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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

Not true.

It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

And it is very much like an RPG, except you're tracking the experience and skills of every model in your Kill Team/ Detachment/ Army.

And that's why all these conversations about a new edition make me uncomfortable. The new edition and its supporting games allow us to play in SO many different ways that you can create your own game with the tools you're given. Everyone who complains about bloat seems to think there needs to be only one way. The thing that makes this edition awesome is that there ISN'T one way to play.

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

 kodos wrote:

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

A lot of people play it wrong. Every time you land a property you're supposed to buy it. If you don't it goes to auction. There are house rules that you don't need to buy or auction an open property. There is also a house rule that fines go into free parking, which props up whomever is lucky enough to land on it. This basically drains money a lot faster and keeps them from skating, but actually knocking someone out is annoying - especially when they have no path to victory.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

The heck you are (if we naturally ignore the silly notion of trying to gain money from such endeavour). Jake is suggesting using official GW products and imagination for campaign purposes, sets like that pop up everywhere at clubs and forums and are just fine. Many gamers like doing things like that, while being happy to say they are playing 40k, the way they actually want to play. GW even commends people for doing so with their Hammer Heroes awards and occasional articles.

Restricting 40k to its bare minimum is just that, restricted. The game has more to offer.

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

Not true.

It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

And it is very much like an RPG, except you're tracking the experience and skills of every model in your Kill Team/ Detachment/ Army.

And that's why all these conversations about a new edition make me uncomfortable. The new edition and its supporting games allow us to play in SO many different ways that you can create your own game with the tools you're given. Everyone who complains about bloat seems to think there needs to be only one way. The thing that makes this edition awesome is that there ISN'T one way to play.

And that is not 40K.

I really wouldn't worry about there being a 9th edition.

PenitentJake wrote:
Not true.

No it's true.

PenitentJake wrote:
It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

Using the rulebook and codices?

PenitentJake wrote:
I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

So you've incorporated things that aren't regular 40K into a combined house-rule hybrid system.

What you're saying is that your apple pie is no different from a regular apple.

So I was right. 40k is nothing like an RPG. You've invented something completely new.

That's fine, BTW, but don't pretend that you're still just playing regular normal 40K.

You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

The heck you are (if we naturally ignore the silly notion of trying to gain money from such endeavour). Jake is suggesting using official GW products and imagination for campaign purposes, sets like that pop up everywhere at clubs and forums and are just fine. Many gamers like doing things like that, while being happy to say they are playing 40k, the way they actually want to play. GW even commends people for doing so with their Hammer Heroes awards and occasional articles.

Restricting 40k to its bare minimum is just that, restricted. The game has more to offer.

Back up a step.

If I go into a game store and say "Hey, I want to play Warhammer 40k" what are we going to be playing? An RPG or a wargame?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If I go into a game store and say "Hey, I want to play Warhammer 40k" what are we going to be playing? An RPG or a wargame?

If I'm following this thread correctly, I think the answer is Monopoly.

Why not both?

Sure, many store games run on the expectation that games are easy to get going and one off affairs (I think? Clubs are more of my thing than stores), where just plopping guys down on the table and playing away is the thing. That's clearly more on the pure wargame side. But what if the answer to "I wanna play 40k" in there is "alright! We have a cool campaign going on, would you like to fight out one of these battles?" and a talk about what's the current situation. There might be maps, a narrative, tales of exciting individuals and so on that have come to be through normal 40k matches with a mindset towards the whole. I realise this is easier in clubs, but that's not up to the game system(s).

And just as a curious sidenote, most "real" wargames like Kriegspiel and modern military training systems have a lot of shared DNA with rpg's, because they pretty much are such in the broad "what if" sense of intellectual practice. This is very apparent in games like old school D&D, where the players have no right to succeed and making rulings for unforeseen situations between the participants is a constant part of the game, just as it is for the Kriegspiel umpire trying to answer the general who wants to explode an overhanging cliff on top of their enemies' camp.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

Not with that attitude, no. It doesn't have to be for you, it can be for others who want to know how their sergeant Cool Dude fares in this battle. The defining features of rpg's are far wider than you might think and 40k has from its very beginning had that possibility. Rogue Traders example scenario Battle at the Farm has hidden character agendas baked into its mission parameters, there are lots of battle reports of 8th edition 40k out there with wacky hijinks happening in them that make no tactical sense, people arm Their Dudes with weapons they just like because they are Their Dudes, make pew pew sounds to immerse themselves in the game, have campaigns that span years of recurring characters, there's the whole Inquisitor28 movement with many using 8th edition rules (just look up Iron Sleet) ...

40k absolutely can be used as an rpg system. You don't have to, but you cannot deny it from others.

In responding to all the responses to my response, Sherrypie for the win. I'm not sure any of the others have read the Urban Conquest rules, but they suggest using 40k and kill team together. And it is a 40k product; whether or not you choose to use it doesn't stop the game from being 40k. Did you read the missions in CA 2019 that use Kill Team, 40k and Apocalypse together? I suppose you're going to say that isn't 40k either, yet that's the book that you take your points from when you play in tournaments... So either combining the games IS 40k or playing in a tournament ISN'T because the rules for doing both of those things are in the same book.

