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.

incarna and H.B.M.C.: You are imho both missing the greatest potential of Dark Heresy. It's the perfect platform for playing the miserable wretchs struggling in an uphill battle to further fascistic ideals. It is about letting the Rule of Cool and fanaticism get in the way of reason and compassion, both as it applies to rules and to the characters choices.

The rules makes your character fail a lot, and when you as a player can sit and laugh at your characters pathetic attempts to uncover a sectorspanning power-plot by use of his 32%-chance-to-succeed Investigation roll, then you have found the true joy of playing DH. It is very much unlike DnD or most "heroic (fantasy)" RPGs in that you are very welcome to lagh at your character, not only with it. However, now and then the characters will manage something useful or at least locally beneficient, and then there really is reason to feel awesome about it. It really is no big deal when Conan, Marneus Calgar or Superman kills a daemon, it's however an awesome thing when a dirty average joe with a homemade 5-shot stub revolver does it.

In all honesty, the 40k universe would probably be a much better place if the Inquisition or the Imperium didn't exist at all. So the entire point of the "heroes" battling to keep the "righteous" Imperium running is a big joke.

In all honesty, the 40k universe would probably be a much better place if the Inquisition or the Imperium didn't exist at all.

Right... yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say 'no' to that.

Would you care to expand on your opinion? I believe most of the inteligent feeling individuals in the galaxy (mind you, including humans) would be better off without the Imperium. For example, most slaanesh cultists seems quite pleased (pun inteded...) with their place in the world. As do the Tau and the hivemind (although it is a bit unclear if it should be counted as one individual while doing this calculation...)

Those who seem to suffer the most is the imperial citicens. And that is, imho, the real strength of this setting. A lot of moral relativism and subjective views.

Like any RPG, DH and RT are only as good as the players and GM make it.

I've been running a very successful DH campaign for a while now, and we have buckets of fun with it. My players and I had the same problem at first as someone else mentioned - they sucked at sucking because we weren't using modifiers correctly. Once we got the hang of things, the game went much better.

You do start off weak as heck, if you start at level one, but again as someone else already stated, you're playing very low-level minions of an Inquisitor, not his own personal retinue (although with DH: Ascension, you can now play characters of that power level). Also, the GM can start you off at a higher level - its not written in stone you HAVE to start at level 1. You could start at level 3, 5, 8, whatever.

DH is a bit more prone to railroading, depending on how much freedom your inquisitor gives your group. For instance, I played in a game where the group were basically prisoners - go to this planet, do this task, get extracted, repeat. If you fail, you'll be executed. It sucked. But that would be the same regardless of gaming system.

RT is much more prone to sandboxing, but... and this is a big but... I've found it actually attracts a lot of munchkin type players. You have to be sure that the players you have are good role-players and not roll-players. With RT, you have access to immense wealth and power right off the hop. I've seen some truly terrifying low level players in RT. Granted, the weapons and gear reflects what anyone in that universe would be packing if that had the money, but still. It can, if you're not careful, get really over the top, really quickly. Again though... the system is only as good as the players and GM make it.

Like with all systems, if there's a rule or a set of rules that you find unbalancing or silly, change them. Unlike 40k, the rules of RPGs are malleable. Work with your players/GM to make the game fun for the whole group.

-Tyr

Mellon wrote:incarna and H.B.M.C.: You are imho both missing the greatest potential of Dark Heresy. It's the perfect platform for playing the miserable wretchs struggling in an uphill battle to further fascistic ideals. It is about letting the Rule of Cool and fanaticism get in the way of reason and compassion, both as it applies to rules and to the characters choices.

The rules makes your character fail a lot, and when you as a player can sit and laugh at your characters pathetic attempts to uncover a sectorspanning power-plot by use of his 32%-chance-to-succeed Investigation roll, then you have found the true joy of playing DH. It is very much unlike DnD or most "heroic (fantasy)" RPGs in that you are very welcome to lagh at your character, not only with it. However, now and then the characters will manage something useful or at least locally beneficient, and then there really is reason to feel awesome about it. It really is no big deal when Conan, Marneus Calgar or Superman kills a daemon, it's however an awesome thing when a dirty average joe with a homemade 5-shot stub revolver does it.

