Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.