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.
If you don't like the Commissar/Guardsman/Scout/Magos team up....don't fething play it? It's a damn RPG - play whatever characters make you happy, but stop coming in here and whinging about other people playing a game you'll never be part of.
If somebody half the world away is playing a game in a fashion you don't approve of...who cares?
You. I like you.
As a player and sometimes GM in many RPGs over the years, I would prefer everyone be on a similar/same power level. A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
But I wouldn't call out another group if that dynamic works for them. You be you, man.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 16:51:11
Elbows wrote: If somebody half the world away is playing a game in a fashion you don't approve of...who cares?
I don't care how people play their sessions out.
I care, as a prospective customer, about the framework of the product I'm looking to purchase. I'm not sure why my concerns seems to be taken on such a personal level here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 16:54:14
Where they would immediately either be executed for some Kafkaesque(or Pythonesque depending on tone) reason, or co-opted by one of the aforementioned powerful people/groups.
As I said, there are countless situational scenarios you can come up with, but they were either already possible or so out-there they're better accomplished using a ruleset with total creative freedom or your own for-that-purpose modifications to the existing one.
EDIT: Right, whatever. Evidently some folk here are determined to take criticism of a product as a personal and vicious assault, so once again I find myself questioning what the point of a discussion forum is when people don't actually want to discuss anything, just affirm to each other that they all indeed agree. You all have fun with that.
Why do you think the game has to actually have them get back to the Imperium? The entire game could be spent with the poor sods being bounced all around the galaxy having crazy adventures, meeting cool characters and leaving their own mark on countless planets but never managing to get home (which serves to highlight the hopelessness of the 40k setting but in a more personal way).
In fact, the player characters could realise that they will be killed if they return to the Imperium and instead decide to become eternal wanderers, just trying to keep out of the way of the Imperium but constantly being pulled into conflicts on the periphery, building their fame (or infamy) until it reaches the ear of an inquisitor who sets out to catch them. There are lots of stories you can tell in the 40k universe which don't rely on the PCs to be following someone's orders. Inquisitors can be villains as much as benefactors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:03:28
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
EDIT: Right, whatever. Evidently some folk here are determined to take criticism of a product as a personal and vicious assault, so once again I find myself questioning what the point of a discussion forum is when people don't actually want to discuss anything, just affirm to each other that they all indeed agree. You all have fun with that.
Discussion means differing opinions. A vocal portion of this DISCUSSION forum disagrees with your opinion. We're now discussing it. That's what a discussion forum does. If you can't handle people disagreeing with your opinion, maybe the problem isn't the forum.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
A Town Called Malus wrote: There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader
You do realize you could have done the exact same setup in Dark Heresy, right? You'd need to build some extra rules systems, but I've ran Space Marine PCs in mixed parties, full Marine squads, full xeno parties and chaos cult groups using nothing but the core rules of DH, so if a dumb jock like me could do that, you could do as well.
Now explain to me how having a well developed, organic, setting abiding party system in an RPG game detracts from your ability to modify, ignore or invent rules and setups for your characters.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader
You do realize you could have done the exact same setup in Dark Heresy, right? You'd need to build some extra rules systems, but I've ran Space Marine PCs in mixed parties, full Marine squads, full xeno parties and chaos cult groups using nothing but the core rules of DH, so if a dumb jock like me could do that, you could do as well.
Now explain to me how having a well developed, organic, setting abiding party system in an RPG game detracts from your ability to modify, ignore or invent rules and setups for your characters.
How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:15:41
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.
Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.
Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.
Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.
Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.
Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.
Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.
The FFGRPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.
"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".
Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to inside the boundaries of the setting to make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect form them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
You should stop with your gatekeeping of what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.
It's not "gatekeeping" to grasp the basic premise of the setting, and congratulations on completely missing the point, which I will now belabour for your benefit:
I was not accusing this game of being "generic", I was saying that what this game purports to do would be better served with a generic - and thus even more "free" and "imaginative" - ruleset.
