Okay, so I actually have a fair number of comments on these systems, along with some pretty big suggested changes.

Influence:

A lot of people dislike losing specific throne amounts. I personally don't miss this at all, but to each their own. I think this may end up falling in the domain of a House Rule, though. It would be nice if FFG could come up with their own optional system, though.

Acquiring items through a roll of Influence

This is a cool idea in concept, but in execution you are too likely to see some players being screwed by bad luck, while others get awesome gear. In fact, if every player has an average starting influence (35-36), and you have three players, the chances are that only one player out of the three will be able to acquire something of +0 rarity. (And that's assuming they're all trained in Commerce; if none of them are trained, only 1 in 4 players will be able to acquire something of 0 rarity).

Every character having their own Influence Value

This is a pretty big change from the previous systems. Given that Influence gets used for more than just item acquisition, I like that it can differ among characters. However, the rules as presented seem to be written with a shared Influence value in mind; there aren't really any specific guidelines for how to reward individual players. As it is now, if Player A starts with 35 Influence and Player B starts with 45, it's pretty likely that Player A will always be 10 points behind Player B.

How much should Influence Increase or Decrease?

So, the tables on page 233 lists increases and decreases from 1-5. Gaining 1 Influence is equivalent to capturing a single heretek, while 5 influence is equivalent to saving a capital planet or banishing a greater daemon. So, first of all, is capturing 5 different hereteks really equivalent to saving an entire capital planet? For that matter, the adventure at the end of the book suggests a 5 Influence reward, and the completed task falls well short of saving a capital world. This part of the system in particular needs revising.

How often can I acquire items? What about multiple items?

There are no modifiers for item quantity to the requisition roll. Also, there has never really been a firm guideline on how frequently acquisitions can be made, or when they can be made/how long they take. There is also a lack of guidelines on how to determine what items may be more common in what places.

Suggestions for change:

My proposal for the Influence System would basically change it to giving automatic acquisitions related to the Influence Characteristic Bonus, and allowing further acquisitions from rolling.

Currently, Influence for acolytes ranges from 27 to 95 (a range of 70, basically), with an average starting score being 35, and an average inquisitor's score being around 75 . Item Rarity ranges from +20 to -50 (a range of 80). It's assumed that pretty much any item listed within the Core book is going to be pretty easily acquired by the Inquisitor, so let's make this system based on a 75 Influence Inquisitor being able to acquire an item without needing to roll for it.

First, I would change the availability modifiers to flat ratings

Availability Rarity Rating

+20 1

+10 2

+0 3

-10 4

-20 5

-30 6

-40 7

-50 8

Second, I would add back the Quantity Modifier Table, with these changes

Item Quantity Rarity Rating

1 +0

2 +1

4 +2

8 +3

etc.

Third, I would add in this Table on Time

Rarity Rating Time to Acquire

0 Immediately

1 1 Hour

2 1 Day

3 1d5 Days

4 1d5 Days

5 1d10 Days

6 1d10 Days

7 1 Week

8 1d5 Weeks

9+ Cannot be Acquired

Fourth, a quick change to the Item Status Table

Quality Requisition Modifier

Wrecked --

Poor -1 Rarity

Average +0 Rarity

Best +1 Rarity

Next, I would add this change to Acquisition:

Before the start of any new Investigation, or during a Downtime Encounter (pg 230) at the GM's discretion, a player may acquire a number of items with a Total Rarity Rating equal to the player's Influence Bonus +1.

(Example: Before the start of a new Investigation, Gordinnius Gecko, who has an Influence of 46, wants to acquire two magazines of Expander Rounds for his Autogun. Expander Rounds have an Availability of -10/Rarity 4, and getting 2 items adds 1 to the Rarity, for a total of 5. Gordon can acquire these magazines in time for the start of the Investigation)

When a player attempts to acquire an item or items greater than his Influence Bonus, or when he attempts to acquire items during an Investigation, the player must roll against a target number of his Influence minus 10 for each point of Rarity Rating in excess of his Influence Bonus (This is a Commerce Skill Roll, with Influence as the Characteristic). The amount of time it takes for this item/s to be acquired is based on the total Rarity Rating. For every degree of success on the Influence roll, reduce the Rarity Rating by 1 for determining how long the item takes to acquire. A player may only make a number of Acquisition rolls per Investigation equal to his Influence Bonus. At the GM's discretion, a player who fails an acquisition may choose to increase the still acquire the item, but must increase its rarity by 1 for each degree of failure for determining how long the item takes to acquire, and may not make any further Acquisition Rolls until that item has been received. If the Rarity exceeds 8 in this manner, the player may not acquire the item at all, but may still make further acquisition rolls, if available.

