Another n00b, another balance question

[FoxPhoenix135]

Hello all, been a lurked for a while but I finally decided to take the dive on INQ(28).

I have played both 40k and the Dark Heresy / Rogue Trader RPGs, so the rules system seems alright by me. The issue I'm having is balance. I read the whole thread on "Conclave Standard", but I don't feel satisfied. My question is: has anybody come up with a points-buy or similar system to iron out the attributes at least? Has anybody given the Ready Reckoner a house ruling to make it's point values a little more representative of the combat capacity of the characters it rates? In RPGs, at least DH/RT, there is ranking, classes, etc to give you an idea of who is on equal footing. 40k has points. Both systems have their flaws, but I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if I asked a buddy to play some 40k and when he asks how many points, I tell him that "we'll just wing it."

I know this issue has been beat to death, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this balance issue. I want to pitch this game to the guys, so what is the best way to tell them to balance their warbands before our first game? I want to play, so how far can you cut the "middleman" GM out before it becomes an overly complex game of kill-team?

Sorry for all the questions, and I would appreciate the advice!

[Kaled]

I want to pitch this game to the guys, so what is the best way to tell them to balance their warbands before our first game?

Inquisitor warbands aren't meant to be balanced - balance is a concept that is not needed for the game. If you and your friends want a balanced game, then Inquisitor is not for you.

But on a more helpful note, you could give people some guidelines that they must stick within (or, if they do want something that's not covered, then they have to get agreement from the group). Say, three characters per warband - so that's a leader (usually an Inquisitor, Rogue Trader or Magos), a combat character (death cultist, guardsman, arco-flagellant, enforcer etc), and a character whose speciality is not combat related (tech-adept, astropath, scribe, pilot etc). You could also have a rule that says no characters taken from 40k troop types so people are forced to think outside the box. Maybe also say no more than one bolt/power/other powerful weapon per warband and no power armour. Use the guidelines in the FAQ and 'Conclave standard' when writing profiles. And so on.

You could sit around and create the characters as a group, or pass your characters to each other (or post them on here) to get feedback. Then look at your characters after using them in the first few games and adjust any that are too powerful/weak - profiles aren't finished until you've used them in a few games.

Points vales are not the way to go. Inquisitor is about working together to tell a cool story while at the same time playing a game to see whose characters come out ahead in each scenario. It's about cool and interesting characters - not about the best characters you can create with the points you have available. Keep that in mind and you won't go far wrong.

[FoxPhoenix135]

Thank you Kaled, those suggestions are exactly the ones I was looking for. I'll draw up a few guidelines, and run them on here for feedback before I pitch them to the group. Thanks!

[MarcoSkoll]

One thing that I really have to emphasise from Kaled's post is that Inquisitor is NOT a game about win or lose. It's solely about playing the parts of your characters and making it into a thrilling story.

The idea that "Your warband is better than mine, I'll make my scribe smarter to compensate" would be writing your characters based on trying to meet a certain number of points rather than because that's how smart/good with a gun/agile you actually saw them when they were forming in your head.

Your question should be if it's going to be a fun/interesting game. That doesn't need things to be entirely fair, they just need to not be so one-sided that the game is going to be predictable and unexciting.

Bear in mind, most FB/40k armies aren't actually that balanced - what with the whole Rock/Paper/Scissors thing where some armies work well against others, and a general lack of playtesting, one army probably has some advantage before the models have even come out of the case. They are however, usually similar enough to make for a game that has enough chance of going either way as to be entertaining.

Particularly given that Inquisitor games are not about who wins or loses, but how entertaining it was to win/lose (I "lost" many of my most fondly remembered games), you needn't worry about balance much more than having good intentions and some experience of how to apply them (i.e. a few test games).

The other thing is, given the Inquisitor system and the way all the stats interact, the infinitely possible range of scenarios and such ... it's basically impossible to create a well representative points system.

I did once make a formula that could predict the points costs of most of the WHFB models eerily closely (it was seldom out by more than about 5-10%), but that's a far simpler system where players can't just invent new skills of unknown value whenever they like.

[Molotov]

Fox, it's welcome to see you here on the Conclave - I do enjoy following your work elsewhere. If you choose to embark upon Inquisitor, you need to throw many of your conceptions of wargaming aside. Power is in the hands of the player (and really, a game should have a GM, who holds the final say) and they have the ability to create stats for weapons, equipment and skills on the spot. That utter freedom can prove very daunting. It is entirely possible to have a five-man Deathwatch Squad against a ratling. But that's no different from historical gamers playing imbalanced forces for the fun of it.

Inquisitor isn't really a tournament game. But, fundamentally, it's a campaign game, where your characters matter, and their decisions can affect whole worlds. It really is brilliant, but it represents a paradigm shift, and your players have to make that leap also.

[FoxPhoenix135]

@MarcoSkoll:
   That will be a change for my group! I have a munchkin or two in there for sure, so I'll have to make sure to "forget" to invite them to the first game demo...

