Like the title says, I'm looking for a quick explanation of the various 40k RPGs and which one, in your opinions, is the most fun/best system.

I haven't role played in a long time and I might enjoy getting into one of these.
Thanks!

I'd say it largely depends on the style of gameplay and the type of character you're interested in playing.

The currently most popular RPGs are, of course, those of Fantasy Flight Games, of which there are four with a fifth in the making:
Dark Heresy: Inquisition operatives investigating dark secrets and heresy. Probably the most "grounded" system of the four, partially because FFG didn't develop it themselves but took over from Black Industries.
Rogue Trader: The character play from DH mixed with naval combat. You get to command a kilometer-long ship and seek out worlds to plunder or trade with.
Deathwatch: Somewhat arcade'ish gameplay with a buffed version of Marines gunning down hundreds of enemies left and right, also features a slightly "different" version of the original DW.
Black Crusade: Some sort of a mix of all of the above. Characters are CSMs and cultists fighting the Emprah and organizing their own private war. This game also stands apart in having no actual levels and no fixed progression.
((Only War: Characters form a squad of Guardsmen, with the gameplay affected by the choice of regiment, e.g. line infantry vs armoured fist.))

Their game system uses a d100, which I personally found to be rather cool. The systems are not really intercompatible, however, as both their rules and narrative/mechanical power level differs quite a bit on occasions. GMs and players accustomed to the rules should be able to convert a lot of stuff if they wish, however, as the system is really easy to learn (though possibly hard to master due to a lot of small details). The books also come with their own well-written setting that contains just about anything you need to get started. Note that, on some occasions, FFG's version of the setting may differ from what you have read in GW books - with a few potentially bothersome (depending on your opinion it could also be good) changes it's mostly just minor details few people notice, though.

Then there is also Games Workshop's own Inquisitor RPG, which is less known and less modular, but perhaps also interesting in that it allows you to have mixed groups of Marines and humans, and I find its injury system more interesting/balanced than that of BI/FFG.

Lynata wrote:
Black Crusade: Some sort of a mix of all of the above. Characters are CSMs and cultists fighting the Emprah and organizing their own private war. This game also stands apart in having no actual levels and no fixed progression.

Black crusade does have progression in the form of infamy, and if you want then you dont have to fight the imperial's. You could be intent on merely conquering the screaming vortex for example.

Very good info, thank you.
So when you say Deathwatch is arcade-ish, what do you mean? More combat focus?
I'm not too interested in having super powerful characters, I think mortality adds challenge and intensity.
I kinda think Dark Heresy might be more my style with its air of mystery...

ChocolateGork wrote:Black crusade does have progression in the form of infamy, and if you want then you dont have to fight the imperial's.

Mhm, seems to be a matter of differing interpretations - by that definition one could say that Super Mario Bros. has a character progression because you can collect gold coins and 1up's. It's not exactly wrong, but missing the point. To me, Infamy is a resource like reputation, XP or money. But what I was referring to with this statement was that BC has "decoupled" the way characters gain their skills and talents from such things as "levels" or "classes", to which the characters of the other systems were still bound.
It is worth pointing out that many talents etc still have prerequisites, however, so I guess "no progression" was not an entirely correct statement of mine anyways, seeing that players will still "map out" what they'd have to buy to get from A to Z.

Also, that was a good point about simply fighting other Chaos, renegade or just neutral forces. Though the Imperium will always be your enemy, simply because you're serving the wrong "god(s)".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Archonate wrote:So when you say Deathwatch is arcade-ish, what do you mean? More combat focus?

Yep, definitively. Of course, there are ways to make it more story- or even investigation-focused, but FFG kinda dropped the ball as they made their version of Space Marines so powerful that other characters just don't work very well next to them (and are not supported by DW's own rulebook). So at the end of the day you're stuck with a bunch of Marines, combat-only classes, with lots of bonuses stacking on bonuses and fancy abilities and using "Horde" rules (a special subsystem of the rulebook intended to turn large numbers of a specific enemy type into a singular mass that is easier to hit and diminish) that certainly make for epic combat but may end up feeling somewhat weird when, at the end of the day, four Astartes fought back a Tyranid invasion by themselves. The "squad modes" are another such mechanic that allow stunts like a single Marine neutralizing a direct lascannon hit by spreading its damage to the entire team, the power armour and the Marines' own physiology (which in this system is equal to or even greater than the armour they wear) completely negating it.

Basically, it's like the Movie Marines rules. Some players like this, however, so it always depends on the group. I would agree it can make for a fun evening in-between, though. I have heard of groups using both DH and DW in that they play a normal investigation with the Dark Heresy rules, but when they uncover the Horrible Truth™ they call in the Deathwatch and briefly switch their characters for a bunch of Marines to shoot everything to bits. This might be a clever way to keep the mystery angle, need for secrecy and interaction with the NPC public whilst at the same time offering the rewarding experience of a glorious fight when the players have managed to see through the veil of lies.

Archonate wrote:I kinda think Dark Heresy might be more my style with its air of mystery...

I'm still most fond of this system as well. Lots of different angles you can explore with it. Even if you want to introduce Marines later on, the system's adaptability would give you the option to simply houserule a version of Astartes that doesn't render your best-equipped Inquisitors emasculated in front of the enemy. GW's own Inquisitor RPG might serve as an inspiration on how to make Marines work alongside normal humans in a way that everyone has fun.

Oh, and one more thing! Here is a free demo adventure download from the FFG website. It allows you to take a peek at the rules, and maybe even play an evening with your group before deciding to buy. Enjoy.

Dark Heresey is pretty awesone, the main book has a lot of scope and there are loads of add on for it to add more depth. I am still relatively new to RPG's but have found myself addicted to Dark Heresey.

With a little bit of effort you can even squeeze elements of rogue trader into it, i'm really looking forward to Only war and GM permitting will try and incorporate element into our DH campaign.

SpankHammer III wrote:i'm really looking forward to Only war and GM permitting will try and incorporate element into our DH campaign.

If you do so, I recommend recreating any characters you want to "port over" with the new system, else you'll just have a clusterf... of clashing rules and actions. The systems sadly are just not meant to flawlessly work with each other without investing a lot of work to "make them fit".

Looking forward to Only War as well, though. My group will be playing tomorrow.
http://dark-heresy.wikispaces.com/Onlywar
We still have to finish our character sheets today tho!

Dark Heresy is the most lethal due to PC starting at a lower equilivent level since most of FFG rpgs are supposed to be able to cross over.

Dark Heresy is my favourite but having read the core book for all of the FFG ones you can see the progression of how they cleared some things up and improved the system.

Dark Heresy: Low powered, gritty, and generally "GM driven" as in, the GM plays an inquisitor who sends the party (his peons) on missions. Mechanically, it works okay, but it is fairly clunky in places. Mostly, it works well because the combats are low key and there's less going on, so the system doesn't creak as much. Lends itself well to gritty realism, horror, and investigation.

Rogue Trader: Higher powered, epic in scope and generally "player driven", as in, the world is a sandbox which the players chart a course through, meeting antagonists and allies and making profit where they can. Mechanically I found it a complete clusterfeth. The ship rules don't work very well and are extremely poorly laid out, most of the relevant rules text is buried in long meandering paragraphs. This can make combat a pain in the nads. Add to this the fact that the group will generally have anywhere from 4000 to 60000+ peons at their disposal from day one, and you can see that combat requires a lot of abstraction. It also relies on the character playing the Trader understanding what's needed to be a good leader in an RPG. It is well suited to players who want to be morally ambiguous, engage in political backstabbing within the group, and who like exploration and horror elements, and lots of freedom. I enjoyed it, but if I ran it again I would make my own rules for ship to ship combat and probably for interpersonal combat, since I found the FFG rules absolutely diabolical.

Deathwatch: Only run a single session of this. It's mission driven again, with superhuman characters who are a little bit mad by normal standards. It seems to mix intense combat with this idea of a transhuman mindset as it's main idea. Many of it's rules are combat orientated, very complex and crunchy. I'd find it hard to run a long campaign in this but it is fun for the FFG equivalent of a dungeon bash.

Black Crusade: Own the book, but haven't played it. Seems player driven like Rogue Trader, and the power levels are somewhere between rogue trader and Deathwatch, minus the giant ship and millions of dudes you get in Rogue Trader (which I think really makes Rogue Trader the most high powered). This seems closest to a traditional "d'n'd adventuring group" except everyone is a crazy mad cultist. Has good character gen rules compared to the others, but is still kinda clunky, but the combat scale means it probably isn't too important. Suits groups who want to be mwahahaha evil, doesn't give as much scope for depth in your evil as I was hoping.

I'm not a fan of FFG mechanics, I think they are bloated and poorly written, and I find them frustrating to run. If you are experienced I'd say it will be okay.

Lynata Wrote:
SpankHammer III wrote:
i'm really looking forward to Only war and GM permitting will try and incorporate element into our DH campaign.
If you do so, I recommend recreating any characters you want to "port over" with the new system, else you'll just have a clusterf... of clashing rules and actions. The systems sadly are just not meant to flawlessly work with each other without investing a lot of work to "make them fit".

Looking forward to Only War as well, though. My group will be playing tomorrow.
http://dark-heresy.wikispaces.com/Onlywar
We still have to finish our character sheets today tho!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/07/11 15:38:34


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? that's a shame I was hoping it would be a reasonable fit. I may just end up stealing equipment/idea's for my character's delvelopment from it then, will have to wait though as I'm not planning on getting the Beta.

I'm currently a sergeant in DH, my stats arn't brilliant except my fellowship which is 40 so will be going to Officer route. I wish they would turn DH into a PC game as I just don't get as many sessions (1 a month) as I would like.

Well you could play it online over say Skype or some other IM program or voice chat. It's what I do.

Really? does that work ok?

I've been doing it for over 2 years now. It works but the only problem that comes to mind is momentum. Gotta keep going even if that means doing a session with less players. Once you stop because you want to wait for all the players then you lose this momentum until eventually you forget you're in a game and everyone has lost interest.

Aye, I've been playing Dark Heresy via IRC as well. There are entire communities running P&P games like that.
It's not the same as sitting on a table as it takes longer and generally includes less laughter, but on the flipside you've got more in-character stuff and can play with people from around the world.

SpankHammer III wrote:Really? that's a shame I was hoping it would be a reasonable fit. I may just end up stealing equipment/idea's for my character's delvelopment from it then, will have to wait though as I'm not planning on getting the Beta.

