Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Inquisitor

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:04 am 
Offline
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 4:02 am
Posts: 162
Location: Portugal
I did bought the book when it came out, and had a some cool games of Inquisitor.
Like weasel fierce, we used 28mm minis and scenario (we all had tons of them), and some experienced GM was always present.
In fact, the games were build by the GM (even the characters).
A week or so before the game, each player had an email with the gang he would use (open to discussion, of course), the topics of the background, the mission etc, and the game turned out like an very activce rpg with scenario.

Cheers
Axt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:43 pm 
Offline
Cadet
Cadet

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:28 pm
Posts: 36
Location: Primus
I love =][= because of the minis.

I don't play wargames, but if I did, I wouldn't play =][=, the rules seem rather rubbish, and it's a poor cross between wargaming and roleplaying (and I have no interest in roleplaying).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:42 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:57 am
Posts: 7
Location: London, UK
Inquisitor...nice minatures shame about the rules? Well maybe but the idea was always that the rules were only meant to be the starting point, it was never meant to be give a balanced game. It was the level of detail of the rules that was focused on, to be honest if they had spent a little more time on it, it could have been a really polished piece, one of the best. I think most people use the 28mm models, far more variety and quantity too, imagine 20 stormtroopers stalking through a warehouse after an Inquisitor and his two henchmen, not an anyway balanced but great fun! The best way of playing Inquisitor is for fun, making up the story as you go on, no winners just an epic story!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Iconoclast
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 10:36 am
Posts: 1040
abaddonseviltwin wrote:
imagine 20 stormtroopers stalking through a warehouse after an Inquisitor and his two henchmen, not an anyway balanced but great fun! The best way of playing Inquisitor is for fun, making up the story as you go on, no winners just an epic story!

man, it's impossible to comfortably manage 20 models in inquisitor. to much counting and book keeping.
it doesn't mean that inquisitor couldn't finish them off in dozen rounds.
i gave inquisitor a try couple of times (bank robbery; 3 orks (&#$@!) up the band of scavengers, 1 khorne berserker vs 1 shitmarine)

the biggest problem with inquisitor (aside the rules which many think are sheer crap) is that the book is finished in like 25%. all we have in inquisitor is bullet time shootouts, which are the fraction of proper rpg system.

_________________
This is turning into one (&#$@!) of a bad-hair day.
http://www.geocities.com/w40k2ed
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:30 am 
Offline
Unctuous Toady
Unctuous Toady
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:06 am
Posts: 3736
Location: Roaming the Eastern Fringe
bots wrote:
the biggest problem with inquisitor (aside the rules which many think are sheer crap) is that the book is finished in like 25%. all we have in inquisitor is bullet time shootouts, which are the fraction of proper rpg system.


The problem is that Inquisitor was never meant to be a role-playing game. Personally I think that Gav probably wanted to create an RPG or something very close to it. Games Workshop apparently didn't want that and so Inquisitor is as close as we got.

Inquisitor markets itself as a "narrative skirmish game" or something similar. I think the main idea of Inquisitor is to play games with a strong story behind them, but the key is not to role-play your inquisitor. When you start to role-play your inquisitor then everything becomes very personal. But when all the players can stay a bit more neutral when the game becomes fun and the story unfolds in its own unique way.

Personally that is what I have always liked most about miniature games. I like the way that a good 28mm skirmish game straddles the gap between a wargame and a role-playing game. In a wargame its much less personal, the players don't tend to be personally attached to their armies and miniatures. Meanwhile in an RPG players are very attached to their characters.

A good skirmish miniature game keeps the players far enough from the action that nobody cries when their models dies. But it is small enough that the battles are still intense and personal. Also its easy to make up a story behind why your small forces are fighting. And creating that story or narrative is a great thing, something which is all too lacking in regular games of 40K.