In all honesty, the 40k universe would probably be a much better place if the Inquisition or the Imperium didn't exist at all. So the entire point of the "heroes" battling to keep the "righteous" Imperium running is a big joke.

I don’t disagree with your position. If your gaming group is capable of finding enjoyment in playing characters that suck at sucking – than Dark Heresy is the game for you. I strongly believe however that most players want to enjoy a fantasy where they get to play a character and engage in a plot that’s bigger than them.

Dark Heresy is basically an RPG where everyone gets to play the Red Shirt in a Star Trek Episode... big fun after an hour of character generation. As Tyr mentioned, it’s also seriously prone to railroading – “do this, talk to this guy, and get back here of the inquisition will have your head.”

So, not only is every character born to die, but you’re choices about the issue revolve around whether you’ll die at the hands of your inquisitor or the dark and twisted forces you oppose. If you don’t die it’s by virtue of completely avoiding combat – which is great for completely narrative driven campaigns but, role-playing is as much about the narrative plot as it is about the quick and bloody action. We don’t play 40k because Space Marines and Tyranids are engaged in Machiavellian plots of intrigue with one another. We don’t enjoy action and science fiction because Optimus Prime sits down for a cup of tea with Cobra Commander. Role-players – MOST role-players - want narrative plots driven by characters that stir in them that feeling that they’re engaged in something fantastic, that what their characters say and do drives the story... through silver tongue, gun barrle, and everything in between.

Dark heresy CAN work if the GM is extremely liberal with XP and house rules… but I don’t need to pay $45 for a system that doesn’t work plus $20-$30 for each supplement. I’ll just pick up the Storyteller Series, set it somewhere in the 40k universe. At least with that system, if one of my PC’s catches an unlucky Shotgun blast to the face, he still dies, but he dies largely as a result of actions and a plot that were under HIS control.

Mellon wrote:I love the horrible atmosphere of the Dark Heresy game. The rules system is badly designed but after a while you learn how to make it stay out of your way. It's also rather silly to try to powergame the system, since it's so broken from the beginning and there are always bigger fishes that can eat you. What the rules system does excellently is that it lets you die in horrible ways rather easily, or go crazy.

In order to enjoy DH you first have to get rid of any concepts of heroic fantasy. You will not be heroes vielding ancient swords standing valiantly against the hordes of darkness on top of a pile of slain cultists, the wind blowing your hair in rythm to the theme from LOTR. You will be miserable, undertrained, unskilled citicens dropped in at the deep end of the pool-of-chaos-and-destruction. And all you will accomplish with your deaths and suffering is to keep the fascist imperium of man running in it's status quo for a little bit longer. Once you can laugh at your characters horrible existence and really enjoy the fact that there are no good guys DH becomes an excellent game.

During 20+ years of roleplaying and God knows how many different systems only one rpg ever (the swedish Mutant, UA edition) has inspired me more than DH. It is simply awesome.

You asked for forums. fantasyflightgames.com and darkreign40k.com are the two biggest DH forums I know about.

have you ever played Paranoid? I find going into DH with the same attitude is helpful.

or not.

Well, from what I've read so far. Incarna, you just seem to be griefing over the fact that you didn't like it. I've been reading through the book and IMO it looks perfectly managable, I like how injuries and such actually have long term effects instead of "oh but I have healing surges so who cares what happens."

Oh and I prefer weak sauce characters over power gaming demi gods.

Also, the system looks like it's very easy to modify into something else, for instance, it wouldn't be that hard to make extra guardsmen career paths and just make a guardsman squad as your party in a war (just an example).

But yea, I've seen more positive then negative feedback about it, so I'm probably gonna get me the core book soon. Once played it for a bit I'll probably make a new topic about it. (or dig this one up if it hasn't died by then)

Yes, I did say the system was prone to rail-roading, but thats only if the GM let's it.

Look at 1st level DnD characters. Talk about sucking at sucking. Ever play a level 1 wizard?!

I think some people were expecting to basically create uber characters right from the start and go blazing away like the larger than life characters in Ravenor and Eisenhorn. Wait for Deathwatch if you want larger than life.