Equipment should work fine - for the most part. Even talents or NPCs. They all use the same basic 1d10 idea and aren't too far from each other, but occasionally you will have to tweak things to make it fit. The system is complex, but the basics are fairly transparent, so adaptations can be made without too much hassle. Just make sure that you don't break something later down the road ... like I still think FFG did when they had temporarily introduced Unnatural Stats as a multiplicator instead of a flat bonus, not thinking how crazy things would end up like.

Transferring rules and equipment from DH into OW shouldn't be a problem. Most of the rules are the same, or just have slight variations and updates to make them better or to increase granularity.

Where it will be difficult is the characters. DH uses a tree-based character progression method, where you advance from one rank to the next, and at a certain point make a choice as to which branch you follow. OW has no rank structure. It's far more open ended.

Other than BC/OW (and even that'd require work), I don't think the character creation systems translate well between games. I also think that's a good thing. I like how those mechanics are specific to their own game.

Why go with a more open progression system for a book about being in the army? I understand it for BC but it seems a bit silly for OW. If anything, I would have given it an even tighter level system.

I think because tree based progression is generally seen as being pretty restrictive and not as much fun as more open ended systems.

Generally seen? By who?

Also, "restrictions" in games (also known as rules) are not necessarily a bad thing. They just need to have function rather than existing to exist. So many games use classes and levels just because D&D does. But the reactionary approach, not having levels because it's too "restrictive," is just as bad ... and may be worse.

I really enjoy DH from what I have played, although I try not to get too bogged down in combat because sometimes it just takes forever.

Buddy at the FLGS has a Rogue Trader campaign going; I could probably be a PC in that, but I wouldn't want to be the GM or shipmaster; too much to think about.

I like the small scale of DH, you can do a lot of fun things without getting too large in scale, not to mention the investigative aspects are probably my favorite part.

Manchu wrote:Why go with a more open progression system for a book about being in the army? I understand it for BC but it seems a bit silly for OW. If anything, I would have given it an even tighter level system.

It's not 'open' in the sense that you have equal access to everything from the word go. Everything is based around aptitudes, and different types of character are more geared towards different types of aptitude. Sergeants/Commissars are geared towards command, Ogryn to strength, weapon guys to Ballistic Skill and things like that. Each Skill and Talent has a related aptitude (or multiple), and if your aptitudes match the skill, the XP cost is lower. If your aptitude matches are few or you don't have any, things are more expensive.

So yes, you can buy Command for your Int 12/Fel 15 Ogryn, but it's going to cost you heaps. It's open, but your choices are make logically based upon your character class (or illogically, if you really want to spend your xp on things you're not good at) rather than being proscribed by a tree diagram that you must follow.

Most people I game with, myself included, prefer an "open" progression system because it lends itself more to whatever happens during a game, and because it makes it easier to build the characters we have in mind. Entirely class- and level-restricted systems rarely, if ever, allow the character progression to truly reflect the experiences of the characters, and it'd suck if you come into a situation where you could totally explain buying something, just that the game wouldn't let ya. Sure, you can houserule stuff, but it's always better if the system would support such realistic liberties right away. I'd expect that in most cases, a player would be able to explain what he wants to buy and why it makes sense for his character - and if it's really that stupid, the GM can always say "no".
That's how it worked in 4th edition The Dark Eye (players were only supposed to buy skills/talents they "trained" in the course of the game or any downtime), and it worked nicely.

I truly believe that Only War's progression system is the best so far (at least for the "Imperial RPGs"; Black Crusade's god-aligned tiers were perfect for it as well), and something that DH, RT and DW would have benefited from as well.

I tend to think that dumb choices don't count as choices. I think houserules are fine for when your Special Snowflake comes to a story point that is completely out-of-character for the setting (The Ogryn Takes Command!). I'd have thought OW would be like "Welcome to the Imperial Guard, where the only skills you have are those the God-Emperor has mandated we teach you." Need to ride a Tau jet ski? Too fething bad. Unless you're some kind of special forces guy, then maybe you can learn and adapt that way. But Imperial culture, especially in the military, is not about flexibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's open, but your choices are make logically based upon your character class (or illogically, if you really want to spend your xp on things you're not good at) rather than being proscribed by a tree diagram that you must follow.

This is kind of what ruffles me: If you're a Guardsmen your life plan is somebody else's decision. Whether it's logical or not, it's not up to you. The mandatory tree makes sense here.

Lynata wrote:Most people I game with, myself included, prefer an "open" progression system because it lends itself more to whatever happens during a game, and because it makes it easier to build the characters we have in mind. Entirely class- and level-restricted systems rarely, if ever, allow the character progression to truly reflect the experiences of the characters, and it'd suck if you come into a situation where you could totally explain buying something, just that the game wouldn't let ya. Sure, you can houserule stuff, but it's always better if the system would support such realistic liberties right away. I'd expect that in most cases, a player would be able to explain what he wants to buy and why it makes sense for his character - and if it's really that stupid, the GM can always say "no".
That's how it worked in 4th edition The Dark Eye (players were only supposed to buy skills/talents they "trained" in the course of the game or any downtime), and it worked nicely.

I truly believe that Only War's progression system is the best so far (at least for the "Imperial RPGs"; Black Crusade's god-aligned tiers were perfect for it as well), and something that DH, RT and DW would have benefited from as well.

I just got a copy of Only War, and while I do love Dark Heresy, I must agree. I cannot comment on any of the other RPGs since I haven't looked through them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's open, but your choices are make logically based upon your character class (or illogically, if you really want to spend your xp on things you're not good at) rather than being proscribed by a tree diagram that you must follow.

This is kind of what ruffles me: If you're a Guardsmen your life plan is somebody else's decision. Whether it's logical or not, it's not up to you. The mandatory tree makes sense here.

Makarov wrote:

Manchu wrote:The mandatory tree makes sense here.

While that is 100% correct. It creates the issue of linearity/lack of choice isn't very conducive to many RPGs nor much fun for players/DMs.

I think that is overly simplistic, very much "inside the box" thinking. I'll be interested to see whether OW can play as anything but SpecOps in Space, in which case it's 40k in name only.

Manchu wrote:

Makarov wrote:

Manchu wrote:The mandatory tree makes sense here.

While that is 100% correct. It creates the issue of linearity/lack of choice isn't very conducive to many RPGs nor much fun for players/DMs.

I think that is overly simplistic, very much "inside the box" thinking. I'll be interested to see whether OW can play as anything but SpecOps in Space, in which case it's 40k in name only.

If you GM could always tweak it to how you like, or if your a player you could just follow a stricter path. But, to each his own, and IMHO I really like the way it was setup.

While limiting skills to assignments kind of makes sense for an 'accurate' military simulation, most RPGs aren't that accurate. I think most military-themed RPGs are more inspired by Kelly's Heroes, The Dirty Dozen, or Hogan's Heroes than real military training. You want room to have characters that can cover their 'basic' job but also have some fun, unique team roles that are useful for either 'unusual' combat situations or non-combat challenges.

Or, to put it another way "Bob's our medic, but he's also into driving motorcycles, so he led the part of the squad to steal a Tau hover-bike thing to create a distraction while bomb-guy set the charges." is more fun than "Stealing an enemy vehicle was out as an option because no one had successfully made it through the JX-12/c "Xenos Vehicle Driving & Maintenance" training course, so we went over the top and charged them, again. Massive casualties."

However, in general I find that military-themed RPGs get boring if there's too much clear 'mission' structure. Going out and doing as-ordered is not as funa s going out, finding that following orders exactly would make things much worse, then having to either make things worse or disobey to prevent a greater problem and deal with the consequences.

This is maybe a bit more difficult for IG than Space Marines. Space Marines have a bit more flexibility as their command structure is pretty flat and each is generally assumed to have enough intelligence and awareness to improvise, but there's still situations that could cause most otherwise loyal Space Marines to question orders or go off the rails. Rivalries with other chapters (especially Chaos chapters), special Chapter affinities for lost equipment, etc.

For IG, there's still room to make it interesting. The Gaunt's Ghosts novels are basically this idea, after all. It does help that they have a commander with a lot of authority, but if they didn't occasionally disobey orders they'd be dead several times over.

That's precisely what I am arguing: we already have SpecOps 40k in the form of DH and DW and, to some extent, RT. It looks like OW will not add anything meaningful to the line, except yet a further edition of the basic rules structure. It's marketed as a game about being a Guardsman. I'm not saying you need to roll to fold your socks and make your bed, by the way. I'm saying, you shouldn't be in charge of your mechanical character development past deciding whether you want to play as a grunt or an officer.

Well, mandatory progression trees are prone to being too fixed and thus unable to adapt to a situation or character at hand - thus being unrealistic in their own right.

For example, as a marksman in Only War, why exactly should I wait until I have reached a higher level to unlock a particular sniper skill when it already fits to what I'm doing all the time in battle?
As a Battle Sister in Dark Heresy, is there a particular reason why I'm unable to get a neat parry talent when my character is focused on close combat and trains all day long?

Such railroading only works when you play a character "by the book" and discount any experiences this person might have gained from a session or their background. I for one prefer to let a mission have repercussions on the character - this includes their personality as well as potential skills gained to reflect this unique experience.

For Only War, the "motorcycle" example given by Balance could be explained by the character bringing in these skills from his life before the Guard, for example. This is something I'd only allow during character creation, though, not after recruitment. That said, there's nothing to be said against the possibility of learning how to drive, say, a Chimaera - if he manages to convince the driver of his mechanized squad's APC to show it to him.
I think a certain level of interpersonal training within the regiment can be explained without much hassle. During my time with the German Air Force, I learned how to shoot a heavy machine gun in spite of not even having officially applied for that role. We just went out and played around because we had the time and some ammo to shoot. In the Imperial Guard, some regiments might frown on such waste of time and resources, yet others might welcome it (after all, that's one more person to man that heavy bolter when the gunner gets killed).

As long as the player can explain how he learned X and it sounds somewhat reasonable, I'd let him get away with it. This is way more realistic than the "you can't because it's not on your class table" approach of the earlier games.
This is less about the player being in charge of his mechanical character development and more about circumstances being in charge, rather than some rigid railroading table that doesn't care much about what the character has actually experienced and to what sort of knowledge he or she was exposed.

I also don't think that Only War is "SpecOps 40k". Granted, you may not always be Grunt #08-15 in a faceless mass charging an enemy fortification, but squads and platoons operating away from the main force do have their role to play in the grand strategy. It's still Guard, and the gameplay is notably different from DH investigations or DW Movie Marines.

In case people are interested, the log of our first session is up on my IRC group's wiki: http://dark-heresy.wikispaces.com/Onlywarsession1

Once you guys finish fighting through the straw men, my actual point will be waiting: who you are and what you do as a Guardsman is decided by someone other than you -- either by the circumstances (in the worst case) or by your superiors (in the best case; a.k.a., "the circumstances" by another name). In a RPG, you take on a role. The game mechanics support you taking on that role. This is different from saying "the game mechanics allow you to do whatever you might want to." So anybody who wants to play a guardsman who wields xenos weaponry, for example, should be better of as a DH acolyte than as a character in OW.