( Example : Gordinnius Gecko wants to acquire a Boltgun before he and his fellow acolytes storm a mutant enclave. A Boltgun's availability rating is -30/ 6 Rarity. Gordinnius has a Commerce skill of +10, and rolls against his Influence of 46, -20 due to the 2 point difference between the Rarity and his Influence Bonus. Gordinnius manages to roll a 24, for 2 degrees of success! The bolter, which would normally take 1d10 days to reach Gordinnius, instead takes 1d5 days. Hopefully it will be in time for Gordinnius to attack the enclave! Gordinnius, who has only attempted 1 acquisition roll during this investigation, may attempt up to 3 more. If Gordinnius had rolled a 42, for 2 degrees of failure, he could have chosen to still acquire the item, but he would not receive it for 1d5 weeks, and could not make any acquisition rolls until he received it.)

Awarding Influence, and Gaining Influence

My suggestion for changing how Influence is gained would be to divide it into Temporary Bonuses and Penalties, and Permanent Increases and Decreases. Temporary Bonuses and Penalties would last only during the actual Investigation, and would take the form of modifiers for any Influence rolls (including Acquisition rolls). These would essentially be rewarded during the Adventure itself, and only last during the span of it. Any Downtime Encounters that occur would erase any existing bonuses to Influence, at the GM's discretion.

Permanent Increases and in Influence would be awarding for accomplishing or failing major objectives within the Investigation. These could range from 1 point to 20 points, based on the magnitude of the accomplishment or failure. After setting an initial value, the GM reduces the value equal to the Current Subtlety Bonus of the Warband, to a minimum of 1. Anytime a character's Influence is permanently increased or decreased, he loses all existing Temporary Bonuses and Penalties. If the player is currently at a Penalty, he reduces his gained or lost Influence by 1 or more, to a minimum of 1 lost or gained. If the player is currently at a Bonus, he increases his gained or lost Influence by 1 or more. (The more locally influential the player is, the more he stands to lose or gain).

Subtlety:

To be continued!

I cannot stress enough how well organized and thoughtful this is. I'm looking forward to seeing your take on Subtlety and its interaction with Influence/Acquisitions. In all honesty, as good as this looks, I don't see a real need to return to Throne usage.

I do have one suggestion/question:

Might you consider including something that indicates an Acolyte making a willful reduction (a permanent reduction or even a revolving penalty) to his or her Influence as a means of securing something intangible, such as favors or information? Basically, what I'm referring to are bribes and payoffs. Bribes and payoff can have long-term consequences, both good and ill: one Acolyte may grease the lips of a snitch for regular information that leads to investigative resolutions, while another might become indebted to fixers, loan sharks, or extortionists due to addiction/personal debt- drugs, gambling, sex/porn, to keep prying eyes from looking too deeply into a Acolyte's criminal history, or even his (alleged) radicalism.

I envision one Acolyte paying a snitch to inform on his fellow Acolytes, and another paying the same snitch a little more to keep his lips zipped- the meat and potatoes of mistrust and suspicion within the Inquisition.

Well on page 233 under Sacrifice is just that what you want. An Acolyte can before he test against his influence reduce it by 1d5 point to automatically succeed on the test.

Thanks for the positive words! The thing that I really like about this proposed system is that it still enforces the scarcity of resources from Dark Heresy (Do I really want to spend one of my only 3 acquisitions on more ammo, or do I want to save it?), while allowing every player to have some degree of parity in what they are able to acquire.

I'll probably give some thought, too, to how the other Influence mechanics work with this. I haven't included the stuff on using the Inquisitor's Influence and sacrificing Influence yet, either. I'd really like to the stuff in the Narrative chapter get fleshed out and integrated together (Codifying the game into an overarching Investigation comprised of Encounters (Combat, Exploration, Social, Travel, Downtime). Also, I kind of worry about players abusing the rule I propose about allowing success on an acquisition roll in exchange for it taking a longer time than normal to get a hold of (why not ALWAYS do this on your last allotted Acquisition roll for the Investigation), but I think putting a cap at 8 rarity prevents anything TOO crazy from being purchased. It may be worth putting a note like "If a player chooses to acquire an item in this way, but does not have any Acquisition rolls left for the current investigation, the GM is encouraged to complicate the acquisition of the item (e.g. requiring a favor by the player, imposing a temporary influence penalty, decreasing subtlety, etc.) or just refusing the player.

I'd also go ahead and add this to the rarity scale.

Rarity values, particularly when combining multiple items into a single acquisition, do not necessarily reflect the exact rarity of an item, but rather a combination of rarity and difficulty in directly obtaining the item/s. Individual items with Rarity Ratings of 9 or more should be considered near-unique, and may not be acquired normally through Influence. Items such as these require an Acolyte to obtain these items himself, through adventure or gift.

Also, on Purchasing Items, or, "Why can't I just go buy an autopistol?"

Some items may be commonly available for purchase on a planet. With the GM's permission, a player can purchase any item or items with a rarity equal to or less than his Acquisition Bonus. Any purchase made in this manner will count toward the total number of acquisitions that a player may make or roll for during an Investigation. This purchase is assumed to only take as long as the Acolyte spends in the market/arms dealer.