Combat isn't the deathtrap people think it is. If you're being an idiot and storming into an entrenched den of heretics with a las pistol, then yes, you're going to die. If you're not using cover, you're going to die. Generally though, as long as you have a good GM, you should be able to think and plan your way out of tough spots. Also, too many players out there don't know when to run like hell... trying to fight the enemy on their own terms is asking for a bolt shell to the face.

Oh, and 40k and DH are totally different games. Set in the same universe, but apples and oranges. Can't compare the two.

-Tyr

One benefit of DH is it forces you to, you know - act as a team.

And come on - an hour of character generation? I hope that was an exageration, otherwise you ARE playing it wrong no matter how much you cry about it otherwise.

And no, our GM wasnt liberal with either XP or houserules, but according to you it's impossible to enjoy without them, so I guess we were just imagining them?

Soladrin wrote:Well, from what I've read so far. Incarna, you just seem to be griefing over the fact that you didn't like it. I've been reading through the book and IMO it looks perfectly managable, I like how injuries and such actually have long term effects instead of "oh but I have healing surges so who cares what happens."

I’m griefing over an immaculate setting/narrative environment built upon a termite infested system. I’m relating my extensive experience and opinion – if you wanna give it a try, be my guest. If you end up loving it, that’s fantastic for you and your gaming group.

This if off topic but I’m ambivalent on the “WoWing” of D&D. I like how the system has been streamlined but I don’t care for healing surges or the elimination of “crafting” items in the core books. I’m also split on the seemingly necessary figure/tabletop component. I understand why surges were added, but my opinion is that it’s to “gamey” a mechanic for an RPG… no one gets hit in the chest with a battle axe and powers up Dragon Ball Z style for round 2.

If you were in a D&D forum asking me about D&D I’d say I love 4th ed but those are my issues. When 5th ed is released, I would hope some of those issues get fixed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyr wrote:Look at 1st level DnD characters. Talk about sucking at sucking. Ever play a level 1 wizard?!

Level 1 wizards from original up to 3.5 were terrible. They seem to have fixed those things in this last ed but fall short in other areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:One benefit of DH is it forces you to, you know - act as a team.

And come on - an hour of character generation? I hope that was an exageration, otherwise you ARE playing it wrong no matter how much you cry about it otherwise.?

It was not. Not every member of the group was experienced, knew the rules, and understood the skills and options available to them. Most were, but a couple weren’t and that requires a time investment to generate characters.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And no, our GM wasnt liberal with either XP or houserules, but according to you it's impossible to enjoy without them, so I guess we were just imagining them?

Probably – that or you’re not familiar enough with the rules to know you’re not playing correctly. That’s fine though, you’re entitled to play the game as you see fit.

incarna wrote:Flippant twaddle.

My description of the game is accurate. Some people have made some assumptions that I wasn’t running the game correctly. I was – 100%.

The beauty of the narrative aspect of the game does not exempt the system from criticism. I’d wager I’ve played more Dark Heresy than 95% of those who own the books and my rulebook was published by Black Industries, not Fantasy Flight. I’d make the assumption that, it is most of the people in this thread who are not running the game correctly or house ruling their way into a semi-playable system.

The system is junk and it’s a real shame. RPG developers at Wizards and White Wolf have revised their RPG systems through the years and if we look at Dark heresy through rose-colored glasses than, when/if Fantasy Flight gets around to making their revisions, the voice of the community will be a bunch of 40k fan-boy’s who aren’t willing to look at the game objectively.

I got my copy on the first print, and was playing it within a week. Having rushed into play I found the same problems you did, players failed things a lot. With a closer reading of the book and after talking to players about how modifiers should apply we moved passed that problem quickly. Perhaps we applied positive modifiers too often, perhaps you'd say we were playing it wrong but like most RPGs there is much subjectivity left up to the playing group, and one man's easy roll is another man's average.