I'm not great with analogies, but lets try this:
A 40K novel that I just buy and read is a pre-built bit of furniture. I order it, I get what I paid for.
The FFGRPGs are Ikea flatpacks. I know what it is I'm buying, but I have to put in the work to realise the final product.
A generic RPG system is a bundle of tools and some raw materials, I have to design and build the whole project myself, but I get exactly what I want in the end.
So where does Wrath & Glory fit? People are claiming it's option three, toolbox & raw materials, but if it is then there are better sets of tools out there to work with, tools that let me work without any constraints at all if that's what I want. But if it's supposed to be option two, then it's a flatpack without any instructions - I'm still constrained in-practice by what I'm given, but I'm expected to figure out what the final product should be on my own.
Or put another way - on the spectrum with total freedom of imagination at one end and a completely preset narrative at the other, the prior 40KRPGsalready were the "middle ground" compromise position, and I can't see the point in going a little bit further towards the freedom of imagination end when in the vast majority of cases I'd just be expending needless effort to re-establish the premise of the prior systems, and in the tiny handful of cases where I would want to go beyond that premise where I wouldn't mind putting in the extra effort(because it's for a special occasion not every adventure I run) I'd rather go all the way and either rework the existing systems entirely to my own taste or build completely from the ground up in a generic system.
EDIT: Infantile eh? Guess that whole "Rule 1" thing goes out the window when the mods agree with your position.
More specific rebuttals will come later after my lunch, and I'll do you the courtesy or replying to your points rather than engaging in petty ad homs.
Sorry where have I called you infantile? And I have edited the message you quoted before your response because it was more aggresive that I wanted it to be. I apologize.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:09:07
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
The system could be robust enough to allow characters to be of similar "power level" or you could potentially play an "all guardsman power level party".
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:23:51
I like this system so far. Now a party consisting of a space marine, magos, IG soldier and a commissar would be extremely difficult to keep together in a fluffy way (especially the Space Marine, who is obligated to return to and serve with his Chapter, Space Marines are not exactly the kind of people who mingle with others beyond single missions), but the beauty of an RPG is that you can adjust the kind of characters players are allowed to choose to fit with the kind of campaign your group wants to run. With a system like this, you could run pretty much every kind of party you could want to, from the very thematic 'you are a squad of Space Marines of the X Chapter' to the totally ridiculous 'An Ork, a Farseer and a Space Marine team up' as in Dawn of War Last Stand. I like it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
But not every session has to start that way. There is nothing that stops your group from choosing a party that makes sense sticking together. You can play a group of Inquisitorial Acolytes just as much as in Dark Heresy, or an Imperial Guard squad or whatever strikes your group's fancy. The rules only go against the setting if you let them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 17:29:55
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
I like your idea because it sounds more appealing AND it offers up more role playing chances when confronted with the bigger faction aspects of a players character.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
Agreed! Personally, I find that mixed parties provide the most potential for some really interesting party interaction and dynamics. If a particular GM or group feels that this goes against the setting, there is nothing stopping them from enforcing a more rigid and restricted party composition. However, creating rules that allows people who are actually interested in putting together mixed parties in situations that can make sense within the setting lets them play the way they want without having to create house rules to make it work. Creating rules that provides such freedom is a strength in my opinion, not a problem. Guess it really is just a case of 'to each his own.'
Why do I get the feeling that some people arguing against the rules are basically just shouting “Stop having fun, guys! You’re having fun wrong!” over and over again? And it shouldn’t be *that* hard to come up with a reason for why a party is adventuring together. Me? I usually wait for my players to make the character, then give them a brief rundown of the situation (“Listening post Epsilon-Gamma 99 has fallen silent. You’ve been sent to investigate.”) and the ask them how they know at least two other players at the table.
Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.
Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.
Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.
Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.
Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.
Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.
Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.
The FFGRPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.
"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".
Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to inside the boundaries of the setting to make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect form them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
You should stop with your gatekeeping of what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.