Okay, some other stuff left out of Influence

Location Modifiers:

While I'd like some direction on what items are common on what planet, I think space constraints make that prohibitive. Would be nice to maybe have a table like:

Planet Type Common (-1 Rarity) Uncommon (+1 Rarity)

Shrine World Holy Items, Charms Ranged Weapons

Or something similar.

Subtlety and Change in Influence (pg 232)

This suggests decreasing the increase of decrease of Influence by rolling Subtlety and reducing Influence change by 1 per 2 degrees of success. This is probably a better way of using subtlety than mine, but it does have very little bite. Also, the rule is a bit unintuitive and hidden.

Changing Influence

This may complicate things, a bit, but it may be good to give every player a Temporary Influence track along with their Permanent Rating. This goes from 0 to 5 (subject to change), with players starting most Investigations at 0. Temporary Influence can be gained over the course of the Investigation and each point spent adds +10 to Influence rolls and other applicable rolls.

How to gain Influence (pg 231-232)

Change these to just give Temporary Influence (1-5 at a time, based on circumstance).

How to lose Influence (p 233)

Since I'm adding a Temporary Influence track, most of the examples on how to lose Influence are taken care of (Failure is involved in Permanent Loss, Excessive use is reflected by spending the temporary Influence, and Atrophy is reflected by Temporary Influence resetting during downtime or after changing Permanent Influence). I'd keep the sacrifice rule as is.

Inquisitor Influence

I'd just change this to say that you may reduce Subtlety by 5 to make an Influence roll using the Inquisitor's Influence value.

So, to sum it all up for Influence!

Items all have a Rarity Rating From 1 to 9+

You get one free Acquisition of Rarity Equal to your Influence Bonus +1 prior to every Investigation, and during downtime.

You may make a number of Acquisitions during the Investigation equal to your Influence Bonus

You may purchase any available item/s of total rarity equal to or less than your Influence Bonus as an Acquisition

You may make a Commerce (I) Skill Check to acquire other items, -10 for each point higher the Rarity is than your Influence Bonus, the amount of time is equal to the item rarity minus degrees of success. If you fail the roll, you may still acquire the item, with time equal to the rarity + degrees of failure, and may not make any Acquisition rolls until the time has elapsed (plus any other GM sanctions).

You have a pool of Temporary Influence starting at 0 and maxing at 5. You may spend points of this during the Investigation to gain +10 on Influence or other related rolls.

Temporary Influence increases through Contacts, Favors, and Accomplishments.

You may decrease Influence by 1d5 to automatically succeed on an Influence Test.

You may decrease Subtlety by 5 to use the Inquisitor's Influence characteristic rather than yours.

Whenever a major objective of the Investigation is accomplished, permanent Influence Points are rewarded or lost, based on performance. The amount gained or lost in this way can be reduced by Subtlety. Any temporary Influence left over adds to the amount of Influence lost or gained.

List of Subtlety Rules not in Subtlety Section

Loss of Subtlety through the Brag Action (pg. 77)

This results in a 1d5 loss of subtlety for succeeding at Brag and 1s5+DoF for failing.

Cover-Up Talent (pg 100)

A player can pay 1 influence to increase Subtlety by 1d5, with no limit.

Delicate Interrogation Talent (pg 100)

Whenever Subtlety is lost due to an Interrogation, reduce the total amount lost by 1. No mention of whether this is always on.

Unremarkable Talent (pg 117)

Whenever character would reduce group Subtlety, reduce by one less. No mention of stacking or always being on.

Requisition Test (Pg 131)

Any time a requisition test is made for an item with a negative availability, reduce subtlety by its 10s digit.

Heavy Weapons (pg 132)

Carrying one gives -10 to group Subtlety. Is this cumulative?

Services (pg 160-161)

These may reduce Subtlety, at the GM's discretion.

Subtlety and Change in Influence (pg 232)

Referenced Above

Character Creation (pg 238)

Character Creation Options that affect Subtlety are mentioned, but none exist in the Core book. Perhaps in a later supplement?

Using Influence to get Access to Clues (pg 246)

Can result in loss of Subtlety

Consequences of Combat Encounters (pg 266)

Noticeable combats (you can use the Noise Table here) may result in loss of Subtlety)

Suggested Change in Subtlety per Session (pg 267)

3 or so shifts and change of 10.

Subtlety may alter NPC disposition. High Subtlety may aid acquiring black market goods. Low Subtlety may aid in riling up a mob or calling on power of the Inquisition.

Subtlety Rules

The Subtlety Track (pg 234)

This is cool and all, but given how the actual system works (adding or gaining 1d10 or 1d5 Subtlety from a base of 50), a player group may not reflect their subtlety value on the table and vice-versa.

Narrative Effects of Subtlety (pg 235)

This section basically lays it out that any time a GM feels Subtlety plays a role in how NPCs are acting, he rolls Subtlety to see if the NPCs recognize the group as Inquisition or not/if the group remains in cover. Success means the PCs stay in cover, and failure means they are known.

