Autumn Conclave - October 29th 2011

[MarcoSkoll]

Hello. Friendly reminder that the event is eight weeks tomorrow, so that means that as of about now, you're down to about another 56 days modelling/painting/writing time before you have to start packing/eating/sleeping before the event.

~~~~~

Also, so far, I've only had one person contact me about writing their own scenario. It is by no means mandatory, but I did get the idea a lot more people were interested in doing so.

In case you're short of ideas for what you might write, here's some:

- A man with the brand of an eight pointed star was shot dead by the security forces aboard one of Ilithyia's orbital defence stations. What was he doing there (setting explosives? hacking the cogitators?) and did he have any friends? (Heck, one of the player warbands might be his friends...) Have fun with some low gravity rules for this one.

- An entire noble family has been missing since the Corporal's resurrection. Rumour is that the family first secured their standing through an artefact of dark power.

- One of the PCs wishes to eliminate a military commander (Heretic in the Emperor's eyes? In the way of the glorious victory of Chaos? Depends on your players). The other needs him alive (or captured).
The third party (if any) wishes to let the assassination go ahead, then capture the assassin.

- One of the archaeological artefacts that suggests previous human/xeno co-habitation on Ilithyia is in a warehouse/lost in a swamp after a plane crash/etc. Find and destroy/steal/cause public panic with this item.

- Darius Balnot, the preacher who witnessed the Corporal's resurrection, has gone missing. An individual who may match his description has been reported to be wandering local streets, speaking only in passages of scripture. Find/Capture/Kill him. But is it actually Darius?

- Several copies of an ancient prophetic text that appear to predict the Corporal's future have appeared, but they are vague, poorly transcribed and translated to the extent that each reaches a different conclusion.
The original is said to be kept in one of the Inquisition vaults on Cerestne XVIII.

- The data banks in an underground military vault hold most of the local vox scramble codes. Having these codes would allow you to better anticipate troop movements - or perhaps hear vital intelligence.

- A parley has been arranged with Inquisitor Kalius Solnes and a number of powerful individuals who desire his favour - or perhaps just might prefer he was out of the way.

- Further investigate Nicá rail station for further evidence of what actually transpired there.

If you want to use any of these ideas, they're going to be first come, first served - PM me to let me know which one you'd like to use as a basis, and I'll cross it off the list for you. (But if you tell me you're going to use one, please tell me if you change your mind and are doing something else so that it's available for someone else).

I may add more down the line. I dunno.

[Cortez]

You can add me to the list as well.

[MarcoSkoll]

Well, by the time most of you guys read this, it'll be seven weeks to the event.

Now, with that in mind, I've still had very little correspondence from people about writing scenarios.
Seven weeks might sound like plenty of time to you guys, but the last thing I need is ten people trying to e-mail me about their custom scenarios the day before the event - I do have my own event preparation, a Dark Heresy adventure to run, artwork to do... as well as some life outside wargaming.

(In 50 days, I'll be quite glad that I'm already ready for the 2012 IGT and won't have a finger to lift until the day...  )

I'm not expecting you to email me completely embellished scenarios - I just want anyone who'd like to GM to drop me a line with a loose idea of what they're planning to do. Anyone who'd like help with their ideas is also welcome to contact me to discuss them.

[MarcoSkoll]

I've had an extra scenario submission now, which is good.

Bear in mind, the point in this is me trying to avoid contradictory games (i.e. two GMs wanting to kidnap Lance Corporal Kane or something), or at least schedule similar games simultaneously. So if you've got some mega brilliant idea, please let me know what it is before someone else you to the punch.

Also, if you take too long to get back to me, I may not be able to provide resource cards relevant to your scenario.

To help you out, here are the current resource categories:

1.     Administratum
2.     Arbites
3.     Astartes
4.     Chaos
5.     Criminal
6.     Ecclesiarchy
7.     Evidence
8.     Imperial Guard
9.     Imperial Navy
10.   Informant
11.   Inquisition
12.   Intermediary
13.   Mechanicus
14.   Mercenary
15.   Political
16.   Rogue Trader
17.   Witness
18.   Xenos

The precise names may change, and a few more will probably be added dependent on what madness I come up with and the needs of GM's scenarios.

[MarcoSkoll]

One point I need to address, as it's come up a couple of times now.

I know I've mentioned the opportunity of games without dedicated GMs. This was intended that the role will be shared between the players (with input from myself as needed), not that there will be a single GM-Player.

As the GM decides the distribution of resources at the end of the game, I'm apprehensive about them having resources wagered on the game they're playing. I'm also hesitant about it from the angle that everyone might want to have their cake and eat it too.
However, I'm not being peppered with willing GMs at the moment, so after some thought - and while it wasn't my original intent - I am willing to allow GM-Players, but with a few caveats:

1) You won't earn the full GM resource reward. This is partly intended as recompense for missing a game (and with it, a chance to gamble/win resources), so I can't really give GM-Players as much for their efforts as a dedicated GM.

2) It is entirely dependent on the numbers. As it means adding a player to a table, it can't really be done if I need to put four people round a table (four players would slow the game down too much).  I'll try and allow it as far as possible, but you may have to consent to just being a regular GM if it comes to it.
However, if you need three players for a game and only get two, then... well.

3) I'd prefer any GM-Players have been to a Conclave event previously. It's a tight timescale that takes a bit of getting used to, and it's probably better if you're not playing in the first Conclave game you've run.

4) If it goes horribly wrong, the next Head GM probably won't want to give it a second chance.

5) Also, you won't win any friends if you're not properly impartial. If that means asking the other players what they think should happen, then so be it.