I'd say this game could benefit from at least three strict classes:

- Enlisted Soldier
- Officer
- Commissar

It's not to say you couldn't have wide options, especially regarding being an Enlisted Soldier, even if they weren't directly chosen by the player. But I don't think a grunt character should have the options available to an officer or commissar (or vice versa). That seems dumb and not very conducive to supporting a player taking on the role of a someone in the military.

This game is sounding more like the stock RPG than something special. The classless games have not, by the way, eliminated the classic "make sure someone's a cleric" mentality of class systems anyway.

Manchu wrote:Once you guys finish fighting through the straw men, my actual point will be waiting: who you are and what you do as a Guardsman is decided by someone other than you -- either by the circumstances (in the worst case) or by your superiors (in the best case; a.k.a., "the circumstances" by another name). In a RPG, you take on a role. The game mechanics support you taking on that role. This is different from saying "the game mechanics allow you to do whatever you might want to." So anybody who wants to play a guardsman who wields xenos weaponry, for example, should be better of as a DH acolyte than as a character in OW.

I'd say this game could benefit from at least three strict classes:

- Enlisted Soldier
- Officer
- Commissar

It's not to say you couldn't have wide options, especially regarding being an Enlisted Soldier, even if they weren't directly chosen by the player. But I don't think a grunt character should have the options available to an officer or commissar (or vice versa). That seems dumb and not very conducive to supporting a player taking on the role of a someone in the military.

This game is sounding more like the stock RPG than something special. The classless games have not, by the way, eliminated the classic "make sure someone's a cleric" mentality of class systems anyway.

Ok, now I can see your point, and while I can see where you are coming from. It just doesn't seem to bother me. But, like I said when you run your game you can do (almost) anything you want. With that said I would say that there should be 4 classes, the three you mentioned. As well as a "Specialist class" for the "others" such as Shock Troopers, Psyhers, abhumans, etc.

Good point about that fourth class. It reminds me of the race-as-class choices in old school D&D. In those days, you didn't play an elf whose class was wizard or ranger, etc. You played an elf. Your class was elf. That makes sense for ogryns and techpriests, too.

Well, in a way, that's how Only War is structured. There is just one "Guardsman class" sub-structured into various specialists such as "the guy with the heavy weapon" or "the medic".
Everything else is Specialists - Commissars, Tech-Priests, Ministorum Confessors.

Still, a class merely defines how you start, as well as establishing a firm career that the character will - likely - stick with until being killed or retiring.

Manchu wrote:who you are and what you do as a Guardsman is decided by someone other than you -- either by the circumstances (in the worst case) or by your superiors (in the best case; a.k.a., "the circumstances" by another name)

Exactly, yet to support these decisions, the game needs to be more free-form, so that the character progression may be adapted to said circumstances.
If your Sergeant dies and the Operator is field-promoted, you don't really want to go: "Well, it'd be great if I could buy the Command skill now, but apparently my tree restricts me from doing so."

Because that is what would happen in Deathwatch or Dark Heresy.

Manchu wrote:In those days, you didn't play an elf whose class was wizard or ranger, etc. You played an elf. Your class was elf. That makes sense for ogryns and techpriests, too.

I hated this over-simplification in TDE, too. It attempts to shoehorn the character into some archetype when, by virtue of his culture, he'd have potential for so much more.

I greatly approved of TDE's 4th edition separating class, race and culture into three different selections - finally you could play a normal human growing up amongst Thorwalers (TDE's version of Vikings), because that actually happened to be the backstory of one of my characters.
Yeah, it wasn't a necessity as the differences were marginal, but it's always nice when game mechanics support such details.

Lynata wrote:It attempts to shoehorn the character into some archetype when, by virtue of his culture, he'd have potential for so much more.

Here's where we're getting to the real issue. "Elf" is no more restrictive than "Fighter." And getting back to my original comment ITT, restrictions, i.e., rules, are not a bad thing unless they exist simply for their own sake. Elf-as-class makes for a strong archetype; elf-as-race makes for a weak one. Instead of being a coherent fantasy trope in itself, the concept "elf" devolves into mechanical bonuses and liabilities. (I'm contrasting Basic D&D with Third and Fourth Edition here.) Do I get to chose a race in OW? I mean, sub-species: human, ogryn, squat, human with heavy bionics, etc. If so, that choice should be meaningful -- i.e., not just boil down to +2 here and -2 here.

Manchu wrote:"Elf" is no more restrictive than "Fighter."

Depends on the system - but if we're talking D&D, I do remember constantly being at odds with how the classes are. For example, have you ever tried playing a paladin with something else other than platemail and a STR-based weapon? Maybe it's just my occasional enthusiasm for non-cliché characters, but I vividly recall being penalized a lot by the system for daring to play a Chessentan Paladin of Lathander wearing medium armour and using a short sword + round shield, rather than your typical longsword-wielding crusader in full plate.
That said, the issue goes far deeper than that, and I've often criticized D&D for the stupidity of linking the likelyhood of a melee hit to the Strength attribute. My longsword-wielding Drow had the same issue - I could basically choose to make her a graceful sword-dancer with high Dexterity that wouldn't hit anything, or a brutal beast of a woman laden with muscles just for the sake of being able to properly control her blade.

To get back to the initial question, though - yes, Elf is more restrictive than a Fighter. Have you ever tried playing a Fighter as a mage or an archer? Or are you proposing that any Elf should be an omnipotent Jack-of-all-Trades that can do everything? Wouldn't an open progression system where the Elf picks whatever he wants to learn not lend itself far better to this approach than any sort of rigid table?

Manchu wrote:Do I get to chose a race in OW? I mean, sub-species: human, ogryn, squat, human with heavy bionics, etc. If so, that choice should be meaningful -- i.e., not just boil down to +2 here and -2 here.

It's too meaningful, actually. The Ratling gets a lot of stuff that other marksmen don't. For example, how does only the Ratling get a Spotter as comrade? I get that the "Weapon Specialist" class isn't actually intended to support snipers, but it's the closest you can get - and it's really not as if Ratlings were the only marksmen in the entire Imperial Guard, is it?

In the end, I don't actually have a problem with "+2 here and -2 there" if that were all that differentiates the races.* And let's be honest here: Elves are humans with pointy ears, just like Ratlings are small humans with good eyesight. *If* their fluff warrants some unique ability that nobody else can ever possess, *then* they should get that. But they should not made be mechanically different just to be mechanically different where their background doesn't point it out. Then you're devolving into a bunch of mechanical bonuses and liabilities rather than a concept being played simply because it's cool.

*: As for D&D, I would however suggest increasing the modifiers even more just to widen the gap a little. The basic idea is sound, though, as I am not averse to the idea of a particularly well-suited human being more charismatic or more agile than an average elf.

Lynata wrote:To get back to the initial question, though - yes, Elf is more restrictive than a Fighter. Have you ever tried playing a Fighter as a mage or an archer?

What are you talking about? There is nothing more restrictive about the old Elf class than the Fighter class. Also, Elf was a class in Basic/Expert. Stats did not punish you. The Chessentan Paladin you described would be fine using something like Labyrinth Lord. But why should the system cater to Special Snowflakes? Welcome to D&D: this is a game about certain tropes and we don't try to hide it. If you want to play Inquisitor Drizzt Shepherd, I can only recommend GURPS or BRPG -- as a punishment.

Lynata wrote:And let's be honest here: Elves are humans with pointy ears, just like Ratlings are small humans with good eyesight.

Regarding Elves, you are way way way off. That is the exact attitude that drags fantasy settings down. Can you imagine if Eldar with just humans with pointy ears.

Manchu wrote:What are you talking about? There is nothing more restrictive about the old Elf class than the Fighter class. Also, Elf was a class in Basic/Expert. Stats did not punish you.

So from what I could glean off the internets on short notice, this class was a mix of a Fighter-MagicUser. Now, I suppose this means that either the character excelled at both, which would have been stupidly overpowered compared to other players, or the character was able to do a little bit of everything but was less powerful than a "true" Fighter or Mage. I don't know (yet) which it was, but both sounds pretty silly - one being a minmaxer's dream and the other disallowing any character concept that would focus on one particular discipline and neglect the other, so basically 90% of all elves ever.
But maybe you can explain.

Manchu wrote:The Chessentan Paladin you described would be fine using something like Labyrinth Lord. But why should the system cater to Special Snowflakes? Welcome to D&D: this is a game about certain tropes and we don't try to hide it. If you want to play Inquisitor Drizzt Shepherd, I can only recommend GURPS or BRPG -- as a punishment.

So you're telling me that there is this game that offers a wide variety of cultures and roles, but I only get to play the 0.5% that are supported by its core system? I would call that unnecessarily restrictive. If you like a game to be about tropes, that's fine, but I value roleplaying and creativity - in moderation, as supported by the setting. Why do we even have other races? Hell, why do we have classes? Let's all just play the Human Fighter.

Also, if D&D was fine with its own restrictions, it would not churn out one specialty after another. How many "prestige classes" are there by now?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc/
Yeah, looks like a lot. But apparently it's okay to become that "Special Snowflake" later on as long as you don't start with a proper representation of such a background, because that would be too realistic.

By how you sound right now, people should only be allowed to play Cadians in Only War because the game does not have to cater to "Special Snowflakes" like the Mordian Iron Guard or the Catachan Jungle Devils. Sure, that's one way to do it, but where you ask the question of "why should the game cater", I ask "why shouldn't it?"
The setting has room for so much more, and when you can use 90% of it without breaking the balance or the general "look and feel", I think it'd simply be wasted potential to bar it.

Manchu wrote:Regarding Elves, you are way way way off. That is the exact attitude that drags fantasy settings down. Can you imagine if Eldar with just humans with pointy ears.

Biologically? Yeah, I can. The differences come, in my opinion, chiefly from how these characters are played - and you can't put that into mere mechanics. Bonuses and traits can support the portrayal of a given culture or species, but they cannot replace the player. When it comes down to it, speaking purely in terms of game mechanics, Eldar are nothing more than +Willpower and +Agility. The only thing truly setting them apart might be some special psyker magiks - but even those are, technically, not impossible to learn for characters of another species.

Also, Dragon Age is an awesome setting.

So the only character worth playing is "one that can be min/maxed but not too much"? Oh dear. I can see the problem here (prestige class rhetoric) is the assumption that D&D 3.5 is D&D. In the days of yore, people who said they valued roleplaying and creativity truly meant it. Characterization was a matter of actual play rather than builds. You can play an Elf that you like with the Elf class just as well as you can play any Fighter that you like with the Fighter class. No two Elves would necessarily be played the same way.