Using Influence may also require a Subtlety Test to see if players have access to the abilities provided by Influence.

Specific Skill rolls can Test Subtlety for a +/-20, depending on whether the roll benefits/is hurt by overtness/covertness.

Subtlety is suggested to be decreased through Deception and keeping a low profile. This can result in a 1d5 or 1d10 increase, with possible modifiers to the roll.

Subtlety is lost by Exercising Authority, Intimidation, and Combat. It again decreases by 1d5 or 1d10 with modifiers.

Traveling to a new system causes 2d10 to be subtracted from a Subtlety higher than 50/added to a Subtlety lower than 50, not going below or above 50, respectively.

To try determining their current Subtlety, Acolytes must Ask Around, Observe, or Inspect Records with different skill rolls. Only one Acolyte may make the Skill roll. This roll can get +20 for spending double the amount of time, and -30 for spending half. Success gets a narrative description and knowing the Subtlety tens digit. Failure by 2+ degrees results in a number off by the degrees of failure and a false narrative description.

A table on page 239 lists the outcomes to different situations and degrees of success and failure.

Thoughts on Subtlety

While Subtlety is a cool mechanic, it is also vague in a lot of places. There's a disconnect between the suggested amount of bookkeeping for subtlety versus the more narrative based effects. Basically, why bother tracking all these numbers if the end result is just making up a result based on Subtlety value with little to no guidelines on how to do so. Why should a GM keep track of Subtlety down to 1 point changes if the rules don't actually give guidelines on what those points mean?

Also, is Subtlety tracking whether people know you're Inquisition, whether people know of your existence, whether people see through your disguises, or all of the above and more? If its all of the above, that leads to situations where your Subtlety in one of those areas can affect your Subtlety in all of those areas, sometimes in ways that don't make sense. There's also the fact that a random roll might mean a character knowing whether or not you're with the Inquisition/believing you that you are in it.

A lot of the talents and rules outside of the Subtlety section mean that Subtlety is intended to be rules based, rather than narrative based. That means that more specific guidelines on what Subtlety means are required.

Most of the text is about losing Subtlety, and implies that having a low Subtlety is very bad. How bad? The only hard rule on having low Subtlety is that in a case where overtness is more/less effective, failing/succeeding on a subtlety roll can give a -/+20 to the skill roll.

Also, the rules are unclear on the interaction between Subtlety and Influence beyond a few suggestions and rules on the use of Influence decreasing Subtlety. That's not a lot of back and forth, is it?

What needs to be changed

Subtlety needs to be given specific guidelines on what in-game effects it has. These effects need to be positive and negative on both sides of subtlety. Influence should be tied in better.

My suggestions:

The table on 234 needs to be changed to list mechanical effects of Subtlety as well as narrative effects. I'd also like to uncomplicate it a bit and get rid of the random rolling for Subtlety, so I'm just making it into a scale with the middle being 0 going from -10 to +10. Subtlety is now defined as a measure of how well most NPCS realize that an Inquisition Investigation is under way by the PCs. As more suspicious events occur, suspicion of the NPCs increases.

-10, -9: Nearly all NPCs are aware of the Inquisition's presence and have a description of the PC's. NPC Disposition is either 20 or 80, based on whether they wish to cooperate with the Inquisition. Players automatically add +20 to Social Rolls involving their Inquisition Status. Acquisitions of weapons/ammunition are at +3 Rarity. Add 8 to the Threat of Combat Encounters.

-8, -7, -6: Almost all NPCs are aware of the Inquisition being present. Players gain a +20 to social rolls to convince people of their Inquisition Status. Weapon and Ammo Acquisition is at +2 Rarity. Add 6 to the threat of combat encounters.

-5,-4,-3: Almost all NPCs are aware that something big is occurring in the area. Players gain a +10 to social rolls to convince NPCs of their Inquisition Status. Weapon and Ammo Acquisition is at +1 Rarity. Add 4 to the Threat of all combat encounters.

-2, -1: Rumors are spreading of strange happenings in the area, but no one is taking them very seriously. NPCs begin to know the PCs by name and sight.

0: the PC's arrive with little fanfare and are known only as strangers to NPCs.

+1, +2: The PCs are beginning to fade from people's memory as strangers, and don't elicit stares anymore.

+3, +4, +5: The PCs are judged to not pose any real threat by NPCs. NPCs get -10 to notice deceit or stealth by the PCs. -10 to convince NPCs of Inquisition status.

+6, +7, +8: The PCs are ignored by most NPCs and any strange events are not blamed on them without there being a tie to them. NPCs get -20 to notice deceit or stealth by the NPCs. PCs get -20 to convince NPCs of their Inquisition Status.

+9, +10: The PCs are forgotten by most NPCs and those that know them completely trust their identity. NPCs automatically fail all rolls to notice PC deceit or stealth, unless they have reason to be suspicious. PCs must lose 2 Subtlety and get -20 to convince someone of their inquisition Status.