@Molotov:
   Thanks for the welcome! I am a big fan of a lot of your work in the 28mm range (which is what my group will be playing, since its a lot harder to convince these guys to play a game if they have to buy anything, and by using 28mm I can circumvent that) and I look forward to getting some critique from you on some of my own simple kitbashes and conversions.

Thanks for all the help guys, I think I am getting the point now. Now that I've been set straight, I'll be off to create up a pair of warbands to use in my demo pitch to the gamers in my area!

[Ferran]

Can you post a link to your work elsewhere? Cheers.

[FoxPhoenix135]

I run a blog that has a great deal of my BS

http://alaskavalleygamersclub.blogspot.com/

[MarcoSkoll]

That will be a change for my group! I have a munchkin or two in there for sure, so I'll have to make sure to "forget" to invite them to the first game demo.

Inquisitor really isn't a game for munchkins, or indeed, anyone who plays the system rather than playing the game.

Power combos, loophole abuse and other unsportsmanlike things that are technically allowed with rules as written are completely defeating the point of what is a narrative game. And the problem is, there are a lot of these things. Inquisitor is written as an open ended system - and needs to be, in order to allow the players freedom to all those awesome things they've seen in the movies.

This is one of the reasons it's good to have a GM, particularly with inexperienced players, to slap anyone who does such things. (Although if you get a munchkin GM, then may the Emperor have mercy on your soul)

Another reason for a GM is, because it's an incomplete system - there are no rules for crashing down through the glass ceiling of another Inquisitor's hideout on a flaming motorbike, for example (although if it happens, I think you are obliged to have the motorbike solo out from "Bat out of Hell" as a mental soundtrack) - it's very helpful to have an impartial individual to be able to come up with fair modifiers and/or rules for when things go outside what's actually written in the book.

A GM-Player can do this, but even the best of us can struggle to be entirely impartial when our characters are involved (we try, but we so often end up with a negative bias against our own little men, so as to not be thought of as being unfair to the other players.)

[InquisitorHeidfeld]

Many of the things I might have said have already been pointed out here but I think I can still add a few more.

For a start, the importance of a GM cannot be underestimated.
My own game has drifted further and further away from the core system over the years but even at the start I was generally playing 1 Player and 1 GM in much more of the vein of traditional pen & paper RPGs than wargames (in fact these days my games are entirely pen & paper, models entirely optional, and I work with a unique ruleset based around Inquisitor, Rogue Trader (the 1987 one), Confrontation and WFRP (again the 1980s one)) - This has one major advantage in that the idea of competition is almost entirely removed, the players aren't trying to win because they know that the GM is effectively omnipotent and so they tend to focus more on the 'cool'.

I tend to work characters up as a collaboration between the player and the GM, there are six character types I think work as primary characters in Inquisitor (though some may be inappropriate in certain campaigns):

Inquisitor
Adeptus Mechanicus
Rogue Trader
Priest
Navigator Nobilis &
Minor Noble (Major Nobles generally having jobs which keep them from adventures).

So we begin with that choice.

I would then encourage you to build their character, perhaps using the 20 Questions, get an idea of where they're from, what they're like and what drives them. If nothing else, if they're a farm-boy from an out of the way desert planet whose father was killed while he was still an infant and who was raised by his aunt and uncle... Well it gives certain indications as to the sort of equipment they'll have available, the sort of people they'll have the opportunity to get to know...etc.

Although there may be guidlines on the headline equipment I would encourage a certain flexibility - Someone who creates a really good image might be allowed to breach the guidlines because that character is adding to the 'cool' of the game... Others, laden down with the sort of common stuff I tend to allow free reign over might want a Power Sword but while it would be within the guidelines he needs a warehouse for his guns and grenades and could be disallowed.

My group also deal with much larger warbands than anybody else I know - it adds work but also adds flexibility - the core warband (as you might see in a standard game) represents the leader and his lieutenants, the people he can send to do things without supervision on his behalf.
My next stage therefore is to talk about lieutenants - what do they want, how would they have met, why are they in such a position of trust, what are their personalities (again it's possible to call on the 20 Questions at this point). and from those discussions the GM will assign a retinue to each lieutenant (as I say, larger warbands than most, these retinues generally number around 20 - though we begin with only two lieutenants)
This doesn't mean that the games work at that scale, the numbers will instead add flexibility. If an Inquisitor wants to go into an operation with a squad of troops at his back then that's fine, every one of the troops will have names, personalities and some history and because it's not a stand-up fight many will end up occupied with covering the flanks or rear... But importantly their choices will be their own, less limited by 'what they have available' and generally they will be based on what they know before things kick off... If they think they're going to be infiltrating then their Archoflagellant and Redemptionist will probably stay behind in favour something else.
Regardless - their Lieutenants, be they the other members of their warband or (as in my case) the other possible leaders of warbands, will give further indications as to the sort of game the player is thinking of, giving the GM an opportunity to guide them or redefine the campaign to suit.

[FoxPhoenix135]

Thanks for that perspective! It's good to hear how others have managed their games.