Truckler

_________________
Venator wrote:
The game designers themselves know these values are not realistic and they do not intend them to replace or invalidate the fluff. So let's get on with our lives and not fixate over the cosmic ramifications of game mechanics which we already know are streamlined for larger forces at the expense of detail.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 5:23 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:15 am
Posts: 16
Location: England
Personally, I like Inquisitor. Providing that you have a good GM, a bit of imagination, and can remember all the rules :P then I find it very enjoyable. Though the one problem for me is finding/making scenery the right size - I don't have any, and I don't have the time to make any, which is a shame. But, still enjoyabvle :D.

Though I must say that I prefer dishing out justice with my Arbites in Necromunda 8-) 8)

-Forgotmytea

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:48 pm 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 1
i love inquisitor.

by the way replying to a few posts INQ wasnt made to have 20 storm troopers. the game would never end.

anyway i love INQ its so fun to just use telekenesis to pull the pin out of a grenade on someones belt or nail someone in the crotch so the fall to the floor and bleed to death.

on the point of points and balance its not meant to be balanced thats why its so fun.

if you want points and balance play 40k which i find extremely boring


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:26 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Australia, Newcastle
I like =I=. Yes, the large models are expensive and hard to get. You can play with 28mm, no worries (we all have figs & terrain for this).
Scale was 'yards' not 1"=1yd, or whatever. BTW, 1/2" = 1yd works well for 28mm.

They weren't horribly complex ( you've got RULESmaster for that) or horribly simple. It was a narrative skirmish. Bolt weapons are shown as how they should be. If you shoot a 20mm rpg at someone, it should blow them into chunks.
One of the drawbacks of 40ks d6 based setup is the statistical differences all merge into one band. The percentile system brings many of them back into their 'proper' place.

D&D started out as an expansion of tabletop wargaming. The circle is complete.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:24 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
The reason the game sucks so bad isn't simply because there is no system of tracking power level, but because the rules are so random and arbitrary, and prevent the use of any true tactics or strategy. The game is nothing more than a skirmish combat system, and it's a skirmish combat system that totally sucks.

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:56 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 am
Posts: 23
erm. i think you *might* be missing the point a tiny bit. :wink:

the rules and stuff are just fine (trust me, i've tried em).

and frankly? it aint about tactics. =][= is a NARRATIVE wargame.
this means storytelling, not winning, comes first. i.e. you come up with a cool story concept and then play it out on the tabletop to see what could happen.
it mixes roleplaying (which i aint too big on cos i really dislike "acting" when it comes to roleplay" and, yes, wargaming. the primary aim of this game isnt tactics, winning, or strategy. it's storytelling plain and simple.

if you dont like that, then *shrugs* no biggie. just dont play it. play necromunda! :wink: or kill team, or 40k, or robogear, or battletech....... *rambles on about list of cool board games*

as to the rules? just make sure you have a good GM on hand to MAKE them work. the rules arent the ten commandments. they havent been chipped into granite. they arent for tournaments or prize winning.
if you think something REALLY doesnt work in the rules, change it! make it work how you and your gaming group think it should work.
finally, go read piercing the shadows by derek gillespie, also known as saussure. this little PDF will probably provide better insight into WHAT Inquisitor is than i can with my ramblings.


and just a note if you bothered to read this far. the above is written in a jocular tone. this means i am not angry, trying to be offensive, nasty or anything else. (god i hate having to write a flippin disclaimer everytime i write something like that :lol: )

_________________
mcjomar of the fifty first attack squadron of the ultramarines (otherwise known as the deathdealers)

COURAGE AND HONOUR!! (the true battle cry!)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:26 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:39 pm
Posts: 1536
Location: The Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
I never tire of people who try to explain the concept behind Inquisitor.

I did say try. :P


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:17 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
I think the proof of the fact that Inquisitor sucks, is self-evident in that you need a games master on hand to fudge, distort, interpret, and try to make sense of the utter chaos that ensues once you start rolling dice.

As concepts go, I have no problem with wargaming, role-playing, or narrative wargaming. I do have a big problem with crappy rules.
If I'm going to use a set of rules, they should be conducive to the overall game concept and background. They should help tell the story. They shouldn't require that an interpreter be on hand to make sense of the mess the rules make.
I think requiring a third person to be able to play is one of Inquisitor's weaknesses. It's a game where the role-playing elements really only come into effect in-between games. I think the reality is, aside from making sense of nonsense, the games master is just there to try and enforce the 'spirit of the game' and playing in character, and to try to prevent power gaming.