Gaining or losing Subtlety is now done in single points on the scale. Subtlety normally only decreases when a suspicious event happens. However, using Inquisitorial connections on an NPC will decrease subtlety by 1 unless he or she is convinced or trusted to keep quiet. Temporary Influence may be spent on this roll. Characters who become convinced that a PC is inquisition gain an immediate +30/-30 Disposition modifier based on their feelings toward the Inquisition. Players may spend temporary influence to prevent subtlety from decreasing. Any current rules on decreasing or increasing by. a d10 or d5 are converted to a single point of Subtlety.

Ill add on stuff for the additional rules later. How does this system look to everyone? Any suggestions?

Simple presentation, simple to understand, simple to use. Very nice.

Okay, so here are my changes to the additional rules on Subtlety using my proposed changes to the Influence and Subtlety System.

Loss of Subtlety through the Brag use of Charm

This results in a flat loss of 1 Subtlety. This loss can be negated by convincing the target to keep quiet, but a Failure by 3 or more degrees results in the loss of an additional 1 Subtlety.

Cover-Up Talent

A player can spend Temporary Influence to increase Subtlety by 1

Delicate Interrogation Talent

There aren't any listed rules for Interrogation decreasing Subtlety, so here's my change:

"When engaging in Interrogation, the character does not receive the penalty to invoking Inquisition status caused by a high Subtlety score."

Unremarkable Talent

The character is not recognized as being tied to the Inquisition unless a direct link is available. He may reduce the Rarity Penalty caused by low Subtlety by 1.

Requisition Test

Any time that a PC makes an acquisition roll or purchase including one or more items of rarity 4 or more, decrease Subtlety by 1.

Heavy Weapons

Any time characters are openly carrying Heavy weapons, treat Subtlety as being 1 lower than its actual value.

Specific Rules on what Increases and what Decreases Subtlety:

Subtlety represents general knowledge of Warband activities and nature, as well as general suspicion. Because of this, Subtlety should not be decreased by incidents to which only a few people are privy/incidents which are not known to the general public. Once an incident such as this occurs, the loss in Subtlety is generally permanent unless steps are taken to change public opinion. This means that players hoping to maintain Subtlety must be prepared to cover up their activities BEFORE they reach public knowledge. The two sides of the Subtlety Scale represent knowledge of Inquisition activity on one side, and lack of suspicion for the players in particular on the other side. The players will likely be seen as strangers by the local populace, and be suspected of strange activities. If Subtlety decreases to a point that NPCs realize the Inquisition is present, or that something is going on, increasing Subtlety represents suspicion of the PCs specifically decreasing. Changes in Subtlety are divided into Decreases, Coverups, and Increases.

Decreases

Exercising Inquisitorial Authority: can result in additional NPC cooperation, but also "outs" the Warband, resulting in a Subtlety Decrease of 1 or more, based on the clout of the person or group which authority is being exercised upon. This can be done through the Brag use of the Charm skill, or through other routes. When doing this, a player uses his or her Influence characteristic for an Opposed Roll, while the NPC opposes using a Modifier based on current group Subtlety. The player's roll may also be modified through the use of items proving the player's status (Inquisitorial Insignia, Letters of Writ, etc.) but use of 1 or more of these items causes an additional loss of 1 Subtlety. If the player succeeds in his or her roll, the NPCs Disposition increases or decreases by 30, based on his or her support of the Inquisition. The GM should apply any narrative effects to this change as well.

Intimidation: Intimidation of an NPC will result in the loss of 1 or more Subtlety, as the NPC discovers that the PCs pose a potential threat. A single NPC may not be able to sway public opinion heavily, but he can spread rumors. Intimidating NPCs with greater political and Social clout can result in a greater decrease in Subtlety.

Combat: Combat can result in the loss of 1 or more Subtlety, based on the kinds of weapons used, and the results of the combat. More powerful weapons, and more corpses both lead to increased losses of Subtlety, as well as the importance of the people killed.

Other Public Spectacle: Any kind of event that is seen by the public eye caused by the PCs has a chance of loss of 1 or more Subtlety, again based on how high profile the event is.

Coverups

Although players should be told what kinds of actions can decrease Subtlety, the GM should not inform them when it actually occurs. Players may decide to attempt to cover up their actions, either by keeping witnesses quiet, hiding the a combat or event's occurence, or distancing themselves from the event through alibis or disguises. Skill rolls made to do this face a -10 penalty for each point of Subtlety lost (losing 2 subtlety from exercising authority on a Arbitrator Chief means a -20 skill roll to convince him to keep it to himself). Preventative Efforts suffer the same penalty.

Increases

False Identities/Disguises: Players may attempt to don False Identities or Disguises when conducting an Investigation. Successful creation of a new disguise or false identity results in an increase of 1 to group Subtlety, or 2 if more than one acolyte does so. If the disguise or false identity are uncovered, subtlety will likely be lost in proportion.