It's not "gatekeeping" to grasp the basic premise of the setting, and congratulations on completely missing the point, which I will now belabour for your benefit:
I was not accusing this game of being "generic", I was saying that what this game purports to do would be better served with a generic - and thus even more "free" and "imaginative" - ruleset.
I'm not great with analogies, but lets try this:
A 40K novel that I just buy and read is a pre-built bit of furniture. I order it, I get what I paid for.
The FFGRPGs are Ikea flatpacks. I know what it is I'm buying, but I have to put in the work to realise the final product.
A generic RPG system is a bundle of tools and some raw materials, I have to design and build the whole project myself, but I get exactly what I want in the end.
So where does Wrath & Glory fit? People are claiming it's option three, toolbox & raw materials, but if it is then there are better sets of tools out there to work with, tools that let me work without any constraints at all if that's what I want. But if it's supposed to be option two, then it's a flatpack without any instructions - I'm still constrained in-practice by what I'm given, but I'm expected to figure out what the final product should be on my own.
Or put another way - on the spectrum with total freedom of imagination at one end and a completely preset narrative at the other, the prior 40KRPGsalready were the "middle ground" compromise position, and I can't see the point in going a little bit further towards the freedom of imagination end when in the vast majority of cases I'd just be expending needless effort to re-establish the premise of the prior systems, and in the tiny handful of cases where I would want to go beyond that premise where I wouldn't mind putting in the extra effort(because it's for a special occasion not every adventure I run) I'd rather go all the way and either rework the existing systems entirely to my own taste or build completely from the ground up in a generic system.
EDIT: Infantile eh? Guess that whole "Rule 1" thing goes out the window when the mods agree with your position.
More specific rebuttals will come later after my lunch, and I'll do you the courtesy or replying to your points rather than engaging in petty ad homs.
Sorry where have I called you infantile? And I have edited the message you quoted before your response because it was more aggresive that I wanted it to be. I apologize.
You didn't.
I said the way he approached my opinion was infantile. He took it personally.
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
kronk wrote: The system could be robust enough to allow characters to be of similar "power level" or you could potentially play an "all guardsman power level party".
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
Getting tired moving those goal posts? They look heavy.
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neronoxx wrote: You didn't.
I said the way he approached my opinion was infantile. He took it personally.
It's best to just keep this in mind when dealing with the old boy:
Oh, so just yet another person who seems to have forgotten that this is a discussion forum for discussing things, and not the inside of their own head.
If you(plural, nonspecific) can't deal with people making comments that are perfectly within the rules of the forum that you personally disagree with, I would suggest that forums aren't for you and that there are plenty of lovely happy-clappy facebook groups where the admins will instaban anyone who doesn't post like they're an NPC in We Happy Few. Or you(plural, nonspecific) could just skip straight to using the ignore feature without this tiresome tendency to let people know exactly why they don't meet your own rarified standard of positivity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 18:21:32
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Will I did kill a building, a good thirty Nobs and Boys (and hostages, but they were a secondary objective, and acceptable losses) with my Stormtrooper in Only War, so I guess that's Knight level kind of power, right?
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Will I did kill a building, a good thirty Nobs and Boys (and hostages, but they were a secondary objective, and acceptable losses) with my Stormtrooper in Only War, so I guess that's Knight level kind of power, right?
You've ascended Knight tier with such a display of power.
BlueGrassGamer wrote: Why do I get the feeling that some people arguing against the rules are basically just shouting “Stop having fun, guys! You’re having fun wrong!” over and over again? And it shouldn’t be *that* hard to come up with a reason for why a party is adventuring together. Me? I usually wait for my players to make the character, then give them a brief rundown of the situation (“Listening post Epsilon-Gamma 99 has fallen silent. You’ve been sent to investigate.”) and the ask them how they know at least two other players at the table.