But a narrative wargame is still a wargame. Tactics and strategy *should* be important. The game may not simply be about winning at all costs, but it should definitely be about acting sensibly.
If it's about storytelling, then the story the game (i.e. the rules) tells should make sense.
If I'm playing, I want the game to tell the story of how Inquisitor Lorax von Funkatron ran to cover while emptying a magazine at his attackers, reloaded while repositioning, outflanked his adversaries while his henchmen kept them occupied, then sprang out behind them and gunned them down. How he was victorious not through chance, not through simply being way more powerful than his enemies, but how he won by being smarter.
I don't want to play out the story of how Inquisitor Gimp McNerf planned on doing the above, but only made one action roll, and as a result was stranded in the open like a big fat idiot and got shot to pieces.
I want to play a game where being in the right place at the right time matters, where using the right tool for the right job matters, where all of the relevant contributing factors are taken into account, so that all of the details of the situation you are in matter a whole lot more than the results of the dice that you roll.

If all I wanted was to have a third party attempt to reinterpret a series of slapstick encounters into a cohesive story, I probably wouldn't bother with a set of rules in the first place.
I know from experience that you can have a very entertaining story telling experience with a games master and no rules at all.
Also, for most people I know, role-playing has nothing to do with 'acting' (or actually playing a role...) and everything to do with haxXxing away for XP and magic items. Perhaps more like a narrative wargame.

mcjomar wrote:
go read piercing the shadows by derek gillespie, also known as saussure.

Happy to if you've got a link. :P

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:30 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 am
Posts: 23
lol, lazy bum :P :wink:

alrighty, i'll linky up in a mo.

as a side note, you gotta bear in mind a character no matter who they are can often be flummoxed by situations. thats what the action roll represents. as a side note each "turn" is about 10 seconds realtime or thereabouts. think you could manage to sprint 40 yards in ten seconds while bing shot at, reloading your gun, and ducking for cover? i think it might provide a tiny bit of a challenge.
ten seconds is a fair amount of time, but not enough for a normal human, or even a trooper to do a lot of things.
also you're not gonna be aware of everything all of the time. thats why the awareness rules are there.
as another point on actions, each action is say... roughly about 2-3 seconds of ingame time depending on how many actions your character has.
it's also representative of how responsive your character is. a trained person might be able to do say about 4-5 things within the space of 10 seconds. an untrained person might manage 2.
heck, there's so many things that can affect what you can do within a space of time, that there just no point attempting to list em.
frankly it comes down to whoever has the job of being "GM" for that game. a GM can make or break a game, much as the rules, minis, or anything else can.
if you have poor gamers, a poor GM, or whatever, then the game will suck. the rules themselves are actually workable and just fine.

also. you dont actually *need* a GM if the people playing are good enough to know how to make the game enjoyable themselves. you can work on player agreement as to how something can happen. for example in the RL =][= book. theres a section where you are shown a turn being played by some GW staff where a guy called malicant i think, tried to jump a gap and fails his action roll. instead of falling to the ground, the GM allows him to just get a hold on the ledge with his hands instead of falling to his death, but he loses his gun and it goes skittering off somewhere.
was the GM required for this to happen? erm... not really. player agreement to make the game and events within the game "cool" would have worked just as well in this instance.

as to roleplaying being about exp or items... thats not really how i see it. necromunda, sure. but thats not roleplaying, thats skirmish gang warfare. yea there might be a story, but that gets tagged on afterwards often as an afterthough i find.