~~~~~

EDIT: I'll also add this here, to avoid explaining it in every PM:

Any scenario I have time to prepare for will have an additional resource added to their pot that relates to the scenario objective. (If I don't have time to prepare, it'll just be a random resource.)

For instance, the Data-Bank scenario brief (now claimed) will get "Vox Scramble codes" (probably in the Imperial Guard category) as its objective card.

On the day, this "objective card" should always go to the player who best completes their objective - whereas all other cards should be shuffled (or otherwise distributed randomly, without attention to what type of cards they are).

[Canis-Sapiens]

A quick question, are we limited to weapons and abilities etc form the rulebook or can we use the revised armoury and the various extra rules from the articles in the maga pack?

[MarcoSkoll]

Beyond preferring that people's characters conform to the "Conclave Standard" (which is really more a guideline than an actual rule), the only restriction on your characters is that they should be WYSIWYG.

You are entirely welcome to write your own equipment/skills if you wish.

[MarcoSkoll]

The Event pack has been updated to V1.1 to include some of the updates and answers I've posted in this thread.

~~~~~

Also, I have a couple of questions to ask of you lot.

#1:
The Finale scenario will be several linked games played in parallel across several tables.

Would you guys prefer that the turns between these tables were synchronised (i.e. all tables all start  Turn N at the same time, play through it, and all wait to start Turn N+1 at the same time) or just all running at their own pace?

The former will simplify trying to get interaction between tables, but it may leave players having to wait while another table finishes their turn (so will inevitably take longer).
I doubt it would be a big thing though - second worst case scenario, it would allow people time to keep track of what's going on on other tables. Worst case scenario, we can drop the system if it just isn't working.

The latter will just let people get on with it and won't waste any time, but will make the interaction between tables somewhat more ugly and make it feel more like isolated games again.

#2:
If my GMing wouldn't actually save on a GM...

For example, if there are 16 attendees (not including me), that'd require four GMs for tables of four, but adding me in for 17 would make two tables of four and three tables of three, so the five tables would still need four other GMs.

... what would you prefer I do? That I sit it out, spectate, take photos, make funny faces, grease the floor, try to act as a spokesperson for the game (although I'll probably just scare people. Again.) - or that I muck in anyway to try and weave in more narrative, perhaps taking some load off other GMs in the process?

[Necris]

I think if you're running multi tables you need to have us all acting at the same time (just to save your sanity) that way it will make it more manageable for yourself, maybe set a time limit to a turn every 5 for example (keeps us on our toes too)

to help you manage us instead of being pulled away half way through a turn to oversee another table.

2. it's up to you

when I ran a conclave event I got rather frustrated Just Gming all day, and I felt worn out to be honest (one of the reasons why I've not ran another yet) and throughout the day I just wanted to vent my frustrations by being on the player side.

If your event allows you to get involved in the action throw yourself into it, if it helps move the narrative even better.

[MarcoSkoll]

I think if you're running multi tables you need to have us all acting at the same time (just to save your sanity) that way it will make it more manageable for yourself

I'm planning on running five games at once, so I'm not entirely sure I have any sanity left to save.

In any case, I'm expecting tables Beta onwards to need little overseeing from me, as they'll be given scenarios that will need minimal GM input.