Low Profile: If the PCs take narrative or skill-based steps to decrease their profile (e.g. hidden base of operations, purchasing items through a third party, etc.), the GM can elect to increase Subtlety by 1. In general, this should be limited to 1 increase per player.

Lies: The use of lies only increases Subtlety when they are used on an NPC directly involved in the Investigation. Successfully deceiving an NPC as to their purpose increases PC Subtlety by 1.

Coverup Talent: Subtlety can be increased by 1 for each temporary Influence spent.

Changing Location

Whenever the Acolytes more to a new system, roll 1d5. Add the result to a negative Influence value (maximum result of 0) or subtract it from a positive Influence value (minimum result of 0). This roll can be modified at the GM's discretion.

Determining Subtlety

The rules for this can stay as they are, with degrees of failure simply increasing or decreasing the incorrect Subtlety Bonus they discover.

As it is, these rules now include a few interactions with Influence. Using Inquisitorial power now requires an Influence roll, which is based on Subtlety. Temporary Influence must now be spent in order to modify these rolls, and to modify the penalties to Acquisition caused by a low Subtlety. Because of this use of the rarity system, the GM should roll Player Acquisitions in secret, telling the player only the degrees of success or failure, and allowing him to pay temporary influence for the roll after hearing these results. This prevents players from knowing how unsubtle they are being.

What are people's thoughts? I'll probably go ahead and throw in my 2 cents on the Disposition system, too, although I like it pretty much as it is.

Re: Heavy Weapons- Is this penalty to Subtlety cumulative? Meaning per PC carrying a Heavy Weapon? Or just any Heavy Weapons at all? I suggest going a half step further than what you've suggested by decreasing Subtlety by an additional pip if two or more PCs are toting Heavy Weapons (so a max penalty of 2). This is the same principle you suggest in False Identities/Disguises and balances with Low Profile .

I really like what you have here. It's not complicated at all, and it keeps the numbers easy to track.

Something else- under Intimidation , were you thinking the "or more" for Subtlety loss would be tied to DoS on the Intimidation Test? Like, you made a good show of getting your point across, but it has greater consequences?

Otherwise, excellent stuff.

Heavy Weapons: That is a great suggestion! It definitely makes a lot of sense for consistency.

Intimidate: I was thinking the "or more" would be tied to the influence of the person or group being threatened, similar to Exercising Inquisitorial Authority. I was thinking a range of 1-3 in terms of how much subtlety can be lost or gained at a time, which I could have explicitly stated.

Wow, you've really put a lot of thought into this. I'll test out some of your suggestions soon if possible (having a hard time getting the group together atm) and post any feedback on the forums.

Same here- Good work on these, I hope FFG is reading.

Thanks guys! I'm going to write up my thoughts on the social disposition system and do a thread on investigation (leads and clues) since its meant to be integrated into the mechanics of some talents. I'll submit this suggested system in Feedback along with general suggestions if FFG doesn't want to overhaul the system as much and let everyone know what kind of reply I get.

This is all fairly brilliant, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if FFG scoop you up as a freelance writer for the system at this rate.

I want to add a quick bit for my thoughts on the Disposition system. I honestly really like it as it stands, as it adds a nice level of crunch and rules blended with an need for actual tactics and strategy.

How Disposition Works

All NPCs of import in a Social or Other Encounter have a Disposition rating from 40-60, based on their mood or other factors. Whenever the NPC has to make a decision on whether to do something in favor of the PCs, he rolls his Disposition score, with a success being in favor of the PCs, and a failure being against the PCs. As far as I can tell, this means that whenever players use one of the social skills (Deception, Charm, Intimidate, Command, Observe), a successful roll by them can lead to the NPC either helping or not helping.

In addition, all NPCs have Personalities, which are given a basic behavior pattern, what to do with them when their Disposition reaches 0, and a list of what effects that each social skill has on them (modifier to the roll, and how much a successful use increases or decreases their Disposition). These social skill effects, and the actual personality, are kept secret from the players, and are meant to be roleplayed by the GM, and intuited by the players.

In effect, Disposition represents a sort of HP for social combat. You decrease the HP (increase the Disposition) through the use of different attacks of variable effectiveness (social skills) until you can achieve a critical hit (successful Disposition roll). What makes this system really intriguing, though, is that in order to use it effectively, you have to understand social tactics. Combat Encounters require some knowledge of combat tactics, and being able to read the situation for modifiers to attack and defend and so on. The social system requires knowing what will please and displease different kinds of people, and figuring out the best approach to getting them to do what you want. The combat system has the mystery of your opponent's capabilities in battle, whereas the social system has the mystery of your opponent's desires and hatreds, and the best way to manipulate him. This is actually a brilliant bit of game design that I think needs more attention.

But it's not fair that my Charm roll may not instantly make an NPC do what I want!

Okay, so yes, you may end up succeeding on a Social Skill roll that in turn causes things to backfire. Successfully Observing an NPC may make him paranoid. An NPC you convince to sell you weapons may give you hot merchandise. An NPC you intimidate may later talk about you to the guards. These are all complications to the story of the game, and they all add to the intrigue and fun.