as a final note if you see the "wargame" part of narrative wargame as being the important part... *shrugs* i'd just play necromunda or kill-team if that was the important bit. you can do exactly what you described using those rulesets quite easily. especially by plonking an inquisitor into the necromunda rules, tweaking a little, and letting it go.
however if you see the "narrative" part as more inportant, then i often find that the =][= is just dandy to work with. in all honesty, whats so complicated? the ranges? just print em out and have em in front of you.
close combat? again, its just down to d10s. no biggie.
leadership or nerves? those arent often used anyways, but i guess it depends on what you're using em for.
awareness is again down to rolls of d10 and chance.

sure there's the details of the situation, but the 41st millennium is a chancy place anyways. any non-superhuman character is gonna get afraid from time to time no matter who they are, they aint gonna know everything, and the other guy is also gonna have thoughts and ideas too. he's gonna be doing to you, exactly what you might be trying to do to him.
this is where character awareness comes in. while you decide what your characters do, the best way to play is to do it from the viewpoint of the characters. they're only going to know so much, and unlike the troopers in 40k, they arent gonna have some guy bizzing in their ear telling em what to do. unless they've got commlinks, and the inquisitor, or whatever character you choose, is telling them what to do. and thats only going to be from his awareness and viewpoint. not to mention talking takes up time as well.

in inquisitor you arent gonna know all there is to know. if you devote your time to practicing shooting, you arent gonna be particularly awesome in combat, or good at picking locks. if you devote your time to training psychic powers or learning about admech equipment, you're probably not going to be amazingly accurate or skilled in melee.
and bear in mind, stats are based on percentages.
BS is shooting without even lifting the gun to eye level to aim. WS is your inherent skill in combat, and so on.
the injury location char works fine for ranged combat or melee.
all in all, it really isnt that nonsensical.

yes it's more detailed, but thats sorta the point. extra detailed rules, for well detailed minis.
as a further note, if you want to represent that your character is better in a given situation than most, throw on the heroic skill so you can get better chances for actions.

anyways. here's that linky.

http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/ ... hadows.pdf

also, character creation
http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/FO67InqMuse.pdf

and a "battle report" from a GW =][= game

http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/ ... phalon.pdf

heres the articles page as a whole. i'd just skip the GW made characters myself. the other articles can be interesting though.
http://www.specialist-games.com/inquisitor/articles.asp


erk.... ok, yea i write a lot, dont i? :lol:

as a final note, me and a friend attempted to play WHFB using the starter box set and rules.
our first game was clunky, took too long, we took ages just moving the minis about, and trying to figure out the stats while flicking through the rulebook was annoying. it was a god awful way to play and quite frankly sucked ass.

does this mean that WHFB rules suck? no chance. i think the amount of people who actually DO play WHFB are an example of this. not to mention that i'm still willing to play the game so long as i have an opponent who plays the game and is willing to let me learn while gaming against them.
the more you get used to a ruleset, the less you'll notice that it's there and the less you'll get bogged down by it.

hell, when i first played necro i found it clunky, annoying, and wierd.
sometimes i still do (the whole bit about cover, ammo, and other things, for a few examples). does that mean i think necro rules suck or will it stop me playing the game? i think not. i enjoy necromunda as it is, and will continue to play it as long as i can find opponents. simple as that.

_________________
mcjomar of the fifty first attack squadron of the ultramarines (otherwise known as the deathdealers)

COURAGE AND HONOUR!! (the true battle cry!)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:39 am 
Offline
Master of Arms
Master of Arms
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 2423
=][= works fine without a GM IME, you just need someone to set up a fair scenario, with an objective and some degree of balance (because a pre-determined outcome is no fun for anyone). One of the players can do this just fine.

the problems for me are this: the action system isn't very good, should be more like necromunda. As Mr BuckshotLaFunk sez, Risky actions and the like really take a lot of the heroism out of the game, eg instead of tearing around, vaulting through the air and firing a gun in either hand, your Inquisitor fumbles a grenade on the first turn and spends the rest of the game lying in the dirt, bleeding. Or just stands there in the open like a Mug, cuz he's failed his action roll. Where's the narrative in that? There weren't enough skills in the book, a lot of the weapon stats make no sense at all.

