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.

So, I've looked around at FFG's line, but still have some Q's-- I'm looking at probably running a campaign this summer, with my only previous RPG experience being D&D 3/3.5, generic and Iron Kingdoms; a bit as DM or as player.

So, a few questions:
-how would you compare it to D&D 3.5? Elements (or the whole) as better, worse, different, etc.

-how complex is the system (skills, combat, etc.)

-how well does it fit your vision of 40k? (doesn't need to be accurate, just looking at the feel)

-are there good campaigns? how flexible are they, and which would you reccommend?

-which books would you say were the best place to start?

-any other stuff you think is worth pointing out...

spiralingcadaver wrote:So, I've looked around at FFG's line, but still have some Q's-- I'm looking at probably running a campaign this summer, with my only previous RPG experience being D&D 3/3.5, generic and Iron Kingdoms; a bit as DM or as player.

I've read the Rogue Trader ruleset, but have not actually played that, so please consider that int he below.

spiralingcadaver wrote:So, a few questions:
-how would you compare it to D&D 3.5? Elements (or the whole) as better, worse, different, etc.

Both are pretty detailed and 'simulationist' for the most part. Detailed combat, etc.

spiralingcadaver wrote:-how complex is the system (skills, combat, etc.)

It's reasonably complex.Definitely not a rules-light system.

spiralingcadaver wrote:-how well does it fit your vision of 40k? (doesn't need to be accurate, just looking at the feel)

I feel it's a pretty good fit. The main thing is that many of the game lines focus on highly different segments than the wargame focuses on: The tabletop game is action, action, action, while the RPGs look to be designed with investigative bits and such.

spiralingcadaver wrote:-are there good campaigns? how flexible are they, and which would you reccommend?

Not sure. I thinkt here's one or two 'basic' campaigns for each, and of course you can do your own.

spiralingcadaver wrote:-which books would you say were the best place to start?

They all use some common groundwork, but your best bet might be to talk with prospective players and see what they're into stepping into:

Low-level survival as junior Inquisition minions? Dark Heresy.
Independent and well-equipped Rogue Traders? Rogue Trader.
Servants of the Empire, possibly with intrigue behind the scenes? Space Marines.
Traitors and Heretics? The Chaos version.
Guardsmen? Upcoming Imperial Guard version.

spiralingcadaver wrote:-any other stuff you think is worth pointing out...

Something to keep in mind is that each of the lines is very specialized.

spiralingcadaver wrote:how would you compare it to D&D 3.5? Elements (or the whole) as better, worse, different, etc.

Definitively better, though I have to point out that I'm always been somewhat critical of D&D compared to DSA/TDE, which was the first P&P I've ever played. It's slightly less "gamey" and allows for more customization, whereas in D&D I always thought I'd just gimp myself if I wouldn't play a class precisely like it was intended by the writers (example: Chessentan paladin in cloth armour, with round shield and a short sword - good luck with that!)

Something to consider, though, is that FFG's version of a 40k RPG encompasses four (soon five) different RPGs, all with unique rules and gameplay aspects. For easier comparison, think of Dark Heresy as Call of Cthulhu (investigation, horrible secrets, maddening encounters with daemonic foes), Rogue Trader as Traveller (mixture of shrewd planning and diplomacy as well as "age of sails"-style naval combat), and Deathwatch as Exalted (semi-invincible high power characters strutting around and killing entire armies of foes). Black Crusade seems to be a mix of all three, but even though I have the book here I've yet to actually play it, so I cannot talk from personal experience on that one. Needless to say, their various rule systems are all tweaked to focus on the main theme. For example, whereas Dark Heresy comes with detailed rules concerning insanity and corruption, Deathwatch instead bolsters the player characters with unique "squad mode" and "Horde enemy" systems allowing them to perform way more heroically than even just the stat increases and additional talents would allow.

spiralingcadaver wrote:how complex is the system (skills, combat, etc.)

I thought it was fairly easy to learn whilst still allowing for much complexity. There's lots of optional stuff around, from new equipment and classes up to (some) alternate ways to work with the rules, so it would be possible to tweak it to the preferences of your group. However, whilst being easy to learn, it will still take time to soak up all the information. The rulebook is huge, and whereas players may ignore large portions of it for not being of any concern to them, the GM should naturally know it all. Fortunately, the books are enjoyable to read, so just read them in your bed and you should be ready to roll in a week or so.

spiralingcadaver wrote:how well does it fit your vision of 40k? (doesn't need to be accurate, just looking at the feel)

It depends. The overall feeling fits my personal perception of the setting well, though there are certain deviations from GW's version which I continue to find both unnecessary and frustrating. This is very much a matter of personal opinion, though, and I know that a lot of people actually felt it was "cooler" this way. I would presume that the average player won't even be aware of the contradictions, as they concern details that most would probably consider minor. All in all, I thought the books were well written, and anything you or your group should indeed not find to your liking can be ignored or houseruled. After all, it's a Pen & Paper game happening in your own room, and Gav Thorpe himself said there can be no "wrong" vision of 40k.

spiralingcadaver wrote:are there good campaigns? how flexible are they, and which would you reccommend?

This I can't answer; my groups never played one of the pre-made campaigns. I do know that there are a few big ones, however, encompassing multiple books.

spiralingcadaver wrote:which books would you say were the best place to start?

The core rulebook of the RPG you want to play, of course, as well as the "player's guide", if one has been released for it. Dark Heresy ("Inquisitor's Handbook"), Rogue Trader ("Into the Storm") and Deathwatch ("Rites of Battle") all have one, but I believe Black Crusade does not yet. Anything above these two books really depends on what you think might come in handy, meaning what your campaign or your group are focusing on.

spiralingcadaver wrote:any other stuff you think is worth pointing out...

Don't attempt crossovers between the individual systems.