At the end of the day, though, if the players and the GM are finding players fail things too often, level them up a few times or apply positive modifiers. Decent weapon selection goes a long way as well. It's not rocket science, and not a difficult problem to solve. The issue of excessive complexity and characters ending up with stacks of traits that do very little is a much bigger issue to solve - and one you undoubtably crossed if you played as long as you claim.

sebster wrote:The issue of excessive complexity and characters ending up with stacks of traits that do very little is a much bigger issue to solve - and one you undoubtably crossed if you played as long as you claim.

I will go so far as to say that this is THE biggest issue with the system – far and away beyond the issues I’ve touched on. D&D did an excellent job of collapsing the skills into a small usable list that corresponded easily to the primary attributes. Dark Heresy badly needs to do something similar.

It reminds me a lot of the D&D3 and 3.5 system where there were like 5000 different “Lores” you could have – few of which were ever useful and all of which just took up space on the character sheet as a waste of skill points after the campaign got moving unless the DM went out of his way to include a reason for them.

Edit: and as for complexity, I also agree. The root of the system is that characters can do almost nothing without modifiers. The prospect of pursuing every minute modifer possible in the hopes of having a decent (NOT guranteed or even highly likley) chance of doing something is a serious lag on the game. It reminds me somewhat of Battletech and how calcualting to-hit rolls sometimes required a Docterate Degree in Mathematics.

I'm kinda in the middle between you and HMBC, incarna. It is a system designed to benefit those who go for the modifiers, as HMBC said, but I see that as a game design flaw, as incarna said. The 40k RPG universe is almost tailor-built to bring in people that play the tabletop game, and thus are not usually skilled RPG'ers. This means they are not going to be able to keep all those rules and tables straight, and are going to be a bit handicapped because they are not going to know how to connect the dots to get the most modifiers.

I don't think the system is complete junk, it just needs a bit of tweaking. I like the d100 system, I just do not like how they handled difficulty and characteristics. Rogue Trader isn't as bad because the starting players are 10-20% better in each characteristic to start, and in the first rank there are limited skill to choose from so you are likely to spend your first 500 xp on characteristic advances.

Let's examine a DH moment for a second: A rank 3 tech priest is trying to do a VERY EASY (+30) skill check involving his tech use skill, such as finding a particular file on a cogitator. +30 is supposed to be the cap, or the maximum modifier. His Intelligence is 47. So he is going to succeed a VERY EASY test only 77 percent of the time? Roughly 3 out of 4 times?

So what are your options? Your gamemaster can remove the positive modifier cap, for one. This is a modification to the game rules, meaning the game system has a minor flaw. The second option is to min/max your character during creation and development, which leaves other skills severely lacking, which from a purely roleplaying standpoint strikes me as silly. Even then, you can only min/max to a certain point.



About the instant fatality factor... I don't believe that this is a flaw but actually helps keep the 40k-verse in perspective. It is supposed to make you realize how fatal the 40th millennium can be, and how you won't be missed. These are core parts of the background, and if you play each session like it may be your last you tend to get a totally different perspective on the game. I find that enjoyable. There are things to help reduce the "BOOM HEADSHOT" factor, such as fate points and such. I think that fate points are brilliant.



So... in closing, I believe that DH has great concept and a few great mechanics, but it needs a bit of work to be a truly great game system. Rogue Trader just fills the gap a bit, but even that system could use some tweaks.

FoxPhoenix135, I believe that although we may disagree on some points, your assessment of Dark Heresy is well thought out and valuable to the discussion.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:

Let's examine a DH moment for a second: A rank 3 tech priest is trying to do a VERY EASY (+30) skill check involving his tech use skill, such as finding a particular file on a cogitator. +30 is supposed to be the cap, or the maximum modifier. His Intelligence is 47. So he is going to succeed a VERY EASY test only 77 percent of the time? Roughly 3 out of 4 times?

So what are your options? Your gamemaster can remove the positive modifier cap, for one. This is a modification to the game rules, meaning the game system has a minor flaw. The second option is to min/max your character during creation and development, which leaves other skills severely lacking, which from a purely roleplaying standpoint strikes me as silly. Even then, you can only min/max to a certain point.

Keep in mind that most GMs would only enforce that in stressful situations. For instance, trying to find a certain file on a cogitator while your party holds off a heretic kill team would require a check - finding a file while everything is calm, there are no security measures to overcome and you can take your time would not.

