Renown points' at the end of each scenario by the GM, based on playing in character, achieving objectives, and co-operation with team-mates. This influence can be used to unlock extra information or equipment to help them in their next mission. Should a player behave out of character, be unreasonably aggressive, or hamper their factions efforts to achieve their objectives, this may result in negative renown points being applied. If at the end of the scenario a warband has a negative Renown Score, they will receive penalties or disadvantages in their next scenario.
Players start each scenario with a renown score of 0, and their actions within the scenario will either add or subtract from this score. A score of below 0 at the end of a game will result in the displeasure of your commander and penalties being applied.
In the final round of games, the renown points earned in each game by each side will be totaled up, and this total will be turned into 'Karma' points which can be allocated to your faction. These Karma points will take the form of positive modifiers which can be used on any d100 roll. They may be split up between missions as needed by the Faction Leader before the final round, but do not need to be allocated to specific players.
For example:-
The imperial faction has a total of 100 renown before the final game, and the Faction Leader chooses to allocate them equally between the final 2 scenarios. In turn 3 of the game on the main table, Player one has to make a particularly tricky shot, and after conferring with his team-mates decides to use 15 of the 50 Karma points to give himself a +15% modifier on the shot. This leaves 35 Karma points for the remainder of the game.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 03, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
Several Inquisitorial warbands has gone missing whilst investigating unexplained seismic events on the small industrial planet of Tchar. The planet lies close to the Maelstrom Zone...
I like the background you wrote, however I'd move it to the Carthax sector just because so many of us have our characters there and it's easier than explaining why all our characters have found themselves somewhere else.
QuoteThe day will consist of 3 games
In the past we've always done 4 (or, on at least one occasion, 5) games over the course of the day. I assume you'll GM all day and then look for other participants to volunteer to GM one game and play two games. Personally I prefer playing to GMing, and GMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three - if other people feel the same you may struggle to find volunteers. It also gives more time to events to take their course, for players to get involved in what is happening, to build up their resources etc. Having just two games of resource building (in this case, gaining renown) before the finale doesn't seem like enough. Three games in a day seems better for the informal event idea where players are focusing on their characters rather than taking part in an over-arching story.
Quotecontested by 2 factions
I was thinking of doing three factions - that way if each faction puts one player on each table, plus a GM, you have tables of four (with the odd table of three). That seems an efficient use of the people we have, maximising the amount of playing time everyone gets and meaning less people have to GM each round. If you have two factions, but tables with three players and a GM then you'll always have 2 vs 1. I'm not against being outnumbered occasionally, but I'm not sure it'd work well for every game in a day.
Quote(Pro-Imperial interests and Anti-imperial interests).
I'd thought of slightly less defined factions that I can randomly assign people to and they can figure out their own motivations. With your example, if I turn up with Inquisitor Kaled I'd want to be on the Pro-Imperial side. If three-quarters of people have characters that would feel the same way then you'll have to force some to switch to keep things even which will mean their characters having to act out of character. The less defined the factions the more scope to figure out why your characters are on a particular side without it seeming out of character.
QuoteEach faction will have a Faction Leader, who will allocate players to the 4 available areas of investigation, based on their strengths.
Would this scale, so if there were nine players you could have just three areas of investigation and so on? How would you allocate faction leaders?
QuoteThis influence can be used to unlock extra information or equipment to help them in their next mission.
What sorts of things were you thinking of?
QuoteShould a player behave out of character, be unreasonably aggressive, or hamper their factions efforts to achieve their objectives, this may result in negative renown points being applied. If at the end of the scenario a warband has a negative Renown Score, they will receive penalties or disadvantages in their next scenario.
How would you define these things? What is 'unreasonably aggressive'? Would it vary depending on the character? How would you know what was out of character?
QuoteA score of below 0 at the end of a game will result in the displeasure of your commander and penalties being applied.
What sort of penalties?
To sum up, I think it's workable (after all, I was thinking of something along similar lines), but I don't understand some of the rationale or how some things will work (like the bonus/penalty system. Hope what I've written is useful anyway...