Another way to look at it is, if you succeed on a skill roll with an attack, you're not always going to instantly kill your opponent. You may inflict some damage, and if he's been worn down, you may finally land a killing blow. Now social combat is the same way. I'm sure a lot of players can recount how broken a high Fel and Charm skill can be for a Player who is now able to convince anyone to do anything that the GM is willing to allow. That can often be funny, but it's less funny when one player's charm skill allows him to take over social encounters completely, often in turn avoiding combat or other encounters where different players may shine.

Also, keep in mind that this would only really apply for important NPCs or Social Encounters, NOT every interaction that the players make.

So what changes would I make?

I'd strongly codify the rule that any time the NPC is given a choice on whether to benefit the PCs or not, he rolls Disposition. This can lead to a "beware what you wish for situation", a double cross, or any other number of things. Making this a hard and fast rule would encourage more use of the Disposition system among players and GMs.

I'd also change the rule about +/-20 changes to disposition if the players come out as Inquisition to +/-30. I feel like that better reflects the kind of scared obedience or rabid hatred that NPCs will have toward representatives from a group that can literally blow up their whole planet.

I'd also change the rules on the NPC recognizing the PCs to use my rules above for Subtlety and Exercising Inquisitorial Authority. It seems a bit weird to randomize that aspect/take it out the PCs control, and allows it to be used for bonuses and penalties from Subtlety.

So, pretty basic, but there we are. I'm going to be posting another thread about a pretty cool idea I have for the Investigation System (Clues and Leads), but I wanted to get out my thoughts on Disposition. What do other people think?

Nimsim, if this doesn't get into the core rules, I'd like to compile it into a houserule pdf. How would you feel about this?

Nimsim, if this doesn't get into the core rules, I'd like to compile it into a houserule pdf. How would you feel about this?

I'm fine with that. I've emailed the whole mess to FFG, but it was right before the start of Gencon, so I doubt they've gotten to really read through it/there is a possibility it might get lost in the shuffle. I'd recommend you not put any work into until they get to the Narrative Mechanics chapter in the Beta and we see how many changes they make. I think some of my suggestions (tying number of acquisitions to Influence bonus, reworking Availability, changing the Subtlety Table to give concrete effects of Subtlety/making it worth bothering to keep track of it) are all decent possibilities for them to improve on. If those get left untouched over the course of the beta, then yeah, shoot me a private message and I'll work with you on putting out something good as a houserule document.

I agree with most of your comments, and I like your mechanic for automatically acquiring items between missions based on influence bonus.

I don't like the way you propose to roll for acquiring items outside that, though. "the player must roll against a target number of his Influence minus 10 for each point of Rarity Rating in excess of his Influence Bonus (This is a Commerce Skill Roll, with Influence as the Characteristic)." - this means Influence counts twice: as the target number AND the roll.

(IF 40 instead of IF 30 makes for an effective +20 - in the example, if Gecko had an IF of 36, he'd have to roll against a 16 (36 + 10 - 30) instead of a 36 (46 + 10 - 20).

It's not a very transparent roll (you're adding in complexity what you're removing on the other points).

I've got my own proposition to addressing the influence system (I'll post it in another thread) although my main conclusion is that the availability in the item tables should be rebalanced, and modified for a much greater range (-80 to +40) - that, however, doesn't address the gaining/losing of influence, and leaves the bulky system in place for acquiring gear between missions.

If you can come up with a better system for acquiring gear in-mission (or in excess of IFb between missions) you've got my vote.

Okay, so I read your logic as thus:

Influence provides the target number, and Commerce the skill

Influence also modifies the target number if its 10s digit is lower than the rarity

When acquiring items of greater rarity than influence, players are getting doubly penalized for having a lower influence bonus: the target number is lower, and rarity drops it lower

I see your point, and hasn't considered that facet of the math. Thank you for pointing it out! So what are some other possibilities? On the one hand, maybe the double penalization would prevent players from too easily acquiring powerful gear without a high influence. Im already giving them temporary influence they can use to add up to +50 to their roll. I agree that the acquisition roll lacks transparency though. I also like having rarity as a discrete value so that people can add things up and do other math with it more easily. I also want the influence bonus to tie into things, which it currently does by limiting the number of purchases. Hmmm. Maybe a flat "no" to buying anything with rarity greater than the influence bonus? Allow temporary influence to be spent to increase the bonus or add +10 to the roll? That would definitely allow the GM a tighter hold on what becomes available when, and the Inquisitors influence could still be used to acquire those very rare items... What do you think of that change?

That sounds like a good compromise, and a good reason to use the Inquisitor's influence, which is otherwise barely covered. It also makes sense from an in-game perspective - having to petition your boss for that Force Sword so you can slay that daemonhost.

The problem is that the system is VERY restricive at low (influence) levels. For starting acolytes, it makes acquiring even basic items extremely difficult.