Similarly, army men are all given the same training and yet they manage to have different personalities. We don't need Johnny Sniper and Suzie TechPriest and Ugh the Ogryn. We can have a whole party of PFCs because ... ahem ... this is a game supposedly about being in the military, right? Oh and about the silly Cadian-only argument: remember the STC? The IG are an amazingly unified force considering how many different planets they hail from. Whether they were shorter coats or longer ones, fuzzy hats or hard helmets, they all carry a lasgun and they all drive around in chimeras, and they all travel aboard the same troop ships, and they all probably eat the same rations (I'll have to check the same Munitorum Manual issued to all the regiments).

Finally, Dragon Age is in most respects poor-to-mediocre. It's best attributes are lifted from 40k. It's depiction of Elves is okay, a little weak because it's so forcefully "Celtic," but one of the things BioWare did right is making Elves and Dwarves culturally distinct from humans.

Manchu wrote:So the only character worth playing is "one that can be min/maxed but not too much"?

Huh? No. I just think it's silly to have classes and races at all when you're argueing this way.

Manchu wrote:You can play an Elf that you like with the Elf class just as well as you can play any Fighter that you like with the Fighter class. No two Elves would necessarily be played the same way.

You can also play an Elf using the Human Fighter class.
And you can play an Eldar using the Human Militant in Rogue Trader.
As you said it yourself, characterization is a matter of play rather than builds. We don't need special classes and special builds to "cater" to them. In a way, Only War supports that very notion by doing away with these limitations - all that the classes in OW do is provide you with a basic skillset (as a result of earlier experiences/training) and a certain affinity in the form of Aptitudes, determining the stuff that your character can learn more easily due to previous exposure. From that point onward it all depends on what happens in the game, what kind of experiences the character will meet. At least that's the way it was intended, methinks.

Manchu wrote:Similarly, army men are all given the same training

This is simply not true. Unless we're really talking about a regiment of peasant conscripts that doesn't field anything else than barely trained farmers with lasguns - no vehicles, no medics, no special and no heavy weapons. And even then there will be Officers and Commissars (although not necessarily in the player's squad). Yes, these regiments exist, but they're not the ones featured. You can build one like it with the regiment customisation feature, though.

Manchu wrote:We can have a whole party of PFCs because ... ahem ... this is a game supposedly about being in the military, right?

It's a game about the regiments of the Imperial Guard, and even if we're looking past the differences between the individual regiments, this is a military force that consists of more than a single type of soldier. I think we humans did away with such armies as we progressed from the Stone into the Bronze Age.

Can you have an entire party of lasgun-toting conscripts? Sure you can, if you want. But again, why should the system force you into this and bar all the other options that the Imperial Guard, by virtue of its fluff, has to offer? People specialize. Soldiers are no exception.

Manchu wrote:Oh and about the silly Cadian-only argument: remember the STC? The IG are an amazingly unified force considering how many different planets they hail from.

And they all have some unique feat that differentiates them from each other. Valhallans will fare better on an ice world, Krieg has more experience with trench warfare, Catachans are better suited for missions on death worlds. And that's not even touching upon special formations like the Elysian Drop Troops.
Such differences are, naturally, rarely represented in the TT, yet they are pointed out again and again in their fluff, so surely it cannot be "wrong" to mind them when there's an opportunity how it can be done without threatening the overall balance of the game?

Manchu wrote:Finally, Dragon Age is in most respects poor-to-mediocre.

Well, personal preferences, not much to be said about that.

Manchu you're colouring all of the Guard with a single brush. The whole idea of "what you do is decided by someone else" might be true for some (or even most) regiments, but it's not true of everyone. The Guard is not a single monolithic institution that follows a strict set of rules for every regiment raised from every world. Some worlds do things very differently to one another.

This is why there is an open system where the xp cost for advances is based more upon your characters aptitudes (and they don't change as far as I can tell) rather than a set tree structure. It means that people are more likely to take skills related to their own existing abilities, but doesn't stop them from taking any others or force them into a system of linear progression.

Yes it means that in a more open system an Ogryn can pick sniper-based skills and the heavy weapon guy can go out and buy every HTH skill in the book, but most people won't because it's a waste of xp. And I'd much rather those choices be wasteful than forbidden.

I'm looking at pictures of IG squads and I'm not seeing ten completely different soldiers in terms of training or purpose. I'm also not seeing big differences between the regiments aside from funny hats. And again, dumb choices are not real choices. Yeah, I guess I can give command or sniper skills to an ogryn. What freedom! It's like having a choice between having my arms broken, my tongue cut out, getting kicked in the nuts, or having an ice cream sandwich. So many choices! Let me really think about this one ...

Manchu wrote:I'm looking at pictures of IG squads and I'm not seeing ten completely different soldiers in terms of training or purpose.

When *I* am looking at a Codex Imperial Guard infantry squad I can easily see four different types of men: The squad leader (Sergeant), guys with special weapons (Weapon Specialist), heavy weapon guys (Heavy Gunner) and grunts with lasgun (could be comrades, but in the sense of Only War also Medics). If we add a Chimaera to make the squad mechanized there's also the driver (Operator). And then there's the potential to add a Commissar or other non-IG characters on top of it.

What are you even suggesting now - that there would be too many specializations for people and there should be just a single Guardsman who can skill into everything, or that the system should be less open and have dedicated classes with linear progression trees?

The only thing I'm going to agree on is that it's weird to have characters like Ogryns, Ratlings and Storm Troopers potentially added as outside individuals to a squad instead of being limited to squads of their own, as would "true" IG style be. That said, it's not too hard to construct an excuse like "that guy's squad was wiped out, so he's sticking with us" - that even works on a regimental level.

Manchu wrote:I'm also not seeing big differences between the regiments aside from funny hats.

If you're really convinced there's zero difference between regiments like the Attilan Rough Riders and the Mordian Iron Guard, I am not sure I can help.

It seems to me that a sergeant is just a trooper with a couple more levels. And a special/heavy gunner is just a trooper carrying a special/heavy weapon until he dies and another trooper picks it up. All of this could be accounted for in the class "enlisted soldier." In any event, the "enlisted soldier" is never going to master logistics or formal command without being enrolled into an officer candidate program. And he's never going to learn how to ride a horse unless he's transferred to a Rough Rider's unit. And he's never going to learn how to fly a Valkyrie unless he's discharged into the Imperial Navy. Etc, etc, etc. Specialization is not an argument for an open system. It is an argument for a defined one.

Frankly, you are way overselling the distinctions between IG regiments. There really is not that much of a difference between them. The Attilan Rough Riders are supposed to be good a riding horses. Well, they might not be as well known for it, but the Rough Riders raised from other worlds are pretty good at it, too. At the end of the day, it all boils down to a lasrifle or a Leman Russ.

Manchu wrote:It seems to me that a sergeant is just a trooper with a couple more levels. And a special/heavy gunner is just a trooper carrying a special/heavy weapon until he dies and another trooper picks it up. All of this could be accounted for in the class "enlisted soldier."

Actually, you are right - though it's a bit oversimplified, given how many different skills are connected to each of these roles. But then you'd have to have an open progression system where people can skill into the roles they are being assigned to. Something you seemed averse to having.

Manchu wrote:In any event, the "enlisted soldier" is never going to master logistics or formal command without being enrolled into an officer candidate program. And he's never going to learn how to ride a horse unless he's transferred to a Rough Rider's unit. And he's never going to learn how to fly a Valkyrie unless he's discharged into the Imperial Navy. Etc, etc, etc.

You are throwing way too many skills into the same pot. I do not think we are talking about specialist skills like being a Vaklyrie pilot here, but stuff like the "Command" skill can, in fact, be acquired in the field simply by being pushed into a command role, for example if the Sergeant dies or he makes you his/her 2nd in command for a fire-team. The same goes for various special or heavy weapons, training that a soldier does not start with, but may acquire because circumstances pushed him/her into this role. The vast majority of abilities in Only War are stuff that is useful to just about everyone, but is more useful to certain specialists. Those that are less likely to acquire them pay extra XP for it, but that doesn't mean they are barred from them. Because anyone can, in theory, learn stuff like that. Yeah, "Berserk Charge" is obviously more useful for that Ogryn, but where is the law that says a Medic couldn't get it as well if the player has a character that works this way? When he or she plays that Medic as being prone to CC, then that makes the character viable for this talent. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Manchu wrote:Frankly, you are way overselling the distinctions between IG regiments. There really is not that much of a difference between them. The Attilan Rough Riders are supposed to be good a riding horses. Well, they might not be as well known for it, but the Rough Riders raised from other worlds are pretty good at it, too.

The comparison was not made to Rough Riders from other worlds, but to the Mordian Iron Guard.

I would absolutely support the idea of giving any Rough Rider regiment the necessary skills for riding horses, and possibly bonuses for living off the land of their preferred territory, and this is actually exactly how Only War works. The same goes for any other regiment, both for homeworld origin as well as specialist role. Catachans are going to fare better in a jungle than a bunch of Valhallans - fact.

Basically, the regimental creation system allows you to pick a range of doctrines (you may remember this term from a previous IG Codex) that influence the regiment's kit as well as the skills the soldiers start with. It's a combination of homeworld culture + regimental role. For example, the Jopall Indentured Squadrons would be something like "Imperial World + Light Infantry + Scavengers", which makes each soldier a lightly armed infantryman with the skillset of an average Imperial citizen plus some military training, and gives the squad a bonus on Logistics rolls when acquiring supplies.

Looking over this discussion, I think the real missed opportunity was not so much having a thousand different "classes" to represent all the possible skill sets in the IG (like IRL miliarties) but rather that the mechanism by which skills are "learned" is player choice. The thing that's worthwhile about the class system is limiting player choice at one point instead of another. With an open system, you can still limit player choice at some other point and that doesn't seem to be happening here. Hence the ridiculous notion of ogryns being able to take command or sniper skills. I still think a few broad "classes" would be appropriate to this game: enlisted, officer, and commissar. But the main issue is that skills should not be chosen but instead be results.

To be fair, Ogryns do have squad leaders as well, and I wouldn't deem it impossible that one Ogryn might be a really good shot, just less likely (because clumsy - but that, too, is taken care of, because there is no such thing as an Ogryn-proof sniper rifle, heavily limiting the choice of weapons they can possibly use).

That's not being "fair." That's being overly technical and so missing the point. It's like saying ants have queens just like humans.

