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.

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.