- Dave
Quote from: Kaled on April 03, 2012, 08:53:53 PMGMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three
Yeah. I'd also add the point that relates to both of your points here, in that if there's only two intro games, if you GM one of those, you've only got half a chance to place for the finale. This may actually be more likely to encourage "desperate measures" in the one game they do get, and those "desperate measures" may be exactly the kind of thing we want to avoid.
While a three game day sounds good for something like Karandras' event, because in that case the extra time to run "that scenario" (whatever "that scenario" might be for any given GM) would be worth losing out on a game, I don't think it'd be so great when the GMs have to just run whatever part of the plot it is that needs to be run.
As for the scoring system... I'm not sure. I think I have to hear more as to how many points players were expected to accumulate, and I'm not really sure how useful bonuses totalling to a few dozen points overall might prove to be in the finale. I'd be more inclined to have the renown translate into something a bit more gutsy, like Dark Heresy's "Fate Points" (obviously not on a 1:1 basis though!)
Bonuses of only a few points aren't going to do much to affect a game, and it wouldn't be easy to agree on exactly how many of the team's points could be spent - but negotiating with the others to spend one of the "fate points" you have would probably be easier.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 04, 2012, 02:42:20 AM
it wouldn't be easy to agree on exactly how many of the team's points could be spent - but negotiating with the others to spend one of the "fate points" you have would probably be easier.
My other concern here would be the time taken to negotiate how many points to spend - it'd be kind of frustrating if my opponents wander off for five minutes to decide how many points to add to a dice roll (especially if they then roll an auto-pass/fail).
Also, how were you planning to decide who plays on the main table? At first I'd assumed there wasn't really a main one, but looking back I see that there is. Just having the leader who was allocated at the start of the day play on there doesn't seem fair on everyone else. In my outline I was thinking that the the player in each faction who had the most influence would play on the main table and would become leader of the faction and allocate the other members of his faction to side tables. That way in the first three games there's also competition within factions to become the leader and so get to play in the main table, as well as cooperation to ensure the faction as a whole wins.
Quote from: Kaled on April 03, 2012, 08:53:53 PM
QuoteI like the background you wrote, however I'd move it to the Carthax sector just because so many of us have our characters there and it's easier than explaining why all our characters have found themselves somewhere else.
Easily done
QuoteIn the past we've always done 4 (or, on at least one occasion, 5) games over the course of the day. I assume you'll GM all day and then look for other participants to volunteer to GM one game and play two games. Personally I prefer playing to GMing, and GMing one game out of four games is more palatable than one out of three - if other people feel the same you may struggle to find volunteers. It also gives more time to events to take their course, for players to get involved in what is happening, to build up their resources etc. Having just two games of resource building (in this case, gaining renown) before the finale doesn't seem like enough. Three games in a day seems better for the informal event idea where players are focusing on their characters rather than taking part in an over-arching story.
I'll have a rewrite today, sort out the mechanics of it.
QuoteI was thinking of doing three factions - that way if each faction puts one player on each table, plus a GM, you have tables of four (with the odd table of three). That seems an efficient use of the people we have, maximising the amount of playing time everyone gets and meaning less people have to GM each round. If you have two factions, but tables with three players and a GM then you'll always have 2 vs 1. I'm not against being outnumbered occasionally, but I'm not sure it'd work well for every game in a day.
Same as above, i'll have a wriggle on it
QuoteI'd thought of slightly less defined factions that I can randomly assign people to and they can figure out their own motivations. With your example, if I turn up with Inquisitor Kaled I'd want to be on the Pro-Imperial side. If three-quarters of people have characters that would feel the same way then you'll have to force some to switch to keep things even which will mean their characters having to act out of character. The less defined the factions the more scope to figure out why your characters are on a particular side without it seeming out of character.
The original plan was to put up a sign-up form post on here, so people could declare for particular factions in advance, but again, i'll see if i can wriggle in a 3rd faction.
QuoteWould this scale, so if there were nine players you could have just three areas of investigation and so on? How would you allocate faction leaders?
4 was a 'worst case scenario', assuming a large number of players. 3 is easily done, by dropping one out each round.
QuoteWhat sorts of things were you thinking of?
For the renown store, i had intended that once a player reaches a certain total of renown (through doing heroic acts, achieving objectives successfully etc), their faction leader would pick from this (currently WIP) chart-
Positive Renown Store-
Superior Ammunition: Your leader has made his own personal store of ammunition available to your warband for this mission. All ranged shots have a +5% to hit modifier.