How exactly is it missing the point, though? You are basically saying that not even Ogryn leaders should get Command because ... they're Ogryns? Even though they are in a leadership position and supposed to lead?

Okay, I suppose it comes down to what one considers necessary prerequisites for such an ability, and if you think that Ogryns do not fulfill them, it's just a case of differing interpretations, at which point the discussion won't lead anywhere.

Not everything is a matter of interpretation. Ogryns are dumb brutes. Just because one of them is stronger and more forceful and slightly less stupid than his fellows doesn't make him anything like an actual officer or sergeant.

You don't need to be an officer or sergeant to lead, however.

Officer: "Alright, men! I know it looks tough, but reinforcements are bound to arrive. If we surrender this position, the enemy will be free to flank our main column, so our comrades lives, maybe even the lives of every being on this lousy world depend on us. Stand firm, and hold the line!"

Ogryn: "YOU STAY DERE OR I HURTS YOU!!"

Both examples are valid uses of the "Command" skill.

Lynata wrote:Both examples are valid uses of the "Command" skill.

Your version of Command sounds more like some generic "influence" skill. "You sell for 50% or I hurt you" is Command, too, I guess. Even D&D 3.5 distinguishes between diplomacy and intimidation checks. In a military setting, the skill of being able to command troops is something far more specific than either much less some blanket influence check.

Manchu wrote:Not everything is a matter of interpretation. Ogryns are dumb brutes. Just because one of them is stronger and more forceful and slightly less stupid than his fellows doesn't make him anything like an actual officer or sergeant.

OTOH, if I was GMing a 40k RPG game, if a player wanted his Ogryn to be known as a cunning smart-but-silent type I'd want it to be possible. The rank-and-file ogryns might be dumb brutes, but the one that is rumored by the others to 'have a little greenskin in him' and has notes on his file that he unnerves Imperial officers by making occasional deeply insightful, if monosyllabic, comments on deployment... That's a fun character, and I could see them getting access to tactics and command skills/feats. This could be house-ruled of course, but I'd prefer the system be open.

If I was designing a military-style RPG with a 40k setting I might consider having two separate classes: one is the Military Specialty (Infantry, Heavy Weapon Specialists, Medic, etc.) and one as a theme/hobby/niche (Sneaky, Loyal, etc.).

Again, I consider a fun military RPG setup to be more "Kelly's Heroes" than "Band of Brothers" (although even in BoB the charcaters have some individual skills and interest beyond their military assignment).

Yes, there's always that one Drow who is really a good guy. As for Kelly's Heroes, it could already be done with the other rulesets.

Manchu wrote:Your version of Command sounds more like some generic "influence" skill.

It's not my version, it's Only War's.
And it does have both a Command as well as an Intimidate skill. The difference is that they use different characteristics - Command uses "Fellowship" and Intimidate uses "Strength". You can still use both for threats of violence, however.

Which skill a test calls for depends more on the exact action rather than the user. Leading troops in battle is always a Command test, even if the squad leader tries to threaten them. The end result is, of course, that a character with more Fellowship will have more success at delivering that threat - it's a matter of using the right voice and finding the right words rather than flexing your muscles. Ogryns obviously do not have a good Fellowship so they'll be at a massive disadvantage, but (just like everyone else) they will always be "at risk" to be subjected to a Command test, so there is always the option for them to buy skill ranks in it to reflect getting better.
... if they want to spend all those XP. Ogryns start neither with Fellowship nor Leadership aptitude, so they're gonna have to pay 4 times as many XP as someone possessing both aptitudes. Such as, say, the Human Sergeant.

I also don't see why you need to jump to extremes so quickly with invented examples like "that one Drow who is really a good guy". The problem with most rigid systems is that they often do not support characters that are perfectly believable to be part of the average population. Unless you really want to limit your game to the classic "tropes" and play the same 8 character types that everybody does (might as well go with predefined names then), rather than doing it like novel authors and coming up with believable individuals who are not cardboard-cutouts but actually come across like average people thrust into a dangerous adventure.The magic is all about hitting the sweet spot between "cardboard cutout" and "special snowflake", and in my opinion, an open system combined with common sense and a group that values the setting supports this much better than any type of railroading that tries to shoehorn you into a progression that usually does not care at all for whatever actually happens in the actual game.

I'm not jumping to extremes. I think you can have a 4-man fireteam who all have pretty much the same character sheet as far as their military skills go and still have completely different personalities. I think that kind of game would actually be about playing the role of someone in the military as opposed to a game where the Storm Trooper (fighter), Medic (cleric), Techpriest (wizard), and Ratling (halfling) go adventuring.

Ok, time for my 2 cents.

Manchu, from the point of view of 40K background, you're probably completely right.

From the point of view of roleplaying, however, it sounds incredibly, incredibly, boring.

For me, the fun of roleplaying stems from having a bunch of people with different characters, and the differences in style, opinion and sometimes conflicts that come with that.
If everyone has the exact same abilities and gear (as you're suggesting), there's only so much different characterizations can do to make it interesting.

Well, I'd argue that a medic should indeed know more about first aid and a heavy weapons guy should know more about operating guns, and a sergeant should know more about leading people. That is where their sheets should differ; it'd be weird if they wouldn't. And as I said, you could probably do all this with a single class, but in that case the system would need to be even more open and less structured, and I thought you did not like the idea.

Also, maybe you're under the impression that there are massive disparities between the sheets. It might be better to see these classes as a set of "starter abilities" reflecting the character's background and training - upon which the stuff he or she learns during the course of a military campaign is added freely on top. Like the "professions" in TDE. The differences aren't actually that big and are mostly aptitudes (leaning more towards learning this stuff or that), and basic starting skills and talents as well as equipment befitting the character's role in the squad.

I do agree about the potential for "overdiversity" that you mentioned with that example group of a Storm Trooper + Medic + Techpriest + Ratling, though. Such stuff is possible by the rules, and I'm lucky my own group did not do this but instead went for an All-Grunts-team. On the other hand, it's not exactly impossible to have a Commissar or a Ministorum cleric join your infantry squad, so why should the game forbid it - instead of leaving this decision to the players/GM?

And yes, you are jumping to extremes. What has that "Good Drow" to do with anything I've said? That's just trying to drag the argument down to ridiculous levels - it should be clear that such are not the cases anyone here is supporting or talking about.

The Command Ogryn is exactly as ridiculous as the Good Drow.

Man. I can see where Manchu is coming from now, but damn if his way of getting his argument across was not abrasive and dismissive of every other opinion. Not conducive to a discussion, I reckon.

I agree- it can be interesting to put restrictions on players to force them to create personalities that don't rely on jobs or powers as "crutches". However, that is not a game many people want to play, unfortunately or not, because it can be difficult for people to play without a "crutch" for the first few sessions, at least. And some gamers prefer a more casual or less thought heavy experience. Closed systems are much harder to open than open systems are to close.

Anyhow. It was my experience with Rogue Trader that my players were frustrated at not being able to progress in ways that were meaningful to their particular characters without going outside the paths laid out for them, so I ended up allowing them to buy a lot of different things from other places, if they made sense. None of it exploded the game.

Bran Dawri wrote:From the point of view of roleplaying, however, it sounds incredibly, incredibly, boring.

I agree. If we wanted to play D&D and everybody had to play a fighter, that would suck. But we want to play soldier so everyone should be a soldier. And as it turns out soldiers are grouped together by their skill sets. A RPG-group size amount of soldiers will likely all have the same skills. This is where FFG needs to step in with some creativity and give us a game that does not end up being either (1) a D&D party of four Fighters or (2) a specops team (i.e., a D&D party where people can play different classes).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Man. I can see where Manchu is coming from now, but damn if his way of getting his argument across was not abrasive and dismissive of every other opinion. Not conducive to a discussion, I reckon.

You're right. I apologize. And not to make it a backhanded apology but I have been up against some pretty dug-in assumptions about roleplaying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Closed systems are much harder to open than open systems are to close.

I deeply disagree. This is a Pandora's Box situation. Once people are convinced that Eldar are just humans with pointy ears, it's takes a hell of a lot of re-education to make them realize that (1) this is not appropriate to the setting and (2) this is generally pointless. Have you ever had to get in the "why do paladins have to be lawful good?" argument. My god ...

Manchu wrote:The Command Ogryn is exactly as ridiculous as the Good Drow.

Well, Nork Deddog has a Leadership of 8, if we were to pull an Ogryn Special Character from the TT. That's the same as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant.

I suppose it boils down to whether you'd prefer your group of player characters to uniformly conform to some sort of "default average", or if you'd grant them the opportunity to develop their characters away from it and towards a level where they would become as unique as the characters of some novel. I'd agree that Only War caters more towards the "Gaunt's Ghosts" style rather than Codex standards, but at the same time I will say that you can play the latter as well. The system offers enough room to pursue either preference.

Manchu wrote:A RPG-group size amount of soldiers will likely all have the same skills.

But that's just not true. People are unique, and this includes soldiers. In my GAF platoon, I was chosen to be the liaison to the US Army base we were guarding for two weeks because I had the best English skills of us. That's what made me unique - and in "Only War" such thing could be represented by a +10 on High Gothic or whatever. Others from my team were physically stronger, yet another one was a particularly good runner. And none had as much "presence" as our NCO. All of this is stuff that can be represented in a P&P if you want to go into this level of detail. Some comes from a character's role, other stuff from what the character did before joining the service.

The funny thing in the military is, even when your official qualifications and roles are similar, there's still bound to be people who are known to have some handy skill or are just better at something.

Manchu wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Closed systems are much harder to open than open systems are to close.

I deeply disagree. This is a Pandora's Box situation. Once people are convinced that Eldar are just humans with pointy ears, it's takes a hell of a lot of re-education to make them realize that (1) this is not appropriate to the setting and (2) this is generally pointless.

How a character should be role-played has nothing to do whatsoever with game mechanics. It's an issue of the player and his understanding of the character's culture.
An open system can be closed by the GM saying "no", his decision hopefully based on common sense and knowledge of the setting.
A closed system however can be opened up only by houseruling the gak out of it, which is obviously way more difficult and time-consuming.

@ Manchu & Lynata Look you both have different opinions about RPGs and you both feel strongly about each of your opinions (that is not to say that they are right or wrong). But, I ave feel that neither of you are going to convince each other. To each his own, one player might like a more closed system, while other might like open.

@Lynata Since you have more experience with Only War than I do could you help me with some issues? You wouldn't happen to know where to find a quick reference sheet specifically for Only War? Also I am trying to run a campaign using DH/Only War/DW where the players ( So far they have chose Guardsmen, a Arbities, and a Marine ) are fighting a guerrilla war in a Tau occupied sector (more info at this link (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/462909.page ). Would you have any advice? Where could I find some stats for Kroot/Tau NPC/Gear.? Also maybe some Alien generator stats? Also any general advice would be apperciated.