My best friend has exactly the same approach as you. When I run a game, we usually have a pre-game session in which we create a party concept, the characters and talk about what kind of game we want to play. Then between the pre-game session and the first real session I create a scenario based on that. Basically, we establish a background for the story of the game and the characters first. It takes a lot more time before you get to actually play, but I find that it really pays off in terms of story hooks and party dynamics. I tend to run more thematic, narrative campaigns than my friend, who tends to run mostly free-form dungeon-crawling campaigns. I think from what we have seen of this system so far, that it could be used for both, so that is great!
I don't really understand what people can have against more freedom. If there is something you do not like in an RPG, it is much easier to restrict that than it is to include something you do like but which is not possible in an RPG. Restrictive house rules are much quicker to make than house rules which add new elements.
Personally (underlining it so it will hopefully be seen as a personal opinion and not group mandate ) I prefer D6 pools with a simple 4+ to succeed, 6+ for double success effects mechanics.
Neronoxx wrote: Getting tired moving those goal posts? They look heavy.
Let's see.
I said I find a certain combination of 40k archetypes problematic. My reasoning was that it would be hard to justify that specific group existing within a broad spectrum of narratives without resorting to exceptional circumstances. It is my opinion that a system promoting natural, setting abiding formation of player character groups is better than one that forces the GM to resort to said exceptional circumstances. It is also my belief that having a system in place (like the one in Dark Heresy) that the player can ignore (like I did many times with my group of players) is better than not having a system in the first place if only because it puts a workload on the user of the system that the designers should have take up.
Iron_Captain wrote: My best friend has exactly the same approach as you. When I run a game, we usually have a pre-game session in which we create a party concept, the characters and talk about what kind of game we want to play. Then between the pre-game session and the first real session I create a scenario based on that. Basically, we establish a background for the story of the game and the characters first. It takes a lot more time before you get to actually play, but I find that it really pays off in terms of story hooks and party dynamics. I tend to run more thematic, narrative campaigns than my friend, who tends to run mostly free-form dungeon-crawling campaigns. I think from what we have seen of this system so far, that it could be used for both, so that is great!
Well, that's not to say I'm giving any kind of guidance or input to my players... At the outset of a campaign, I'll try to set aside at lest one session for character creation and/or explanation of the game's setting. I usually offer some bonus XP for players that bang out at least a paragraph of backstory. Once the characters are created, then it's moving on to the players detailing how they know each other. If there's time left after character creation, I try and start the game. I've ended up with a lot of diverse groups this way. In a pirate game,Player A's character backstory said that she came from a family of renowned mapmakers and Player B used that as a connection point. Player B was a pirate captain who had purchased maps from Player A's family. In a supernatural noir campaign, I had a player who created a brothel madam. The other players ended up being one of her employees, the drunk PI who hung around the brothel way too much, the undead mobster running a protection racket on the brothel madam, and the undead mobster's slow-witted brother. The game kicked off with a murder at the brothel, which lead to the madam demanding that the PI solve the murder to settle his tab and then pointedly asking the undead mobster exactly why she was paying him protection when he hadn't been able to stop the murder...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/08 19:03:47
I said I find a certain combination of 40k archetypes problematic. My reasoning was that it would be hard to justify that specific group existing within a broad spectrum of narratives without resorting to exceptional circumstances. It is my opinion that a system promoting natural, setting abiding formation of player character groups is better than one that forces the GM to resort to said exceptional circumstances. It is also my belief that having a system in place (like the one in Dark Heresy) that the player can ignore (like I did many times with my group of players) is better than not having a system in the first place if only because it puts a workload on the user of the system that the designers should have take up.
So then why is having a system in place that players and GM's can ignore if they feel it goes against the setting a problem? No one is forcing the GM into anything. Creating rules that allows mixed parties provides groups that are interested in doing so a system they can use instead of having the workload placed on them to make it fit together. Rules that force the GM and players to stay within strict party restrictions would lead to the exact situation that you said is less ideal for those groups that are interested in playing with mixed parties.
Member of 
DKoK Blog:
Have a look, I guarantee you will not see greyer armies, EVER! Now with at least 4 shades of grey
) I prefer 