Blessing: Your Leader allows his personal confessor to bless your warband for the coming mission. Your warband gains the 'plain dumb luck' ability for this game.
Satellite imaging: Aerial reconnaissance has given your warband a much better idea of the terrain for this area. The warband gains an appropriate amount of environmental equipment for the scenario as decided by the GM. This could include respirators, ropes and climbing equipment, or anything else etc
QuoteHow would you define these things? What is 'unreasonably aggressive'? Would it vary depending on the character? How would you know what was out of character?
This is very much the GM's territory, but as a guideline i would say any action that cannot be reasonably justified. In the past i have seen a game where a character in a commanding shooting position with a powerful ranged weapon opened fire on a verbal negotiation between 2 other players based on the justification that one of them "looks like they deal with daemons", and the other because the character shooting also "didnt like techpriests". There hadnt been any other shooting yet in the game, and the purpose of the scenario was for the leaders to meet and negotiate. The shooters leader hung back from the meeting point, then got one of his party to hose down the other leaders while they were stood in the open next to each other.
QuoteWhat sort of penalties?
For the penalties, again, a WIP list, chosen by opposing faction leader-
Negative renown penalties –
Inferior ammunition: All the best ammunition available has been allocated to other warbands first . All shots made by your warband with ranged weapons suffer -10% to hit penalty for this game
Disruptive Psy-storm: Tchar's famous psychic storms cause even non-psykers to suffer headaches. For the psychically sensitive, these can cause crippling migraines. Psychic tests will incur a further -30% on top of other modifiers.
Sleepless night: The raucous cawing of spire-ravens during the night has left your warband suffering from severe lack of sleep. Mental characteristic tests are at an additional -10%
Software glitch: A fragment of malicious scrapcode has infected some of your equipment. Roll a d6 every time you want to use a gunsight, auspex or any other piece of equipment owned by the warband which might be affected. On a 4+ the item works normally. On a 1-3, the item may not be used this turn and the action is lost while the character bashes the item with their hand and swears colourfully.
(the psy-storm still need a bit of working out so it doesnt sound like i should affect the whole table, rather than 1 warband...)
Ok, the main table issue, was down to bad wording. My intention for the final game was to have 2 larger scenarios, both of which are equally important, are designed to run simultaneously in terms of the story, and will affect each other, depending on certain actions occurring.
Its very much a case of the leader assigning players based on strengths, rather than merit or influence. A good leader isnt going to send his best mate into a frontal assault if thats not his area of expertise, no matter how chummy they are.
As for how to decide who is the leader, its very much a ceremonial position, designed to give myself a point of contact within each faction. It doesnt confer any bonuses or penalties to that player, its simply and organisational device. We're all big boys, it shouldnt be too hard for somebody to volunteer, and the other players from that faction agreeing or volunteering themselves.
As for the renown points, its a case that it should be acheivable for each player, if playing in the right spirit, and successfully completing objectives to total around 30-40, with the average being around 15-20. This means most players (if you divide it exactly equally should be able to get a total of +20% bonus to use how they wish within the game. It still needs fully fleshing, but i think it has potential to encourage fair, but also adventurous and daring play, as well as trying to get people to do heroic things, rather than play it safe.
In terms of players taking a long time to decide how much bonus to use, again, this is something the GM for that game should have total control over. 30 seconds maximum i would say, but even that is a long time to decide. Each player, if paying attention, should know how important that action is, and whether is is worth using some of their 'Karma' bonus on.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
This is very much the GM's territory, but as a guideline i would say any action that cannot be reasonably justified.
The problem, as we often see with people justifying their characters stats, is that what one person considers fully justified another might not consider to be justified at all. That was why I added the alignment. If a player considers his character to be a member of the Inquisition he shouldn't be attacking other Inquisitors - they'd both have the same alignment so would lose influence. So there'd be some rules for situations when characters would lose influence rather than it being totally up to the GM. That way players know the stakes and could decide to attack anyway, reasoning that the potential gain is worth the loss of influence. I wouldn't want to make the system too complex, and the GM could always make other rulings if something unexpected crops up, but I think some rules are a good idea to ensure some consistency across the whole event and between different GMs.