@ Manchu P.S. Please don't ban me.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:The Command Ogryn is exactly as ridiculous as the Good Drow.

Well, Nork Deddog has a Leadership of 8, if we were to pull an Ogryn Special Character from the TT.

This is why I have been abrasive and dismissive.

Lynata wrote:I'd agree that Only War caters more towards the "Gaunt's Ghosts" style rather than Codex standards, but at the same time I will say that you can play the latter as well. The system offers enough room to pursue either preference.

Yeah, you could also play codex style IG with DH, I suppose. It's not that they're bad rules but (going back to my original post) I just have to ask, why couldn't this be a supplement for DH as originally planned? It seems to me that the real answer is that OW is something like a DH 2nd Edition as far as the rules are concerned. As I already said, I think this open system would be extremely well-suited to DH -- a game about characters who have to be extremely good at different things and also be flexible when it comes to new situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makarov wrote:But, I ave feel that neither of you are going to convince each other.

I know it seems that way but we've only been at it for two days. Our debates go on and on because the points are (mostly) worthwhile and, at least for my part, I feel like there is a chance that Lynata can change my mind. I think you'll see that she has in some regards if you look at more than just the last two posts of us going back and forth.

Makarov wrote:@ Manchu P.S. Please don't ban me.

I'd rather leave this site in disgrace forever than ban someone for disagreeing with me.

I can actually see where Manchu is coming from- having played a lot of 3.5, I can see how the "party structure" mentality can pollute any game because of the dominance of that game on the market. I would say though, that "party structure" and "open" games thrive because people like them. People like structure and easy to navigate "hooks" when creating a shared world. People also like to feel that they have the freedom to leave these clichés once they have begun to get to grips with "who they are" and this often means that they want some sort of mechanical recognition of their difference.

In some ways, what Manchu is describing is more like an LRP game (is that the in vogue acronym these days?) a game where everyone roleplays through interaction alone, and there are few if any mechanics. I've done a few of these which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I would say that for many people they are daunting or not as fun, because people like mechanical rewards for their ideas. I would also reckon that many people like having material to give them ideas about "where to go".

But yeah. The ideas you're arguing against are pretty entrenched. I've got to admit, I'm often a proponent of this sort of thing, being a pretty long term D'n'D GM. Even when I'm not doing D'n'D, my other favourite is a game that clearly defines the characters broad outlook and perception of the world from the word go, and then the players simply "play within the lines" to create something new and interesting.

Now that you've planted the idea in my head though, I kinda want to run a game with a bunch of near identical (stats wise) pcs in a stressful situation, and see how they think their way around it and establish an identity that is not based on stats alone.

When I heard OW was going to be "its own game" I figured FFG would do something really creative about overcoming the traditional obstacles you're mentioning. I really love D&D. I really love niche roles and strong archetypes. I like them in the games where they belong. I like prestige classes in 3.5 and I like race-as-class in Basic/Expert. I wouldn't want Basic/Expert prestige classes or race-as-class in 3.5 (although you could do that! and it was stupid!). So for a game about rank-and-file soldiers, I had hoped they'd come up with something that would bring that experience to life instead of trading it for yet another "elite team (except not really elite)" sort of game.

I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to setting feel and tone, FFG do a brilliant job. When it comes to mechanics and concept work, they fall on their arses. Perhaps they are limited by legacy issues, but mechanically I find their games barely playable.

I dunno, maybe my brain is getting creaky or something. Bit early for that I would have thought

Makarov wrote:You wouldn't happen to know where to find a quick reference sheet specifically for Only War? Also I am trying to run a campaign using DH/Only War/DW where the players ( So far they have chose Guardsmen, a Arbities, and a Marine ) are fighting a guerrilla war in a Tau occupied sector (more info at this link (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/462909.page ). Would you have any advice? Where could I find some stats for Kroot/Tau NPC/Gear.? Also maybe some Alien generator stats? Also any general advice would be apperciated.

Ahhh, I've seen that thread. Good luck with that, it sounds like an intrigueing project!

I hope you're not using all the different rulesets next to each other with mixed groups, however? I could see it work if you have several teams each using their own ruleset, but throwing them all into a single group just invites a lot of trouble. It's doable, but do not be surprised when the Marine is single-handedly pwning stuff left and right because the enemy weapons don't even have a chance at wounding him. The RPGs are set up to a specific "narrative power level" each, and in the group you mentioned, you're basically throwing a soldier from "Saving Private Ryan", a cop from "The Shield" and a Spartan from "300" into the same movie, and only the latter gets to use bullet-time.
Personally, I'd have modeled a new Astartes career better suited for Dark Heresy's power level, something that's still a combat monster but not quite the Movie Marine from DW. And of course I'd stick to GW's line of a bolter being a bolter rather than going with the "Astartes stuff is twice as good" schpiel, as imho Space Marines are awesome enough without that already.

Anyhow, Kroot stats and gear can be found in Rogue Trader's "Into the Expanse", whereas Tau NPCs and weaponry can be found in the Deathwatch core rulebook. Also check out DarkReign40k.com. I don't know of an alien generator, but if you'd go to the FFG forums, maybe people could help you out there. Or hurl a private message to HBMC.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, you could also play codex style IG with DH, I suppose. It's not that they're bad rules but (going back to my original post) I just have to ask, why couldn't this be a supplement for DH as originally planned? It seems to me that the real answer is that OW is something like a DH 2nd Edition as far as the rules are concerned.

Well, in a way this goes for any of the previously released roleplaying games. It all works in both directions, anyways - they could all have been supplements to DH, just like I could imagine a standalone Battle Sister RPG instead of them being shoehorned into Dark Heresy where they have to conform to the power level of hive gangers and mercenaries.

Personally, I think that there should have been a single FFG 40k RPG core rulebook - and all the Inquisition, Space Marine, Rogue Trader, Black Crusade stuff (etc) should've just been expansions adding on top of it. Kind of like the tabletop with its Codices. This would have greatly increased inter-system compatibility, and people would have been able to play certain combinations of characters they know from the fluff.

But I guess the company simply preferred the idea of following a unique narrative style with each of the games, and so you get Cthulhu in Space or Exalted 40k, depending on the book you buy. I have to admit that a lot of people likely prefer it this way, as it is closer to what many see in such characters. Hardcore Marine fans in particular are bound to be more happy with DW granting them the ability to mow down scores of enemies each round rather than being at risk to be wounded by a single lasgun shot as it would happen in a game like GW's own Inquisitor RPG.

Da Boss wrote:In some ways, what Manchu is describing is more like an LRP game (is that the in vogue acronym these days?) a game where everyone roleplays through interaction alone, and there are few if any mechanics. I've done a few of these which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I would say that for many people they are daunting or not as fun, because people like mechanical rewards for their ideas. I would also reckon that many people like having material to give them ideas about "where to go".

Hmm, I'm not sure if "rewards" conveys the right idea - but I definitively do not like a system deliberately penalizing me for slipping from some cliché. Like with that paladin who dared to not wear plate armour and not to carry a STR weapon. I can live with a system not supporting a particular idea (although I admit I'd prefer if it would), but when it throws obstacles into my way it stops being fun, because the nature of game mechanics then results in my character being depicted as a failure, and that has a high risk of impacting the fun.

Sure, I guess I could have always come up with an idea that conforms to the system, but ... well, I've been rather enthusiastic about these characters, and they were fun to play in RP, and I was too stubborn to accept that a game may not support characters that are otherwise perfectly feasible for the setting. For the paladin, I eventually "adapted" to the situation and embraced the idea of the character just not being as good by basically retconning her into a noob who simply didn't have a lot of experience yet and was on a quest to gain some. At least this way it could be explained, and it resulted in one of the other characters assuming the role of a mentor in some sort of knight/squire relationship.

Bottom line, I think it's bad when you get this idea for a character and are all excited, but then go like "nah, the rules would make this suck ... next idea".

But I understand that this is a highly subjective topic, and even though we see each other's points we are unlikely to let go of our own preferences. I still recommend giving the system a look, though.

There was never a question of me not buying it ... sigh.

Oh, you sounded disappointed.

In that case I hope you'll enjoy your games.

Manchu wrote:Yes, there's always that one Drow who is really a good guy.

Yes, and you know what? If it's a creative, interesting twist on a character that still fits the setting and the theme of the game, that's cool. If it's a rip-off of a unique canon character, that's something that I (if acting as a GM) would want to stop.

Manchu wrote:As for Kelly's Heroes, it could already be done with the other rulesets.

Sure... But DH, RT, etc. seem to focus on one or two 'military types' in a more diverse group that is either working for an Inquisitor or part of a Rogue Trader's crew. OW is, presumably, more about a big group of all or almost-all military types, so I would expect it to have some added widgets for extra squad members, handling PC and NPC commanders, issued (and possibly black market) gear, etc. that could be 'bolted on' to the other games... But weren't. Making it a full game as opposed to an add-on to another game was apparently FFG's idea but probably shouldn't be surprising as they seem willing to do a tweaked rules version for every setting.

At this point, I'd like to see something a bit different. A game about playing a human living in the Tau empire, for example. Of course, that would involve making up a lot more stuff than GW would feel comfortable with. But taking classes and turning them into entire games is a little much. I guess the next one will be "Only Prayer" and will rehash Blood of Martyrs with yet another version of character creation.

Manchu wrote:I guess the next one will be "Only Prayer" and will rehash Blood of Martyrs with yet another version of character creation.

If only.*

No, it's more likely to be "Only Fur" and be a game about the Space Wolves.

(*: actually, scratch that - imho the Inquisitor's Handbook was better than the BoM version)

Lynata wrote:No, it's more likely to be "Only Fur" and be a game about the Space Wolves.

LOL. Sounds more like a "felinds" sourcebook for OW. Watch out FATAL -- a challenger appears!

Manchu wrote:felinds

Oh my, and I had almost managed to forget about them.

Meet your new Only War character:

Obligatory followup-image, courtesy of "Daemonifuge"


On a sidenote, your picture is eerily close to an Imperial uniform. Too close, considering my group already joked about Storm Trooper Catgirls and Catgirl Commissars.

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:felinds

Oh my, and I had almost managed to forget about them.

Don't forget we might also get:

-Beastmen
-Squats (I proved my signature true once again)
-Long Sharks
-Troths
- Longshanks (I'm guessing shark people furries)
- Pelagers,
- Neandors

Lynata wrote:Too close, considering my group already joked about Storm Trooper Catgirls and Catgirl Commissars.