All game systems are flawed in some form or another. Look hard enough and you'll find really silly examples in every situation. There was a joke in 2ed D&D about critical failing to pick up a coffee mug off a table 5% of the time and sending scalding hot coffee over another party member (I think in Dragon magazine).

And to whoever said you need a doctorate in math to work up the modifiers... Ballistic skill 37 + 10 for laser sight + 5 for good quality las rifle = 52 to hit. Not too hard. For needing a PhD, try 3d space combat with the old Traveller system!!

One thing about the Lores I will agree with though is that some of the common lore skills are just never taken (or I just give them to players depending on their background). Many of the scholastic lore skills are never used either, or are used only in extremely specialized circumstances (I've never had a player really use chemistry for instance). But each and every one of the forbidden lores are worth their weight in gold. GOLD I tell you!! (Unless you're running a hack and slash type game, then all lores are crap).

-Tyr

Oh, on a side note, anyone tried DeathWatch yet?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=108&enmi=Deathwatch

I'm skeptical of how this would work as an RPG...

Its not out as of yet, but I share your sentiments. I'm not sure how a game focusing on marines could be anything more than bolter fire and screaming. However, I'm keeping a positive outlook and reserving judgment until it actually comes out.

Regardless, I'll be buying it if nothing else than for the background read.

-Tyr

I think it would be a great "starter" rpg for kids coming over directly from the tabletop with their space marines, but I imagine that it will be too combat oriented for my tastes (unless they introduce something drastically different from RT and DH).

Soladrin wrote:Oh, on a side note, anyone tried DeathWatch yet?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=108&enmi=Deathwatch

I'm skeptical of how this would work as an RPG...

I’ll page through it at my LGS but that’s about it.

“After many years of exemplary service within your own chapter, you have been singled out and selected to join one of the most unique and specialized collectives of Space Marines – 1st Level characters in an RPG”

“While Deathwatch focuses on a different aspect of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, the rule system is compatible with Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader – if you enjoy making new characters every 5 minutes while maintaining the delusion that a Dark Heresy character can do anything but hide in a corner while a Space Marine deals with a suitably scaled challenges of an RPG.”

I made some editing to Fantasy Flights text for the sake of accuracy. Though, this next quote (unmodified) gives me hope;

“Some Space Marines are epic individuals who will risk all for a matter of honour, others are philosophers and tragic figures, full of passion and regret. However you choose to interpret these ideas, it is important to note that the Space Marines chosen for the Deathwatch are nuanced, complex characters.”

Is there a use of the word “honor” that is spelled “honour”?

Let me chime in and give the opinion of someone who knew nothing of 40k at all when he played Dark Heresy. I really liked the atmosphere of the game and the background.

As an experienced roleplayer i didnt get too stuck up on the rules and ive played a lot of heroic fantasy and theres loads of such games around and tbh i dont really think they fit 40k universe very well. But then that might be because i started 40k with dark heresy.

Playing an imperial guardsman from e feral world who thinks your senior officer somehow has a link to emperor and revering your lasgun "handed to you from the god-emperor" and obeying the other members who ruthlessly order you about because you have no idea whats going on was great fun.

As such the game was the entry to 40k universe for me and as that it was excellent.

I now play an imperial guard army and well, life in the guard is just like life in dark heresy. Life is cheap.

I wont give an opinion of the rules as it was couple of years ago and I cant really remember much about them.

Incarna - yes, the correct spelling of the word in the English language , not the simplified English the yanks speak.

Your patronising attitude about us "not knowing the rules well enough" is just that - patronising. Sorry, but given we were playing with a GM who not only playtested but wrote part of the ruleset (and has written part of Creature anathema, RT and DW) you dont have the first clue what you are talking about.

DH has a very workable system, I would suggest you are a far less competent GM than you are making out if you havent found that to be the case.

incarna wrote:Is there a use of the word “honor” that is spelled “honour”?

It's one of those American/British spelling differences. Same as colour/color.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Incarna - yes, the correct spelling of the word in the English language , not the simplified English the yanks speak.

