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.

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

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

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

Lynata wrote:

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

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

This is why I have been abrasive and dismissive.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, you sounded disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If only.*

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

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

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

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

Manchu wrote:felinds

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

Meet your new Only War character:

Obligatory followup-image, courtesy of "Daemonifuge"


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

Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:felinds

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

Don't forget we might also get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lynata, he’s all yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*salutes* Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're missing out!

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

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