Synchronising them would largely be to allow a more ordered interaction between the events on different tables - simultaneous end phases would let me better keep track of what's happened on each table and how it should affect others, although I worked on a system that should work in an asynchronous game.

[MarcoSkoll]

Couple of minor updates:

1) The Event Pack has had a note added about 54mm scale, just in-case it escapes the attention of any outsiders.
It's on the same link as before, as MediaFire apparently lets you do that now.

2) One more entry via e-mail brings us back up to 20.

3) I'd welcome any further opinions on the questions I asked above.

[MarcoSkoll]

Another minor update:

Anyone who's staying to the Sunday should know that I've extended the booking.
Technically, I only asked them to keep back two tables, but as it's such a small number of tables, they preferred to just put my name down for both days. So at least we'll get to pick which ones we want on the day.

[Lacerto]

Regarding #1, I think waiting at the end of every turn may feel bitty. That would mean every turn lasts as long as the slowest turn. Maybe synchronise tables every three turns. That means that everyone will only be held up a lot if one table has all of the slowest turns. In addition to reducing the amount of time waiting, you also improve game flow. Also, it's probably better to interact between tables less frequently than every turn.

Alternatively everyone could play until certain trigger conditions are met. So games occur at full speed until a player sets off an alarm system on table beta. At that point, the GM of that table calls out and all games stop. Changes are announced, and play continues. This would require a bit more work, since potentially the reactor could be destroyed on table gamma before the alarm is triggered on beta. But it would feel more dynamic, with no waiting, and priorities changing mid-turn. A turn isn't a fixed length of time, so different numbers of turns between tables doesn't matter as long as the interaction flowsheet can cope!

[MarcoSkoll]

That would mean every turn lasts as long as the slowest turn.

Obviously, and that is the main issue of contention. The question in my head though is whether people will keep/pick the pace up knowing that they'll be holding up others.

However, I expect that the slowest table may well often be my main table, given that it'll be playing host to a battle going on around the main characters. And I'm guessing that as it's what their side tables are ultimately trying to affect, players might actually prefer an occasional moment to catch up on centre table happenings.

I might sync only every two or three turns, but as I still think it's still going to be one table lagging more than the others, I'd guess people are more likely to get bored by one long break than two or three short ones.

Alternatively everyone could play until certain trigger conditions are met. So games occur at full speed until a player sets off an alarm system on table beta. At that point, the GM of that table calls out and all games stop.

Well, there is no GM on any of the side tables. I originally considered it, but on reflection it seemed too unfair to show people the big endgame and then ask a quarter of them to sit out to run it.
The only GM for the finale will be me, so the side tables are going to be written so the players can run it between themselves.

But it would feel more dynamic

Yeah, but I'm worried it'd just feel schizophrenic and more like five or six mostly individual games under those circumstances.

The question is really flow against organisation. Right now, I think my instinct is to start it as a synced game. After all, people are not unused to having to wait a moment or two while other people finish their turns.
If that just doesn't work, I break off any tables that are running particularly fast or slow from the cycle and they just get on at their own rate.

[Necris]

I shall be bringing 1 more player named Priesty Tom he's a new player