Anyway, it seems like you have some good ideas - a possible Autumn Conclave?
Yeah, Autumn sounds good.
I've had a bit of a rewrite today to add an extra faction, and to clarify some of the details on it. I'll start a new thread for it in a mo so we can sort out dates and approximate numbers :)
Once i've got a date etc, we can always thrash out details on the renown system as a group consensus. Is it best to set a date before creating an event thread, or edit it to add a date to the subject line after?
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 05:51:47 PM
Once i've got a date etc, we can always thrash out details on the renown system as a group consensus.
I wouldn't try for a group consensus, it's your event so do what feels right to you - but if you want a second opinion I'd be happy to take a look and can help you with some of the things I've learned from doing these things in the past.
QuoteIs it best to set a date before creating an event thread, or edit it to add a date to the subject line after?
If I were you I'd contact the WHW events team and see what options are available first (I can send you the details for the guy who I dealt with for the IGT if you like), and then ask people which of those dates they'd prefer.
Quote from: Kaled on April 04, 2012, 06:35:51 PMIf I were you I'd contact the WHW events team and see what options are available first
If I can recommend anything,
RING THEM rather than faffing around with e-mails. My emails got lost in the system for weeks until I rang them - which solved it in five minutes.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 05:51:47 PMYeah, Autumn sounds good.
Hmm. Does this mean Karandras' in Summer and leaving the Kaede Mack Conglomerate until maybe next year (we seem to be avoiding Winter 'Claves these days). Although I suppose there's no real reason we couldn't have three events if they were well spaced, but we've also got the INQvitational to work around.
A Event that some of us are not invited to so frankly since its being so selective about the members of this community that are going then i dont think it should play a major factor in dates for events for members of this community. If People choose to go to it then thats down to them
Im happy enough to run the event whenever. As far as i can see on the forum page, there arent any other definitive dates set for other events?
Im also happy to run my event near the INQvitational if enough people are interested since im not invited to that.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 09:34:36 PM
I knew this site could be cliquey, but an Invitational event? Isnt the community small enough already?
Im happy enough to run the event whenever, but if its going to clash with another event that a lot of the regular players are going to attend, maybe i need to rethink my timing?
Although I plan to attend the INQvitational, I don't think it should factor in choosing a date for a Conclave event. Molotov has only invited a few people from this community - I think it's mostly Ammobunker members - so it's not a clash that will mean a load of people can't attend. I suggest you ignore it as it only affects a couple of people.
As for a Winter Conclave - the main reason I moved the IGT was that WHW was all booked up through December that year. As it turned out, the snow meant it would have had to be cancelled anyway, but we'd ran it in December the couple of years before without any problem so I don't think we should discount the idea of a Winter Conclave.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting we have to try and place clear water between 'Clave events and the INQvitational, but that we'd be better off missing a clash if we can avoid it, because we don't get a lot of players in the first place.
Also, you'd have to listen to me moan about it all day. And do you want that? Really?
Mind you, if it is the only date possible, then at least we'd get the amusement of an absolute mob of Inquisitor players that day. That's part of the reason I want to see if we can get some kind of unity between the two scales for a mixed event, because we could probably double the turnouts.
Quote from: Kaled on April 04, 2012, 09:57:33 PMAs for a Winter Conclave
I thought we had come to something of a consensus that they weren't ideal (and thus we didn't try for one last year), but if we decide to reinstate it, then I'll run with it. (That's "run WITH it" not "run it". Important difference. But I may do something again sometime.)
[quote author=MarcoSkoll link=topic=1943.msg26364#msg26364 date=1333579293
Mind you, if it is the only date possible, then at least we'd get the amusement of an absolute mob of Inquisitor players that day. That's part of the reason I want to see if we can get some kind of unity between the two scales for a mixed event, because we could probably double the turnouts.
[/quote]
Seems a bit odd that the 2 groups seem exclusive anyway. Do the other guys not read the 'Clave?
I'll speak to my contacts at WHW about August dates tomorrow and put up a sign up post once i have a definite date.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 04, 2012, 11:45:44 PMSeems a bit odd that the 2 groups seem exclusive anyway. Do the other guys not read the 'Clave?