That's how heresy starts. A harmless joke whispered over amasec between puffs on a lho stick. But all heresy needs is an open-ended character creation system. And one day you wake up to find your Special Snowflake is Commissar Catgirl, dual-wielding shuriken pistols while doing back flips on her Tau jet ski.

+++ THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: A CLOSED SYSTEM IS A FORTRESS OF VIRTUE +++

Manchu wrote:So for a game about rank-and-file soldiers, I had hoped they'd come up with something that would bring that experience to life instead of trading it for yet another "elite team (except not really elite)" sort of game.

And this is where everything you've said completely falls apart.

Why? Simple. You’re assuming that the game can only be played in one way. People make the same mistake with Deathwatch, assuming that it’s all combat all the time and you don’t do anything other than fight and kill stuff.

This is nonsense because this is an RPG, and you can do just about anything with it. You’re worried about the team of ‘commando’ Guard, where everyone is some sort of Predator-esque specialist with their own unique weapon sets and skills. Yeah, OW can be played that way. It can also be played many other ways, with each player as the crew of a tank, or each player being just a number in an infantry platoon of DKoK.

You’re falsely assuming that this is just Gaunts Ghosts when the truth is you have a wide amount of options that allow you to play everything from The Expendables to a bunch of faceless nameless grunts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:...mechanically I find their games barely playable.

You're going to have to elaborate here, because that statement is causing my Internet Hyperbole Scanner to shudder and shake.

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is nonsense because this is an RPG, and you can do just about anything with it.

That's true -- as long as you include "ignore the rules and just play off the cuff" as a possibility. Of course, a 60USD book isn't really necessary to play that style of Deathwatch ...

No. Not "ignore the rules". Not even "adapt the rules". Playing a RT campaign as a crew of Orks - that's adapting the rules, but not really following them. Playing a DW game that isn't all about fighting around the world, that's perfectly normal. We've had sessions where players have been part of debriefings or explaining their actions, using the Interaction skills and rules that exist as written to talk (not fight) with other NPC's. Rising Tempest, the most recent DW adventure book, has investigation sections, large sections of interaction, infiltration areas, pure combat areas, and areas for 'utility' skills (hacking computers, fixing things, etc.). At no point is it one dimensional just all combat all the time, as so many people assume DW is just 'cause it's about Marines.

To assume that OW (or any of the 40K RPG's) only has one method of play is just false.

Manchu wrote:...but (going back to my original post) I just have to ask, why couldn't this be a supplement for DH as originally planned?

I’m not privy to the reasons why OW became its own game (I was brought on long after that decision had been made), but if I had to guess I’d say it was because DH and OW are two completely different styles of game.

DH is an investigation game. You’re part of the Inquisition. You’re not off fighting epic wars unless you’ve happened to end up in that situation. The Imperial Guard function completely differently (I don’t need to explain that to you) and couldn’t be further in tone and purpose to the Inquisition. You can’t slot “infantry based war-game RPG” into “investigation themed RPG” without serious re-working (and no, just having a ‘Guardsman’ class in DH isn’t enough) and if you’re doing a lot of reworking to fit a square peg into a round hole... why not just make a square hole?

In any case, all one has to do is read the OW book to see how different it is from DH, and how the two games are nothing like one another (other than base percentile ruleset). One is not simply a “Guard patch” over the other.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Rising Tempest, the most recent DW adventure book, has investigation sections ... At no point is it one dimensional just all combat all the time, as so many people assume DW is just 'cause it's about Marines. [...] DH is an investigation game. You’re part of the Inquisition. You’re not off fighting epic wars unless you’ve happened to end up in that situation. [...] You can’t slot “infantry based war-game RPG” into “investigation themed RPG” without serious re-working ...

So OW needs to be its own game because it's not an investigation game but rather a game about, presumably among other things, fighting epic wars AND DW is about, among other things, investigations but deserves to be its own game as well?

Oh dear. It seems like it's poor DH that doesn't deserve to exist since it is apparently only about investigation, which can be done with at least one other FFG 40k RPG.

H.B.M.C. wrote:In any case, all one has to do is read the OW book ...

As I've already indicated, I will be quite happy to do so. But I won't be spending 20USD on a beta pdf.

Manchu wrote:As I've already indicated, I will be quite happy to do so. But I won't be spending 20USD on a beta pdf.

You know you'd get these $20 back when you buy the full book, right?

I’m done talking to you Manchu. Your needlessly confrontational and caustic attitude throughout this entire thread makes the thought of continuing this conversation an unpleasant one.

Lynata, he’s all yours.

H.B.M.C. wrote:needlessly confrontational and caustic attitude

Pot takes kettle, checkmate. Er, is that how you play this game?

Lynata wrote:You know you'd get these $20 back when you buy the full book, right?

Actually, I did not know that. I buy the pdf from FFG and then get the book from them too, in order to qualify for what, a discount or refund check? How does this work?

HBMC: As a fan of the games systems, you're not going to agree with me, but here's some of things I found frustrating, off the top of my head.
Most of these apply to Rogue Trader onwards- I thought DH worked okay. The core mechanic of "role D100 under a target number, degrees of success and degrees of failure" is okay.
1. Layout of the books. Finding any rule is to me not intuitive. The different parts of the rules are extremely spread out, resulting in a lot of flicking and turning. The starship combat rules in RT are an absolute pain in the ass, and most of it stems from the verbose way the rules are written. There's a paucity of tables and diagrams, and way too much dense text. The weapons are too far away from the shooting rules, etc etc etc.
2. Problems with scale. The complexity of the rules for combat at a one on one scale doesn't mesh well with the strategic turn idea in the warfare and space rules. This means that players who have been forced by the career tree to buy combat-orientated abilities (eg. Arch Militants) end up not using them because stuff like boarding actions have to be abstracted to fit into the turn structure and allow for the huge numbers involved.
3. Bolted on systems. The systems for Squad Mode, Warfare, and Starship combat are all "bolted on" to the core rules and they are not elegant. I find them over complex and clunky and counter intuitive. The game feels like it's creaking under the weight of all these bolt ons, and it breaks the immersion whenever they have to be used.
4. Complexity. The rules for adversaries are really complicated, and instead of giving me even an integrated stat block, I have loads of "flavourful" names that tell me nothing, meaning I have to look up the trait or talent in question all the time. This makes my job as GM very prep heavy, I think needlessly, and it makes it easy for me to miss something important and therefore stuff up the combat.

To sum up, I found the rules pointlessly complicated, lacking in any elegance, poorly written, poorly laid out and generally the most aggravating part of the game.

It's frustrating because like I said the core mechanic is simplistic and easy to grasp, but there is so much crap bolted on that it becomes lost.

Perhaps you have a different experience, or are a much more organised person than I am, but I didn't find the game user friendly at all.

I also think that H.B.M.C. is in a much better position, as a rules writer, to perceive vast differences in these games than most people who play them. I honestly don't see them as so incredibly distinct from one another. In effect, a lot of the unfirendliness that DaBoss mentions above characterizes my experiences with everything from DH to BC. I still buy the books because I love reading about 40k. But I know learning the games has been a giant PITA for me.

I'll keep my reply to PM's so as not to clutter the thread.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Lynata, he’s all yours.

*salutes* Sir.

Manchu wrote:Actually, I did not know that. I buy the pdf from FFG and then get the book from them too, in order to qualify for what, a discount or refund check? How does this work?

Mhmm, actually you only get a discount on the PDF version of the book, so if you intend to get the hard cover copy perhaps it might not be something for you after all.

It's explained in detail here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=213&esem=1
In short, you'd buy the Beta-PDF from one of the mentioned online stores, and then get a coupon for a $20 discount once the full version goes live.

A little disappointing; I thought they'd offer this discount on books purchased from the studio store as well. Oh well. Makes me glad my group only purchased the PDF once, as I intend to get the hardcover but am kind of unwilling to churn out another $20 on top of its full price. On the other hand, I'm glad that someone bought it, as it already is fun to play. So if you don't mind digital copies (I have a number of PDFs purchased on Drivethru and Battlecorps), it would still be a good option for you.

Da Boss wrote:1. Layout of the books. Finding any rule is to me not intuitive. The different parts of the rules are extremely spread out, resulting in a lot of flicking and turning. The starship combat rules in RT are an absolute pain in the ass, and most of it stems from the verbose way the rules are written. There's a paucity of tables and diagrams, and way too much dense text. The weapons are too far away from the shooting rules, etc etc etc.

This is actually something my entire group agrees on. I don't mind the "dense text", but stuff can be hard to find at times - or you have to browse back and forth repeatedly because you are at chapter B, but to continue you have to look up something in chapter D, etc.

For "Only War", I've already forwarded more detailed feedback regarding this to our GM who is currently compiling opinions from the group. I do recall my biggest gripe during character generation was that the tables for XP cost are in the chargen chapter and not in the ones where the skills and talents are actually listed. I already foresee having to browse back to the XP cost table every single time I gain a level. Granted, after some time you probably memorize it, but it's still needlessly problematic. Just moving the skill cost table to the skill list (etc) would be an improvement, I think. The way it is now you find a nice talent, then browse back to look up its cost, realize it's too expensive, then browse again back to the talent list ... rinse and repeat.

Other than that, I have few problems with the rules themselves - more with the lack of compatibility, but that is also a matter of personal preferences.

I greatly recommend getting a GM screen or printing yourself some sort of reference sheet that combines the most important tables (in this case stuff like range bonuses/penalties, actions, etc) ... I've done this for all rules-heavy systems so far, and it really helps. You can also note down a weapon's qualities and the meaning of a particular talent on the character sheet. A well-organized character sheet really eases the pain somewhat.
Ideally, FFG would include 2-4 pages containing this sort of "condensed rules" with the rulebook itself, but I realize that perhaps this might detract from one of the selling points of the GM screens, of which Only War will surely get its own as well.

Thanks to everyone for all of the excellent summaries in this thread - I appreciate it!

For me, I'm going to wait until th next edition of their 40K RPGs, where they are one system that works well across all the settings, without having to fudge/ram/cram anything in or around in order to get it to work and/or make sense.

Of course, that day may never come, and if that's the case, so be it!

You're missing out!

Though I very much share your displeasure regarding the lack of compatibility, the games are very fun as they are.

Do give the free test thingies a try. Also, it's actually rather fun and not that hard to build or adapt stuff by yourself.

Ok so here is my question about only war:

Now we all know that it is about guardsmen right? so how can we make characters that will only last about 15 mins? I mean we all know the fluff and we all know fine well guardsmen have a very short lifespan, so how can FFG make a game about characters which can only last about 15 hours maximum?

happygolucky wrote:Ok so here is my question about only war:
Now we all know that it is about guardsmen right? so how can we make characters that will only last about 15 mins? I mean we all know the fluff and we all know fine well guardsmen have a very short lifespan, so how can FFG make a game about characters which can only last about 15 hours maximum?

