Hypothetical situation. Approached by another member of a wargaming club for a game of Inquisitor, only then to find out that they refuse to play against you because wargear that a character has is 'not in the rulebook'.
Where do you draw the line against other players in regards to wargear creation / manipulation?
My PO on a situation like this is that it really depends on who your playing against and if the said 'wargear item or character' was going to be abused then I would question why it was taken in the first place. One of the many things I like about Inquisitor is that as a narrative game if you can concieve an item (and to a lesser extent if it is plausible) you can create it. Would like to get further opinions on this topic just to gauge where you guys sit, because more and more often I am finding myself having to opt out on games or being looked over for games because I have an overactive imagination.
At Conclave events, anything goes. I trust people here enough not to worry that they'll be anything other than cool and awesome.
If it's someone I've not played against before, I generally give a little introduction to my characters, along with their equipment. If I'm GMing, I'll wanna see players sheets anyway. And if my opponent dosn't mention it to me, and it comes up in game, I might ask to see their sheet. If it is IMO overpowered, I'll say so, as =][= players we should be big enough to get along.
Also, if it's something modeled on the character, I'll be much more inclined to not argue. Awesome conversions Literally FTW.
I think if you're playing someone for the first time it's not unreasonable for you to both use equipment the other is familiar with so you can get on and play the game without having to worry about obscure or made up rules - especially if you don't have a GM to mediate.
Once you're more familiar with each other's characters, or if there's a GM to mediate any abuses then I don't think there should be any restrictions on making up equipment as long as it fits both the game and the background.
QuoteHypothetical situation.
Yeah, right.
However, if you're playing INQ and you either can't be trusted to make up sensible wargear or to use wargear that doesn't appear in the LRB, then you shouldn't be playing INQ.
It's time to put down the big boy pants because you ain't ready for them.
R.
Well, for a start, Inquisitor isn't supposed to be a game with balance. Therefore I'd insist on seeing the rules for invented wargear beforehand, but I rather consider it to be missing the point of the game for someone to refuse to play against wargear because it's been fan-made. I might if the rules were convoluted, already covered by something else, or an apparent attempt to get around a weakness in another piece of wargear (Cost-effective power armour, to make up an example on the spot)
Tullio
Quote from: Srixx on December 23, 2009, 10:37:37 AMWhere do you draw the line against other players in regards to wargear creation / manipulation?
Wherever seems fair.
I can't possibly speak out against wargear on the basis that it's not from the LRB, because I may well hold the record for the most prolific creation of equipment profiles out there, with approaching 250 pieces of kit (weapons, weapon parts, accessories and ammunition types) in the current RIA alone.
I'll speak out about unfair wargear/skills/powers, but for the most part, why should I complain about the wargear when I've trusted my opponent to write a fair stat-line?
In the end, anyone who thinks that non-LRB stuff can't be as fair (if not more so) than LRB stuff wants their head tied*.
*Old family idiom.
Don't you mean ~10250, including all Lasweapons? If someone refuses to play against something they don't know in detail, either 1) show them the rules or 2) find someone else. As PO says, they aren't mature enough ;D (I'm a big boy!)
Quote from: DapperAnarchist on December 28, 2009, 05:23:35 PMDon't you mean ~10250, including all Lasweapons?
I decided not to count all possible lasweapon combinations - just the individual parts. If I counted all the possible lasweapon combinations, the answer would be in excess of 21400.
That doesn't even begin to cover the way that number's going to increase if I start to add some of the customisation options I've been poking about.
In the version of the RIA on my computer with all the experimental rules and parts, there might well be 50,000 possible weapons, and that's before you even start to add in the different results that arise from variant ammunition.
Anyone can refuse to play with anyone else for any reason.
It is probably better for both people involved to not play, rather than play a game that will end badly or with hard feelings.
That doesn't help anyone.
Quote from: Easy E on December 28, 2009, 07:09:23 PMAnyone can refuse to play with anyone else for any reason.
Yes, but that doesn't stop some of those reasons being pretty daft.
If you're refusing to play against someone because some of their equipment wasn't from the LRB, then that would rather imply that you weren't playing because you were concerned about "losing".
Personally, I'd work on the principle that if someone doesn't want to play against me on a silly reason like that, then I don't really want to be playing against them either - but because they've got the wrong idea about the game.
I'd say there should be a GM, preferably the person with the most experianced with 40k canon. If there are only two players then I'd suggest one is GM and sets up a scenario for the other, balancing NPC ability to keep the game challenging but ultimately winably, so that it isn't PvP but both working together for the story. Once they have played a few games, understand the other's opinions on kit etc and trust one another enough then they could play against each other sharing GM duties, but I wouldn't play the first game that way.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on December 28, 2009, 07:20:43 PM
Quote from: Easy E on December 28, 2009, 07:09:23 PMAnyone can refuse to play with anyone else for any reason.
Yes, but that doesn't stop some of those reasons being pretty daft.
Totally agree. A huge probelm with a lot of table top games is that the players never spend anytime discussing what they want to get out of the game before playing. Then, two people with vastly different "views/needs" play, and end up pissed off because neither of them got what they wanted out of the gaming experience.
Non-PVP play sounds like a great idea.