Quote from: grubman...but...that would mean...I said something... and was wrong!?
:tears:

Yeah, occasionally you are wrong.  Hell sometimes, I am even wrong.

Once I thought I was wrong.  I was mistaken :haw:

OK, I got pictures.

They are not very good. I've posted the best of the lot.






I've tried to capture some context. These are from two different stores. There are more pictures from different stores, but I'm nobodies photographer. These are from 'Barns and Noble' and 'Borders'. I just might have to go back and get the HellBoy game.

I have no idea how long they'll stay at image shack.
Also I realize the point may be moot, but I said I would post them...

Edit: nevermind, I see it now.

Quote from: J ArcaneOn top of that, the basic concept of the first game being release is idiotic and unappealing.  No gamer wants to buy a game where they spend the entire think taking orders from a GMPC.  Inquisitor retinue my ass.

I've been thinking about this, and you know, I don't think it has to be such a major problem.

1. First off, everybody in 40K is someone else's bitch, except for the Emperor himself. The problem won't go away in the Space Marines game. Space Marines will just obey higher-powered GMPC.

2. Being someone's retinue doesn't necessarily mean you're constantly taking orders and being told where to go. If the adventures are designed well, I could envision the Inquisitor assigning a mission at the start of the campaign, and then leaving the party to wander around doing whatever for 10-20 sessions without further contact.

3. Being someone's retinue is a 2-way street. Sure, you're obligated to complete your mission eventually, but you also gain access to resources and intelligence that others wouldn't have. I think it could be pretty cool to requisition supply drops and specialized equipment as the game unfolds. Intelligence updates from HQ could also be a useful exposition tool.

I think the key will be to present the Inquisitors as hands-off allies, not Deus ex Machina or Big Brothers.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe1. First off, everybody in 40K is someone else's bitch, except for the Emperor himself. The problem won't go away in the Space Marines game. Space Marines will just obey higher-powered GMPC.

Do they still have Rogue Traders in 40K?  In the Rogue Trader book they are described as independant agents of the Emporer's will.  Once outside of civilized space, they're pretty much a power unto themselves.

Quote2. Being someone's retinue doesn't necessarily mean you're constantly taking orders and being told where to go. If the adventures are designed well, I could envision the Inquisitor assigning a mission at the start of the campaign, and then leaving the party to wander around doing whatever for 10-20 sessions without further contact.

An excellent point.

Quote from: jrientsDo they still have Rogue Traders in 40K?  In the Rogue Trader book they are described as independant agents of the Emporer's will.  Once outside of civilized space, they're pretty much a power unto themselves.

That's true, installment #2 is the Rogue Trader game and should allow plenty of free will.

Quote1. First off, everybody in 40K is someone else's bitch, except for the Emperor himself. The problem won't go away in the Space Marines game. Space Marines will just obey higher-powered GMPC.

Actually, this is the thing - the Inquisitor game did a wonderful job of inventing a role where people could control their own destiny.

Er, the idea is that the inquisition isn't a monolithic block, its a loose fratertiny of, well, PCs who go around pursuing their own agenda.

Theres a bunch of factions you can pick - you have the hardline conservatives, who won't tolerate any deviants or what have you. Then you have radicals who want to use chaos against itself. And you have people who think the emperor is trying to resurect in to a bunch of Avatars (with factions who either want to aid these avatars or those who want to kill them off to prevent dilution of the Emperors Soul). And you can add your own - want a pragmatist who wants to break the AdMechs control over technology to free the people? Sure. Want a Democrat who believes the people should control the means of production? Fine. Thats what inquisitors do. They are the guys on the ground making the decisions.

Anyway, the upshot is that if someone was to hear about a powerful new psyker, then everyones inquisitor has an excuse to put an oar in - some want to shoot them, some want to capture them for study and some want to recruit them. And the wierdos want to let them loose to test the metal of the imperium. Natually, they can't all get what they want so a firefight ensues - cue the game. Everyone want to get involved.

Its a really clever way of generating scenarios, but its also almost identical to the splat system that makes White Wolfs games so playable.

'I wanna play the badass Puritan - big bloke with a flamethrower who burns everything.' 'I wanna play a fishmalk inquisitor who thinks that Humans must make peace with the Orks!' 'I wanna play a Dark Jedi Radical who is so corrupt he STEAMs with the dark side of Chaos, and wears black robes an shit' etc.

And they wanna give this up in favour of a Richard Prior 'Scared for no reason' game?

'A monster appears!'

'I piss myself then get eaten!'

'Awsome! Then your next character can grovel to some NPCs!'






See, Inquisitors are the kind of characters who can take charge, and allow players to get involved and take control of the game a bit - as opposed to the kinda blank, passive, must be lead around by the nose by the GM effect you get from players playing lackeys who have no input in to the direction of their lives.







Anyway, I reckon they should consentrate on inventing ways to do this for other things people might want to play - I've got some ideas about stealing from Pendragon for playing Marines frex.

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnyway, the upshot is that if someone was to hear about a powerful new psyker, then everyones inquisitor has an excuse to put an oar in - some want to shoot them, some want to capture them for study and some want to recruit them. And the wierdos want to let them loose to test the metal of the imperium. Natually, they can't all get what they want so a firefight ensues - cue the game. Everyone want to get involved.

The unique challenge of an RPG though, is that the players are working together. So while you can have various types of characters, their agendas can't conflict too strongly or you'll just end up with a TPK first session.

Quote from: Herr ArnulfeThe unique challenge of an RPG though, is that the players are working together. So while you can have various types of characters, their agendas can't conflict too strongly or you'll just end up with a TPK first session.

Yeah, but it works in vampire. Most of the time anyway. Except when people get upset.