Simples. Don't expect to kick everyone's ass. People who prefer strutting about, dispatching hordes of enemies and epic boss creatures with ease whilst flashing their overpowered weaponry would be better off playing Movie Marines in the Deathwatch RPG. Only War is for those players who get a kick out of gritty realism, who actively enjoy the prospect of their characters' lives being in imminent danger 90% of the time. This is not to say that people would not stand a chance (in fact, OW is still pretty generously biased in favour of the Guard), but the game will be way more fun if you expect not to live long and can then be happy about having made it in spite of the odds.
It's a known phenomenon: the harder it is, the more rewarding it will it feel in the end. Here, you really need to use cover and maximum teamwork, or you'll die.

Or, to illustrate with a similar comparison:

Just replace 1994 with Only War and 2010 with ... eh, D&D or whatever.

Translating all the turns into time, my first character (for the moment still linked in my sig) had a longevity of about 2 minutes, and though I lament her for such a quick death after the amount of time I've put into her background, I still don't regret it and had a lot of fun. Plus, I can always recycle that character for a game with other people. We also had some very bad dice luck, though!
Basically, our dropship crashed right into the LZ, our squad hopped out and rushed towards the nearest piece of cover. On the run, our medic already got his first injury, a critical hit into his right arm, causing him to drop his gun. As soon as we had reached the trench, the enemy charged us and we got mauled in CC. On top of this, a frag grenade hurled towards the approaching enemy rolled back into the trench, and our missile launcher kept making misfires the whole game. If you'd make a movie out of it, this would be a very short scene (about as comedic as it would be bloody), but we actually played several hours on this!

So, even though we didn't make it this time, I still thought it was fun - and perhaps, with Only War, you really should consider that "the journey is its own reward" rather than expecting some kind of happy end with an epic bossfight shortly before. This may still happen in Only War, it's just a lot less likely.

My group is currently in the process of selecting another regiment. This Thursday, we're going back to that planet, and we're going to rescue the men who were sent to rescue the men who were sent to rescue the President. Hot Shots-style.

Sounds like fun, Lynata.

Not my kind of fun, I'd rather Movie Marines with Overpowered Weaponry...or better yet, Aspect Warriors, but still, fun.

Sometimes playing a Death Cult Assassin, and frothing at the mouth, charging, and dying without inflicting a single wound in a ridiculous and ignominious way was fun in Dark Heresy too, even if I always wished for more.

If you just want to play an overpowered character who steamrolls everyone he runs across (and it's hard to say that without making any judgement on it), Deathwatch is probably your best bet.

Well, I am pretty sure there are a lot of things that can drop a Marine, and a GM can use to challenge the players.

But ignominious death 4 seconds into the first combat from a lasgun isn't one of them, luckily.

My first Dark Heresy character was an Arbite. We (the scooby gang of the inquisition) knocked on some ganger door for info or something during our investigation. Ganger opens the door and shoots me. I die immediately. I have a list of these stories.

Honestly, I'd prefer to play a game where I get at least a chance to play the character before I die in some grimdark comedy death. I felt like I was in a cartoon with the 16 tons anvil landing on me over and over, except I had to make a new character each time instead of just standing back up =P

Your GM was probably giving the enemy too high of stats and too good quality equipment.

Maybe, but when you have 9 or 10 wounds, a decent to hit roll on a semi-auto pistol can easily kill you.

Anyway, even Dark Heresy has the potential for fun, and at least there are fate points.

So, for this threads purpose, my favorite games in this line:

1) Black Crusade: Dark Atmosphere, and the potential for either a sturdy character (Aka, Spess Mehreen) or a human makes for extremely interesting groups, imo.

2) Rogue Trader: While I am not a fan of, and do not care about, ship combat, the character creation is great...Origin Paths for all games, imo, and characters are more sturdy than in DH, allowing for a small margin for error.

3) Deathwatch: Takes a good GM to make it anything other than a combat-centric game, although I'm not completely averse to a combat-centric game anyway. I feel it suffers from a serious lack of options for female characters, and as my group is half female...yeah. Unfortunate.

4) Dark Heresy: The investigation and stuff is interesting, although I wish it had way less skills. Less is more, sometimes, you know? It reminds me of Call of Cthulhu, which I also didn't care for, as the entire game just seemed like a countdown to character death. Benefits from having the only thing in the entire Imperium of Man I actually LIKE, though, which is Sisters of Battle. Oh, how I love thee.

Well, unfortunately you picked arbites, which itself is a very weak class sadly :/

DH is somewhat unbalanced in its classes.

My second character was a Scum. Seems from the FFG boards they aren't well thought of for power either.

Scum have a very wide variety of skills and talents to choose from. I don't think they're under powered.

Though their starting equipment and income are both lame, they have a lot of potential in stats and skills.

This compared to Guardsman or Priest, whom have good starting equipment but mediocre skill and talent choices.

Melissia wrote:If you just want to play an overpowered character who steamrolls everyone he runs across (and it's hard to say that without making any judgement on it), Deathwatch is probably your best bet.

Based on this statement alone (And much of what Lynata said) it sounds like Only War is the system I'm going to settle on.

Is there a break up of classes or specialties or whatever? Could I be a sniper, for example?

In my group we're all Orks in RT.

Makes for hysterical campaigns.

Archonate wrote:Is there a break up of classes or specialties or whatever? Could I be a sniper, for example?

Lemme whip you up something real quick:

Guardsmen
Heavy Gunner: the heavy weapons guy; stuff like heavy bolters, missile launchers, lascannons, ...
Medic: just what it says on the tin; rather useful considering the game's theme
Operator: your friendly driver (depending on your choice of regiment, your squad can play as a tank crew, or use a Chimaera to get around, or have a Sentinel walk with them for fire support, etc)
Sergeant: the squad leader, can dish out some very useful "buffs" for the entire team
Weapons Specialist: has the best access to ... well, special weapons, and equipment in general (my current character got 8 grenades of 3 different types during chargen, I almost felt like Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Closseau)

Specialist Classes
Commissar: can actually *BLAM* people to raise squad morale (intended to be used on NPCs tho)
Priest: the Emperor watches over you (make no mistake, though - the Ecclesiarchy is a Warrior Church, and their priests act and fight like it!)
Enginseer: tech-specialist and repairs guy
Ogryn: -10 Intelligence, but a walking tank with a friggin' huge ripper gun
Psyker: yer a wizard, 'arry
Ratling: marksman
Storm Trooper: the die-hard assault class

Most of the aforementioned classes also get an NPC "comrade" to aid them in their daily jobs - for example the Sergeant gets a Vox Operator, the Heavy Gunner gets a Loader, etc. For a Sniper, you can either play a Ratling, which is basically the Sniper class coupled to a specific species, or work around the system by picking the Weapon Specialist and an accurate weapon such as a long las. The WS is not as good as the Ratling, even going so far that it absolutely doesn't make sense (as per RAW only the Ratling actually gets a Spotter comrade, which is a bit silly), but it still works out.

Needless to say, the classes work nicely with each other. There's really a lot of teamplay going on, which is both fun as well as absolutely necessary for survival. Shouldn't be too hard for your group to come up with a good role coverage that has everyone play something they like as well as being useful for the squad as a whole.

Enjoy.

DeffDred wrote:In my group we're all Orks in RT.
Makes for hysterical campaigns.

I can believe that.

DeffDred wrote:In my group we're all Orks in RT.

Makes for hysterical campaigns.

How's that working out? As soon as I saw the Ork career I knew that doing an all Ork campaign would be possible. And when the new Navis book comes out, you can add Weirdboys into the mix for some extra 'Eadbanging powah!!!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

DeffDred wrote:In my group we're all Orks in RT.

Makes for hysterical campaigns.

How's that working out? As soon as I saw the Ork career I knew that doing an all Ork campaign would be possible. And when the new Navis book comes out, you can add Weirdboys into the mix for some extra 'Eadbanging powah!!!

A group of Orks with a Doc is unstoppable. Our group had only played for 2 sessions and we already caused a mutinany, killed our own warboss (by kickin him in the face till he let go of the door frame in a bay exposed to vacuum) and my character even tried to get mega-armourfrom a rival mek. I melted him with my burna... and the armour with him .

DeffDred wrote:A group of Orks with a Doc is unstoppable. Our group had only played for 2 sessions and we already caused a mutinany, killed our own warboss (by kickin him in the face till he let go of the door frame in a bay exposed to vacuum) and my character even tried to get mega-armourfrom a rival mek. I melted him with my burna... and the armour with him .

That sounds hilarious. I reckon you need a "special" kind of player to make this work, but I can imagine it being quite the show at the table.

Lynata wrote:For a Sniper, you can either play a Ratling, which is basically the Sniper class coupled to a specific species, or work around the system by picking the Weapon Specialist and an accurate weapon such as a long las. The WS is not as good as the Ratling, even going so far that it absolutely doesn't make sense (as per RAW only the Ratling actually gets a Spotter comrade, which is a bit silly), but it still works out.

See, I'd love to play a sniper, but I don't want to play some stupid looking ratling. I suppose I could just take the ratling stats and call it a specially trained guardsman...

And thank you for the writeup, I'm already getting cool ideas for game groups...

Ask your game master to houserule allowing you to take the ratling's comrade skills, and weapon specialist works just fine for sniper.

Archonate wrote:See, I'd love to play a sniper, but I don't want to play some stupid looking ratling. I suppose I could just take the ratling stats and call it a specially trained guardsman...

Stats aren't the issue. Only War has a comparatively open progression, so you can buy just about anything you need with XP. The only difference will be that you might have to buy some stuff the Ratling already has, or that some things are a bit more expensive for you. On the flipside you also get some stuff cheaper etc.
But no, the true kicker is that the Ratling's NPC comrade gets a rather neat ability - "Setup Shot" - which prevents your target from dodging an attack. You can work around this by delaying your own initiative until one of your friends triggered that dodge (as most opponents can only try it once per round), or you can ... well, houserule this rather silly and nonsensical limitation, as mentioned in the post above.
Some people also think that the Weapon Specialist's own comrade's ability is just as cool, but personally I found the ability to have one's attack count as "Pinning" to be neither as fitting nor as useful, considering a marksman's role.

My first character was a Sniper WS as well, by the way. Didn't live very long, but was very cool to play: http://dark-heresy.wikispaces.com/Dasha

Archonate wrote:And thank you for the writeup, I'm already getting cool ideas for game groups...

Working as intended, then. I too found it easy to come up with ideas whilst browsing the options. It just lends itself so well!