Jump to content



Photo

Get 2nd ed or tweak 1st ed?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:40 AM

Lynata each Role listed an XP cost modifier for every Characteristic and Skill. The result was a table much like an Advance Scheme from DH1e, except the Role table covered every Characteristic and Skill in the system, and listed the XP costs for characters with that Role all the way from CharGen to retirement.

 

Now I'm confused (once again). Why would the table list a modifier rather than the actual cost right away? That makes it sound as if the final cost would be modified by something else (Backgrounds? Racial bonuses?) - which the player would then have to look again anyways, with the potential of considerable changes to the end result, making the table look misleading.

 

Other than that it sounds pretty much like a hybrid between the old Advance Schemes and the new system in that it (I assume) gave up on requiring Ranks to unlock stuff or various Skills and Talents being entirely unavailable, rather making everything available from the start.

 

Is that update still online somewhere? I have a feeling I might understand it better if I have it in front of me.

 

In regards to the "laser focus", I think this ought to depend on the specific background. I have no problem with massive differences in XP cost if it fits to the character in question, just like I'd hope that there were "Jacks of all Trades" who would have an easy time getting a bit of everything, all depending on their Role. Huge XP cost differences, in my opinion, are not only a reflection of role focus, but also a reflection of the setting favoring characters whose development is hampered by their origins. A Hive ganger growing up in the streets and tunnels of Necromunda will have a ridiculously hard time learning skills that have to do with survival in the wilderness, and a Schola graduate growing up surrounded by fascist indoctrination and religious zeal may have much more difficulty wrapping their head around the concept of bartering than a Feral worlder.

 

In this respect, I think x5 multipliers are "just right" in reflecting the massive discrepancy, compared to just x3, which I'd consider suitable for someone who has at least a basic grasp of some aspects of the new Skill/Talent they want to learn. The only thing I would re-think is whether or not such things are accurately reflected by the choice of Aptitudes that ultimately ended up being in this system. Or, alternatively, if this could be simplified somehow - such as basically throwing all the Aptitudes together into categories such as, say, "Combat", "Social", "Knowledge", "Physical" and "Mental" (all featuring simple XP-cost modifiers for each class), augmented by Role-specific bonuses or even exclusive Talents/Abilities.

 

Just off the top of my head, mind you. There's a ton of possible ways to approach this. My group is about to start Black Crusade and I really like how it works with the 4 Chaos Gods there.

 

As for the Talent Trees ... sounds like a great concept as far as I'm concerned, but way too limiting because too much ended up being in there. It should not go deeper than, say, 3 levels imo.

 

What I think I'd like to do, though, is to link Talents to Characteristics in a similar sort of way as how Talents and Aptitudes are linked in DH2e.

 

You mean that Skill and Talent costs are derived from Characteristics? Such as, for example, having a Fellowship of 47 would mean you get to divide the cost of Air of Authority by factor 4, and having Strength 52 means you get to divide the cost of Bulging Biceps by 5?

Or more like multiple Characteristics "unlocking" a discount for Skills and Talents when you've reached a certain Threshold, such as raising both Perception and Ballistic Skill above 30 means you get Deadeye Shot a bit cheaper, and if you go above 50 you pay even less?

 

I think this could be a cool idea. :)


Edited by Lynata, 22 May 2014 - 07:43 AM.


#22 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 09:32 AM

Now I'm confused (once again). Why would the table list a modifier rather than the actual cost right away? That makes it sound as if the final cost would be modified by something else (Backgrounds? Racial bonuses?) - which the player would then have to look again anyways, with the potential of considerable changes to the end result, making the table look misleading.


The XP cost of a Characteristic of Skill increase would be 'XP cost modifier* level of increase' so the table only needed to show the XP cost modifier.

FX: Skill Rank 3 would cost the XP modifier times three.
 

Other than that it sounds pretty much like a hybrid between the old Advance Schemes and the new system in that it (I assume) gave up on requiring Ranks to unlock stuff or various Skills and Talents being entirely unavailable, rather making everything available from the start.

 

Basically, all Characteristic and Skill Advances were available to everyone, with a player's chosen Role determining the exact XP cost.