You seem to be deriving some sort of “tone” from my simple question Limey. I wasn’t deriding the spelling, merely asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your patronising attitude about us "not knowing the rules well enough" is just that - patronising. Sorry, but given we were playing with a GM who not only playtested but wrote part of the ruleset (and has written part of Creature anathema, RT and DW) you dont have the first clue what you are talking about.

Patronizing does not betray my 100% accuracy – and I wasn’t patronizing or insulting until I was FIRST patronized and insulted by people who seem to take my critique of the system as some sort of personal attack. I hold fast to my belief that you’re either not playing in accordance with the rules or are using house rules to modify the statistical chances.

Your claim that your GM play tested and wrote part of the rules set is also meaningless. I don’t know that to be true, nor do I know what portion of the rules he wrote, nor do I think a gaming company that can have such profound oversights in game balance in both Descent expansions and campaigns to be above publishing horribly flawed rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DH has a very workable system, I would suggest you are a far less competent GM than you are making out if you havent found that to be the case.

As was pointed out, very easy task of someone with AVERAGE human stats (say 35) = 65% chance of success. You can’t argue with math that but I don’t expect to influence you. You’re rose colored glasses are clearly firmly in place.

incarna wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Incarna - yes, the correct spelling of the word in the English language , not the simplified English the yanks speak.

You seem to be deriving some sort of “tone” from my simple question Limey. I wasn’t deriding the spelling, merely asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your patronising attitude about us "not knowing the rules well enough" is just that - patronising. Sorry, but given we were playing with a GM who not only playtested but wrote part of the ruleset (and has written part of Creature anathema, RT and DW) you dont have the first clue what you are talking about.

Patronizing does not betray my 100% accuracy – and I wasn’t patronizing or insulting until I was FIRST patronized and insulted by people who seem to take my critique of the system as some sort of personal attack. I hold fast to my belief that you’re either not playing in accordance with the rules or are using house rules to modify the statistical chances.

Your claim that your GM play tested and wrote part of the rules set is also meaningless. I don’t know that to be true, nor do I know what portion of the rules he wrote, nor do I think a gaming company that can have such profound oversights in game balance in both Descent expansions and campaigns to be above publishing horribly flawed rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DH has a very workable system, I would suggest you are a far less competent GM than you are making out if you havent found that to be the case.

As was pointed out, very easy task of someone with AVERAGE human stats (say 35) = 65% chance of success. You can’t argue with math that but I don’t expect to influence you. You’re rose colored glasses are clearly firmly in place.

However, if that same average human takes his time and is under no pressure according to the rules its automatic after 'X' time has passed. where 'X' is determined by the GM. So perfectly makes sense to me. (Even if not automatic he can get another +30 for taking his time again determined by the GM so 95% chance to do it.)

Strimen wrote:

However, if that same average human takes his time and is under no pressure according to the rules its automatic after 'X' time has passed. where 'X' is determined by the GM. So perfectly makes sense to me. (Even if not automatic he can get another +30 for taking his time again determined by the GM so 95% chance to do it.)

The issue of “taking time” is related but not the core of the issue. Most GM’s, me included, wouldn’t even bother to make a player roll for a very easy task when time is not a factor. I might make a player roll for an average task if there was some sort of consequence to failure (being locked out of a system, spooking a contact, etc.)

The core issue is what constitutes “average difficulty” under time sensitive circumstances – which, incidentally, are the circumstances in which players are most likely to suffer the most severe consequences (including death).

Likewise, the character bloat adds unnecessary complication to the entire system – an issue which I consider to be the most severe.

Jon Garrett wrote:I'm used to being outclassed by whatever I fight. I know the manly arts of running the hell away when I don't have a chance.

Hehe. My character is based on the principle. I'm the information gatherer. I use the chameleon minor power along with the jam detection power to get us in all sneaky-like, figure out the situation, and get the hell out to let the other characters who are actually good at fighting do their thing. I sometimes help a little bit by jamming opposing weapons and stuff, but mostly, when the gak hits the fan, I duck and hide.
Having specialists in your party helps (and being lucky enough to start as a lvl 1 psyker with 53 WP does, too). A lot. Long live the art of min-maxing .