Now we could hijack the thread and talk about what is and isn't 40k and argue semantics for weeks; it's actually irrelevant to the underlying point.

Which is this: Bloat is in the eye of the beholder.

In an OLD White Dwarf once upon a time, there was a soap box type article written by Rick Priestly, Jervis Johnson or Andy Chambers. The article talked about why they chose to name the company Games WORKSHOP. It explicitly stated that the design philosophy from day one was that GW didn't make finished games; instead it provided tools to create the game that is right for you. Roleplaying Games, Collectible Card Games and Games Workshop games all have this in common. You always have to make choices about what to include and what to exclude before you play; that's why these types of games have always appealed to me more than conventional static board games.

If you wanted a streamlined, play it out of the box system, that's fine, because the game is flexible enough that you can play it that way if you want to. Truth be told, I imagine many, and maybe even most people prefer that style. And for the health of the hobby, I want you aboard, and I'd never want to say anything to make you feel unwelcome. I kinda wish GW would make it easier for you by releasing an "Arena" version of 40k like they did with kill team.

But I would respectfully suggest, that if you want this game to ONLY be a streamlined, play it out of the box game that you start thinking about other hobbies, because by design, it will never be ONLY that. It never has been. Why would they go down that road now?

One last thing: I've played 40k since 1989; my play habits peaked from editions 2-5; not sure I played any 6th. but I know I never played 7th. In all my time, I've played in exactly ONE tournament. But I'd never imply that tournaments aren't 40k, even if they use ITC formats. I respect your preferences enough to embrace what you do as part of 40k. So please, don't imply that what I do isn't 40k. Taddeus the Purifier IS a Blackstone model, but him and Pious came with 40k rules in the box, and if you don't think that what we do is 40k, maybe we'll round up some Sisters and hunt you down at whichever tournament you most call home and light you on FIRE like the HERETIC you are!

Note:Not a real threat: I was ROLEPLAYING.

Peace.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Not with that attitude, no.

It's got nothing to do with attitude. 40k. Is. Not. An. RPG.

There are 40K RPGs, they're called "Dark Heresy", and "Death Watch", and "Only War", and so on. But 40k, as in the game that is published by Games Workshop, is not, by any measure, viewpoint or interpretation, an RPG. It is a wargame.

Again, it has ----nothing---- to due with "attitude". It just isn't one. Cut and dry.

People are free to do whatever house rules and add-ons and whatever they want, but that doesn't make 40k an RPG.

Maybe everyone can accept their experience isn’t universal and stop trying to police other people’s fun?

Different people have different definitions of things and different yardsticks. Move on.

Thanks Mr. Golden Mean.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

Chess is technically AA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

Not with that attitude, no. It doesn't have to be for you, it can be for others who want to know how their sergeant Cool Dude fares in this battle. The defining features of rpg's are far wider than you might think and 40k has from its very beginning had that possibility. Rogue Traders example scenario Battle at the Farm has hidden character agendas baked into its mission parameters, there are lots of battle reports of 8th edition 40k out there with wacky hijinks happening in them that make no tactical sense, people arm Their Dudes with weapons they just like because they are Their Dudes, make pew pew sounds to immerse themselves in the game, have campaigns that span years of recurring characters, there's the whole Inquisitor28 movement with many using 8th edition rules (just look up Iron Sleet) ...

40k absolutely can be used as an rpg system. You don't have to, but you cannot deny it from others.

You can do the same with Chess. Everything you say can be applied to Chess and any number of more balanced Tabletop Wargames. Why do you keep giving 40k this pass to be bad at its core?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

Chess is technically AA.

For people used to GW games

actually, Chess is a classical IGoUGo and games with similar mechanics are named as such

GW uses the same term for a different system.

Just go into Boardgame Reviews that compare KilkTeam to other games with alternating unit/model activation. They will describe the other games as classic IGoUGo and Kill Team /40k as the alternative system that makes things different by alternating player turns.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Not with that attitude, no.

It's got nothing to do with attitude. 40k. Is. Not. An. RPG.

There are 40K RPGs, they're called "Dark Heresy", and "Death Watch", and "Only War", and so on. But 40k, as in the game that is published by Games Workshop, is not, by any measure, viewpoint or interpretation, an RPG. It is a wargame.

Again, it has ----nothing---- to due with "attitude". It just isn't one. Cut and dry.

People are free to do whatever house rules and add-ons and whatever they want, but that doesn't make 40k an RPG.

Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

FFG's games are certainly rpg's about 40k, but them existing doesn't somehow negate what GW does. Wargames and roleplaying games have a lot of overlap and shared history, as well as blurred lines as to what is what. Go ahead and find a universally accepted definition of either one without exceptions, I'll wait. "Doesn't have characters" or "is about armies rather than individuals" really doesn't work, when games like Polaris or Microcosm exist. We have about 40 years of empirical data up to this day that yes, there are people who use 40k rules to play games with roleplaying elements, including their very designers. It has everything to do with attitude and the mentality of play, because just like the division of different sciences, division of games to different categories is a largely arbitrary line drawn to make it easier to talk about games in general. There will always be fringe cases and 40k damn well is one, because it has one foot firmly in the wargaming side and one on the expansive rpg side with its sprawling libraries of background stories, hobbyist projects and narrative elements. Just using SOME wargame rules for conflict resolution between story focused discussions has been a staple in roleplaying since the 70's, just look at Battletech and Mechwarrior. It might not be that from YOUR viewpoint, but your's isn't a universal truth when the game that GW publishes has pretty much always been a pile of different tools and methods people are free to use just as they see fit. The 80's boxes even said it's 3D roleplaying, when anything with an rpg sticker tagged on it sold better

It's not hard to use 40k as an rpg, it doesn't even take that much houseruling mechanically when the players are simply all on board with what they want out of the game. This is true with almost every rpg in existence. I don't particularily care for D&D's modern versions for an example, especially the 4th edition which can be mechanicswise used as a simple board game, but I won't go and tell folks they sure aren't roleplaying if they aren't doing hardcore fictional logistics and war planning emulating reality like our elite group of übermenschen does. Systems matter, obviously, but the main deciding factor tends to be what is the game focusing on and how it is played. 40k is a wide, burgeoning sandbox that allows for pure 1 vs. 1 wargame shootouts, but so too it does allow and ruleswise support taking a lot more nuanced take on things. Even GW's current publications, if you look beyond the matched rules, talk a lot about ongoing narratives, named individuals changing as campaigns roll on, using umpires to run games and shake things up a bit every now and then, interactions between games, using wacky off the wall ideas to spice up your normal games and other elements of choice that the players are free to use as they see fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You can do the same with Chess. Everything you say can be applied to Chess and any number of more balanced Tabletop Wargames. Why do you keep giving 40k this pass to be bad at its core?

What does being bad have to do with the subject? It is subjective as to what extent people don't like different systems, like I personally dislike d100 systems and see FFG's 40k rpg's as unfocused messes that concentrate on completely wrong things, but that won't change what they are. 40k being like it is allows it to be used as an rpg and many people do use it as such (Pilgrym project, Thorn Moons, Primogenitor, Inquisitor28 projects in general...), but that is in itself not a statement on the game being any good or not.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

That sounds like fun

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

While that sound hilarious and a lot like some Diplomacy games I've had (with funny hats, of course), the line between wargames and roleplaying games tends to be a lot blurrier than it is with more self-contained board games. The nature of the beast that is 40k requires more pre-game discussion and lends itself much more readily for such purposes than the more clearly cut and dry board games, and as such I vehemently disagree with absolutist stances like H.B.M.C. here has even if I too think that most players do not utilize it for rpg purposes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

Didnt they already publish wh40k rpg books?

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Didnt they already publish wh40k rpg books?

Plenty. Because those games are an RPG, whereas 40K is not.

It's almost like there are strong connections between RPGs and tabletop wargames that stretch back to the roots of each of Dungeons & Dragons, Games Workshop, and Warhammer 40K.

It's almost like even games studies scholars accept that there are a bunch of edge cases out there when defining games (and even when defining what is and is not a game).

It's almost like GW has been explicit since the Rogue Trader days that there are multiple different ways to play, from a more narrative-heavy approach to a more competitive approach, and if anything has offered more support for the former over the years, while recognising that there's a whole spectrum of play styles and that negotiation between players as to what kind of game you want, is explicitly a part of 40K game culture.

So yeah. Absolutist stances are bunkum.

An apple isn't an orange just because you believe it is, or your friends treat it as one.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's almost like there are strong connections between RPGs and tabletop wargames that stretch back to the roots of each of Dungeons & Dragons, Games Workshop, and Warhammer 40K.

It's almost like even games studies scholars accept that there are a bunch of edge cases out there when defining games (and even when defining what is and is not a game).

It's almost like GW has been explicit since the Rogue Trader days that there are multiple different ways to play, from a more narrative-heavy approach to a more competitive approach, and if anything has offered more support for the former over the years, while recognising that there's a whole spectrum of play styles and that negotiation between players as to what kind of game you want, is explicitly a part of 40K game culture.

So yeah. Absolutist stances are bunkum.

This

40 years of being a nice and expansive sandbox for multiple gaming styles, yet still some try to shoehorn it into a singular box. Talk about constructive use of time.

Just that the Sandbox days are over and GW is telling us that they are selling 3 finalized games of 40k based on the same core
Matched Play, Naritive and Open, and most supported version is Matched Play while the RPG part is the Naritive stuff.

Problem is that Matched Play can be used for RPG, but it is not sold as such by GW.

*Quietly being confused in the corner for several pages before realizing you guys are serious and actually have antennas shooting antennas, or know people who roll that way*

Literally has never even had to be a conversation, either in my friends group or at the FLGS.

Guess it carried over from 7th like calling all reserve deployments "Deep Striking".

Honestly shocked-but-not-shocked that people really play that way and model around it.

Sounds gross. Sweaty boys will be sweaty I guess.