But it works most of the time.

For an RPG I'd want to concentrate on the 'proactive control of destiny' (rather than a table full of blank faces waiting for the next plot to be spoon fed) and the potential for strongly drawn, diverse, easily identifiable characters with less of an emphasis on providing excuses for inquisitors to shoot each other.

Except other cells of Inquisitors, who would obviously provide good antagonists.




Incidentally, has everyone seen the new Starcraft II trailer thingy - this is what 40Krp is up against:-
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYAY2TLves

Dar, your FLGS sells science fiction books as well?

If so that is very cool.

My FLGS sells board games, D20, various other games and fantasy books only.  If I want sci-fi I have to go to B&N (which is ok because I get a discount).

Quote from: Blue DevilDar, your FLGS sells science fiction books as well?

It WAS a B&N. Granted, it is still a small section of the store, but it's GURPS, Stormbringer, Palladium, and others besides just WotC stuff.

Edit: and sorry about the off topic, I'd thought it was a little on target because there is WHFRP there.

Quote from: Herr ArnulfeI've been thinking about this, and you know, I don't think it has to be such a major problem.

1. First off, everybody in 40K is someone else's bitch, except for the Emperor himself. The problem won't go away in the Space Marines game. Space Marines will just obey higher-powered GMPC.

Oh come now, you have to be smarter than this.  There's a difference between the General of the 5th Army being an NPC, and the Sergeant of your Squad or even your fireteam leader being an NPC.  

Quote2. Being someone's retinue doesn't necessarily mean you're constantly taking orders and being told where to go. If the adventures are designed well, I could envision the Inquisitor assigning a mission at the start of the campaign, and then leaving the party to wander around doing whatever for 10-20 sessions without further contact.

Except I don't recall reading anywhere in the fluff where the Inquisitor just sits on his hands and lets his cronies do all the work.  In fact it's kind of counter to the presentation of them that I am familiar with.

Inquisitor itself was built on the exact same concept that's being exploited for the RPG:  One Inquisitor, joined in battle by an assortment of assistants and lackeys.  Only in =I=, you actually got to control the Inquisitor.

Quote3. Being someone's retinue is a 2-way street. Sure, you're obligated to complete your mission eventually, but you also gain access to resources and intelligence that others wouldn't have. I think it could be pretty cool to requisition supply drops and specialized equipment as the game unfolds. Intelligence updates from HQ could also be a useful exposition tool.

Who cares?  If anything that kind of power in the hands of the PCs has the potential to be exactly the kind of "sonic screwdriver" device that makes things very hard for GMs at the actual table.  That's a collosally bad idea.  

QuoteI think the key will be to present the Inquisitors as hands-off allies, not Deus ex Machina or Big Brothers.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what an Inquisitor actually does in 40k.

You're really reaching here, man.
You're just plain reach

J Arcane: Let me start by apologizing for quoting your comment in my post. It placed you in the role of the 'hater', which wasn't my intention. I could have posted the same ideas without quoting at all.

To be honest, I don't really know much about 40K, nor do I really care about it very much. I'm only vaguely interested because BI is involved, and because some of my friends are huge 40K fans, so I'll probably be roped into playing it. I've flipped through a few codices and played a few games of Space Hulk back in the day; that's about the extent of my past 40K experience.

Quote from: J ArcaneOh come now, you have to be smarter than this.  There's a difference between the General of the 5th Army being an NPC, and the Sergeant of your Squad or even your fireteam leader being an NPC.

You probably gathered from my comment #2 that I'm not envisioning a game where your party follows an NPC Inquisitor around all the time. Under that assumption, no, I don't think the relative power levels make much difference. Unless you're playing Rogue Traders, any 40K game will involve some sort of subordinate/commander dynamic, and playing an entire party of commanders is awkward in the traditional RPG format (although I'm sure there's a way to do it).

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept I don't recall reading anywhere in the fluff where the Inquisitor just sits on his hands and lets his cronies do all the work.  In fact it's kind of counter to the presentation of them that I am familiar with.

Inquisitor itself was built on the exact same concept that's being exploited for the RPG:  One Inquisitor, joined in battle by an assortment of assistants and lackeys.  Only in =I=, you actually got to control the Inquisitor.

Who said anything about sitting on his hands? Maybe the Inquisitor is off slaying heretics with his junior lackeys. The PCs could be his more trusted servants i.e. the ones capable of handling a mission independently.

Alternately, if Erik's previous statement was right and the game supports Inquisitor PCs, then why not let one of the players control the Inquisitor? I could actually see a troupe-style campaign ala Ars Magica, where each player has their own Inquisitor, and players take turns running the lackeys for the other players' Inquisitors in a series of connected mini-adventures.

Quote from: J ArcaneWho cares?  If anything that kind of power in the hands of the PCs has the potential to be exactly the kind of "sonic screwdriver" device that makes things very hard for GMs at the actual table.  That's a collosally bad idea.

Here you're just being reflexively dismissive. Any GM running a sci-fi RPG has to be prepared for the PCs getting their hands on high-tech gadgetry. It's part and parcel of the genre. I reckon the feeling of being involved in a large operation with resources at your disposal could be somewhat empowering, and could help compensate for the GMPC factor.

40KRPG will bring in more gamers. There are a huge number of 40K playing kids who'll be intrigued by tthe rpg. How many more and how long they decide playing is fun will depend on how many role-players will take the time to set up a good game and play with them.

40k won't bring any more gamers unless it's sold beyond the places where games are normally sold (not including the regular bookstores that should sell games and dont - here at any rate).

Non-gamers aren't going to suddenly visit smelly old backstreet rpg shops on the offchance of finding a decent 40k game. If such a thing is ever released.