I really don't find the rolls that atrocious. Again, Call of Cthulhu has taught me that people, as a rule, suck.

Yes, Acolytes fail a lot of roles, especially lower level ones. Just as my 1st level Cleric of Sarenrae gets punched in the balls in Pathfinder and my newly created Merc in Serenity lost a leg when he screwed up with a weapon he wasn't that familiar with.

Dark Heresy is harsher than many systems, true, but then the whole of 40k is harsh. The idea is if you survive you get better training, better gear and better contacts to meet your challenges.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:I'm kinda in the middle between you and HMBC, incarna. It is a system designed to benefit those who go for the modifiers, as HMBC said, but I see that as a game design flaw, as incarna said. The 40k RPG universe is almost tailor-built to bring in people that play the tabletop game, and thus are not usually skilled RPG'ers. This means they are not going to be able to keep all those rules and tables straight, and are going to be a bit handicapped because they are not going to know how to connect the dots to get the most modifiers.

Anecdotal, for sure, but I've yet to come across that problem with my group.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Let's examine a DH moment for a second: A rank 3 tech priest is trying to do a VERY EASY (+30) skill check involving his tech use skill, such as finding a particular file on a cogitator. +30 is supposed to be the cap, or the maximum modifier. His Intelligence is 47. So he is going to succeed a VERY EASY test only 77 percent of the time? Roughly 3 out of 4 times?

The cap is actually +/-60, but that's neither here nor there. As I've said, the games reliance on modifiers is, in my mind, a flaw, but one a good GM can easily compensate for and certainly not a big enough flaw to sink the system as incarna seems to think.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:So... in closing, I believe that DH has great concept and a few great mechanics, but it needs a bit of work to be a truly great game system. Rogue Trader just fills the gap a bit, but even that system could use some tweaks.

It is as I said - you get out what you put in. If you get hung up on the rules and let the mechanics defeat you, as I believe incarna has done, then you're not going to get anywhere with it.



As in my case, I put a lot into it, and we got a lot out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mellon wrote:Would you care to expand on your opinion?

You believe that 40K would be good if its entire foundation and core central faction that permeates 100% of the entire universe was removed?

That's like saying BattleTech would be awesome if there were no 'Mechs, that The Matrix would have worked better without that pesky virtual reality world everyone was stuck in, or that Transformers would have been amazing without any transforming robots.

So yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say 'No'. Again.

incarna wrote:Patronizing does not betray my 100% accuracy

And that is where you are wrong. Proof by contra positive - your statement (unsupported) is false as I have statements that it is false. Your 100% accuracy drops to 0%.

incarna wrote: – and I wasn’t patronizing or insulting until I was FIRST patronized and insulted by people who seem to take my critique of the system as some sort of personal attack.

Not patronising, just incredulity that you are the only person to have such a big problem, and your asinine and, frankly, stupid "examples" didnt help.

incarna wrote:I hold fast to my belief that you’re either not playing in accordance with the rules or are using house rules to modify the statistical chances.

You believe that. You're wrong, as has already been pointed out. But you have faith, and we all know that never listens.

incarna wrote:Your claim that your GM play tested and wrote part of the rules set is also meaningless.

It is as meaniingful as your belief. Sorry, your unsupported statement has no more weight than mine. thanks for proving your fallacy for me!

incarna wrote:I don’t know that to be true, nor do I know what portion of the rules he wrote, nor do I think a gaming company that can have such profound oversights in game balance in both Descent expansions and campaigns to be above publishing horribly flawed rules.

It was to prove your claim that you know the rules better than anyone to be false. Again. You're not doing well here, are you?

incarna wrote:As was pointed out, very easy task of someone with AVERAGE human stats (say 35) = 65% chance of success. You can’t argue with math that but I don’t expect to influence you. You’re rose colored glasses are clearly firmly in place.

"your", not "you're". Not rose tinted at all, ncie of you to continue patronising.

Ooooooh boy, this thread is gonna get canned pretty soon.

H.B.M.C., I think Mellon is coming at the "No more Imperium" from a fluffy angle, as in "facist evil governments of doom are bad" and not "let's get rid of the main point of the story".