=][= sits in an uncomfortable place between RPGs and games like necromunda, its flawed but not fatally. It wants repairing and refining, and it wants playing in 28mm. Then you can use a much greater variety of characters and NPCs, and its not always the same 8 warriors fighting each other.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:21 am 
Offline
Recruit
Recruit

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 am
Posts: 23
frankly, i'm going to leave the 54 v 28 debate out of this because quite frankly it's pointless

both systems have their merits, and i support the use of both. in fact i encourage the use of BOTH. not one or other but BOTH!
54mm for those one on one arch villain vs hero (or variation thereof) scenes and shootouts and such (think matrix neo vs smith).

and 28mm? thats for those mega scenarios where you need lots and lots of NPCs
for rules for NPCs to keep a game rolling, read the architecture of hate PDFs in the articles section of the inquisitor part of the SG homepage.

as to the actions rolls? try not to do risky actions i guess. or if you're using a heroic type guy, give him the skill heroic.
as a note on skills? create new ones if you arent happy with whats in the book. in fact, such things are encouraged. at the back of the book, one of the writers i believe said that the inquisitor ruleset is a starting point, not an ending point. which means that we, the gamers, can do with the inquisitor ruleset as we wish. if we think something needs improving, we improve it. if we dont, then we wont. simple as that. and if it requires playtesting... then all the better i say! :lol:


and as a thought, have you EVER found a movie interesting when the main character just waltzes through the opposition without any thought at all?
or do you prefer movies where the character is (relatively) realistic and actually has to put some effort in? will he make it? will he get to the bomb/machine/artefact before it goes boom/poisons everything/turns the world into a giant fluffy bunny?
see my point?
games where you have to TRY and win, are more interesting than games where you do sod all to win.
as to the action rolls, how about just changing it to a 3+ for some characters rather than a 4+ then? create some kind of rule of some kind that means a characters chance of doing something is increased?
bearing in mind those action rolls represent how well a character would respond and react in a situation. not to mention his speed of reaction and thought.

as a final note on 54mm, with even the most minor converting and painting, a miniature can look very different from what it was based on. i see people doing similar things at 28mm, and at 54mm. very easy. it looks harder, but frankly? it is just as easy.
the only real thing is (possibly) cost. and if you consider that a single character in inquisitor, is equal to a regiment in 40k (relative to the game mechanics and suchlike) then it's not so pricey.
heck, just buy 1-3 characters at most, and make a warband. and thats what? 60 quid at absolute max? compare this, then, to how much is often spent on an average 40k army, even just for tournaments. 40k soaks up a LOT more.
overall. if you're looking for a cheap GW game? play necro. 20 quid and a couple of downloads, and you're off.
for inquisitor? if each person has just one character? its exactly the same.
anyways, the writers of the articles are much better at this than me so i'll just point you in that general direction once again.
piercing the shadows (already linkyd up) is the one to read when looking at the whole 28/54 thing.
my personal viewpoint is that i intend to use both. i dont care what anyone else says, i'll use both. that way i get to play =][= at any scale i feel like.

gah. another flegellation! lol.
(ok so i love talking about =][= necro or anything else of its ilk, lol. so sue me :P :lol: ).
anyways, if you want to find opponents for =][=, either ask around the local GW or, go to the conclave or exterminatus and find the player lists and suchlike.
also, the conclave has started planning its next meet up at WHW so i'd say as long as you bring painted 54mm figs with good characterful backgrounds and stats along you'll be fine.
just be a tiny bit wary when posting on the conclave. they're an opinionated bunch. lol. of course i mean that in the nicest way :lol:
best place to post/ask questions regarding =][= is probably the =][= section of the SG boards. you usually get quick answers to whatever you post up, and its usually informative too.

just remember, when on any forum board, take everything with a pinch of salt, and try and take offence to absolutely nothing. :wink: . trust me, while they often write in an opinionated and often blunt manner sometimes, they mean well and are a nice lot.

_________________
mcjomar of the fifty first attack squadron of the ultramarines (otherwise known as the deathdealers)

COURAGE AND HONOUR!! (the true battle cry!)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group