Some do (Molotov & Keravin I think are the main two), but the Clave's less than entirely welcoming history toward 28mm players means that a lot of INQ28 players are over at Ammobunker now.
There are attempts to patch things up, but those haven't got that far yet. I'm hoping that more people rejecting the segregation should help things - I've met quite a few of the 28mm players now and should meet more at the INQvitational.
Inq28 is for me, like Necrophilia in that its not my cup of caffeine, but what other people get up to in their spare time is their own business :P
Being one of those filthy others I was interested in this event. Bloodpact - can't imagine why they might not want to come and see such lovely jokes :P
I shouldn't need to point out that comparisons to sexual deviancy aren't going to help. We're talking about different models, not raping corpses.
While it's no secret that my preferences lie with 54mm (as the larger size is less fiddly to sculpt), I will play 28mm when that's available. As I see it, it's Inquisitor - provided you've got players who "get it", it's good whether big or small.
If any of the Inq28 crowd do want to attend but don't want to splash out on a whole 54mm warband, then if they build a warband leader, I would be amenable to loaning out a character or two to make up the rest of a warband.
Im always happy to lend out models to careful players :)
I'm not sure you're all talking about the same "this event". I think Keravin is talking about the dual-scale proposition.
We really need another thread to discuss that idea (and probably need a sister thread on Ammobunker as well if we want decent buy-in), so I'll go work on compiling the ideas we've got so far.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on April 05, 2012, 07:06:37 PM
I'm not sure you're all talking about the same "this event". I think Keravin is talking about the dual-scale proposition.
That's what I figured. But I was thinking that maybe a good stepping stone to a dual scale event would be to persuade a few of the Inq28 players to take part in a 54mm event - we're already got a few Inq54 players playing in the 28mm INQvitational, and the more the that everyone mixes the more support we're likely to get for a dual scale event in future.
A slight problem has just come to mind...
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 03, 2012, 07:05:54 PMEach faction will have a Faction Leader, who will allocate players to the 4 available areas of investigation, based on their strengths.
Is this not likely to end up with the same players facing off again and again? Obviously, misleading the faction leaders in different ways so that some thought it was a fighty scenario and others an investigatey scenario would do something for this, but you don't really want to be overdoing that or have people having to play each other too many times.
I think we all secretly hope to get to play against as many of the cool new models we've seen on the forum as possible, so playing the same people repeatedly is less than ideal.
Perhaps 4 available areas is not the best way to go; if the faction leaders were given all the appropriate briefings for that round for their faction, it's therefore their responsibiltity to work out who would be better for each scenario, rather than telling them 'this is a fighty scenario' (fighty being a technical term)
Just a suggestion I'm throwing out there
I think that might run into a problem that the days aren't overburdened with spare time, so having to have the faction leader read all the briefings could heavily eat into our gaming minutes while they have to decide what teams go where.
So the briefings would have to be kept pretty darn short.
Quote(fighty being a technical term)
Indeed. It's like the glunk being the international standard measure for motor oil.
I agree. Probably best just to randomly allocate players to tables for the first games (or use the charts Marco created), and then have the faction leaders allocate players to each table for the finale.
That would destroy some of the impact of having a faction leader in the first place. I do like the idea, but I think we need to find ways to keep it from becoming time consuming or pitting the same people against each other ad nauseum.
SO Blood any movement on this in regards to a potential Date
Life has thrown a few things my way in recent weeks, and as a result i've not even had a chance to look at it. I might have to move it to a later slot in the year, as im struggling to find a space in my calender to build and paint the necessary NPC's!
If your having problems with NPC's i know that the clave has a wide selection of Individuals with spares and models built specifically for being used as NPC's. I believe that Marco asked everyone to bring "Heretic/Cultists" and was inundated with NPC's for use in the autumn clave.
What NPCs do you need? As already said, plenty of us have a wide range of models that we can bring along.
The problem is i cant reveal that on here without spoiling all the fun of the final scenarios in my event ;)
I sincerely doubt anybody would have one or two of the NPCs i need anyway. I'll keep you all updated.
Quote from: Bloodpact on April 18, 2012, 09:06:48 PMI sincerely doubt anybody would have one or two of the NPCs i need anyway
Come now. *That* is a challenge. ;)