To illustate a bit better what is happening, I've condensed the rolls needed to acquire an item in a table:

- = no roll needed to acquire between missions
X = impossible to acquire without modifier


Roll needed (with Commerce +0) per rating
IF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30 - - - 20 10 X X X
40 - - - - 30 20 10 X
50 - - - - - 40 30 20
60 - - - - - - 50 40
70 - - - - - - - 60
80 - - - - - - - -

At low IF ratings, it's nigh impossible to acquire an item with a rating above your actual influence; this becomes worse if you consider commerce starting at -10. Admittedly, this is not much different from the existing system; what you've effectively done is give characters a +10 modifier for every point of IFb above 3, making acquiring items explosively easier.

I'd expect the table to look more like this:
Roll needed (with Commerce +0) per rating
IF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30 - - 50 30 10 X X X
40 - - - 50 30 10 X X
50 - - - - 50 30 10 X
60 - - - - - 50 30 10
70 - - - - - - 50 30
80 - - - - - - - 50

Is this what you're looking for? Basically, you'll have a 50/50 chance of acquiring an item at 'your' level of influence; anything below is automatic (or a 70+ roll in-mission). you've got a shot at getting something 1 point higher, good luck getting 2 points.

The roll would be Commerce(IF)+20, plus the current availability modifier, and an additional -10 penalty for every rank the item is above your own. That seems bulky, though (easier to look it up in the table).

Here is the current system's probability of acquiring something in-mission (or out) with a commerce of zero, for comparison (rarity 1 is +20, rarity 4 is -10, etc. )

IF 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

30. 50 40 30 20 10

40. 60 50 40 30 20 10

50 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

60. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

70. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

80.100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

And mine

IF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

30 30 30 30 20 10 X X X

40 40 40 40 40 30 20 10 X

50 50 50 50 50 50 40 30 20

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 50 40

70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 60

80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

So, the difference is that mine is giving higher odds of success for high rarity in exchange for lower odds of success for low rarity items. When I look at the numbers like this I'm less inclined to say its as much of a problem. The rolls are fairly transparent (you keep the same chance of success until you go over your IF bonus). Also, even though the odds are lower, this is balanced by the fact that you can get items automatically between missions OR buy them automatically if you can find a seller. Also, you can trade in degrees of failure to extend the time it takes to get your item. So there are a lot of ways to mitigate the low probabilities (better commerce score and spending temporary influence, too).

So, given that, I'm not sure Id really want to change the original as much by limiting acquisitions to what is at or below the IF bonus. Players are still being challenged with acquiring higher level stuff. I don't really think those things should be that easily available, given all the other ways they have to influence the roll and get free acquisitions.

I'm going to be posting another thread about a pretty cool idea I have for the Investigation System (Clues and Leads)

A little necro here, but had you given up on this? I was quite interested...

I think I posted it in the thread about Gumshoes, but the broad strokes were essentially creating a chart for the investigation that resembles those charts you see in movies with thumbtacks and string connecting all of the clues.

Before you start, you write down the questions of the investigation in the middle. These are what the players are actually trying to solve/accomplish.

The chart would have "sectors" for the types of encounters (combat, social, exploration) with several blank squares in each sector. The number of blanks eould depend on how long you want the investigation to be. When you go to an encounter in that sector, you will fill in the clue/s you find in the blank square and based on rolls and roleplay you'll then draw a line connecting that square to another one. The GM can feel free to plan ahead on clues or make them in advance. Given that there are a limited number of squares for each type of encounter, the players and GM are pushed to have balance between combat and non-combat. The GM is also allowed to have a set number of false leads, in which he can send players to one type of encounter, and suddenly turn it into another, connecting to a different sector. The point, though, I'd that your investigation is always moving forward with new clues.

Epif the GM plans out the map and encounters ahead of time, he can wait until players uncover the correct clues and only have to improvise ways for the clues to constantly connect and move things forward. If the GM is improvising clues on the fly, he can set thresholds of clues (do one of each encounter, find X number of clues, complete every combat encounter in the sector), that will cause the main questions to be answered that you wrote to begin with. You don't have to complete every encounter, or an equal amount of each, but if you manage to do every encounter, the GM should be making sure you've found some answers.

Once you complete an investigation, you can save the sheet you've made and use the answers you've found as clues for a larger campaign structure, if you want, creating a big web of the investigations found by the players.

The main problem I had with this was figuring out how hard/soft to make the guidelines, and how to arrange the sectors/squares to where you could connect them with lines without making a big mess on the paper.

It could be done like a flow chart?

Clue: Smiles longingly when looking at washing machine.

Are you sexually attracted to the washing machine? If yes: --------> why? (and fanning out from here)

If no: ---------> this (eventual dead end lead or path to false/real clue)

Or http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/the_ianator/Warhammer/Ork_Flowchart.jpg

I'll go back to the Gumshoe thread and reread it...I remember there being a debate about its usefulness, but not much else. I do see this being a very useful GM (and Player) tool.