 

Talents were locked up in Talent Trees, so uhm... Not really comparable to anything.

 

Is that update still online somewhere? I have a feeling I might understand it better if I have it in front of me. 

 

Unfortunately FFG took down the cancelled beta rules. I don't think there's any way to get a hold of them now.

 

 

In regards to the "laser focus", I think this ought to depend on the specific background. I have no problem with massive differences in XP cost if it fits to the character in question, just like I'd hope that there were "Jacks of all Trades" who would have an easy time getting a bit of everything, all depending on their Role. Huge XP cost differences, in my opinion, are not only a reflection of role focus, but also a reflection of the setting favoring characters whose development is hampered by their origins. A Hive ganger growing up in the streets and tunnels of Necromunda will have a ridiculously hard time learning skills that have to do with survival in the wilderness, and a Schola graduate growing up surrounded by fascist indoctrination and religious zeal may have much more difficulty wrapping their head around the concept of bartering than a Feral worlder.
 
In this respect, I think x5 multipliers are "just right" in reflecting the massive discrepancy, compared to just x3, which I'd consider suitable for someone who has at least a basic grasp of some aspects of the new Skill/Talent they want to learn. The only thing I would re-think is whether or not such things are accurately reflected by the choice of Aptitudes that ultimately ended up being in this system. Or, alternatively, if this could be simplified somehow - such as basically throwing all the Aptitudes together into categories such as, say, "Combat", "Social", "Knowledge", "Physical" and "Mental" (all featuring simple XP-cost modifiers for each class), augmented by Role-specific bonuses or even exclusive Talents/Abilities.

 

 

I vehemently disagree. This is stuff the player and GM should decide, based on the character the player wants and the needs of the campaign.

 

This is also why my reaction to the complexity of the Aptitude system is "Kill it with fire!" The system not only makes no provisions for the cases where it doesn't mesh well with the needs of the players and campaigns, it goes out of its way to make it hard for a group to hack it.

 

s for the Talent Trees ... sounds like a great concept as far as I'm concerned, but way too limiting because too much ended up being in there. It should not go deeper than, say, 3 levels imo. 

 

This, however, I completely agree with. The Talent Trees, as they were, had the same issues the Aptitude system: it took build decisions out of the hands of the players to a much too great extent, and hacking it was hideously complicated.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can playtest either, and not go: "Oh... These systems are actually pretty terrible."

 

 

You mean that Skill and Talent costs are derived from Characteristics? Such as, for example, having a Fellowship of 47 would mean you get to divide the cost of Air of Authority by factor 4, and having Strength 52 means you get to divide the cost of Bulging Biceps by 5?

 

Or more like multiple Characteristics "unlocking" a discount for Skills and Talents when you've reached a certain Threshold, such as raising both Perception and Ballistic Skill above 30 means you get Deadeye Shot a bit cheaper, and if you go above 50 you pay even less?
 
I think this could be a cool idea. :)

 

 

Just Talent costs. As far as we're concerned, Roles work brilliantly. So we're unlikely to mess with them (beyond changing the '1 Special Rule' to '1 unspecified Talent'). I should probably also say that we have used DH2.3b as a basis for how we handle Skills, and have further Skill-ified a bunch of stuff that weren't Skills by RAW edition (such as Psy and attack Characteristics).

 

But yeah, maybe a combination of what you just mentioned. I should get a hold of my playmates. Like I said, right now our way of handling Talents is possibly even more ass-backwards than DH2.3b RAW. The KISS principle sounds a lot easier than it is.



#23 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:30 AM

The XP cost of a Characteristic of Skill increase would be 'XP cost modifier* level of increase' so the table only needed to show the XP cost modifier.

FX: Skill Rank 3 would cost the XP modifier times three.

 

I see. But ... why not just print the final cost right away, then?  :huh:

 

I'm really not a fan of uberhuge tables like they existed in DH1, but if you're going to include them, you may just as well make it so that a player doesn't need to go back and forth in the book again and again just to look up what they can afford. Emperor knows, there's way too much page-flipping in FFG's books as-is.

 

Talents were locked up in Talent Trees, so uhm... Not really comparable to anything.

 

All Talents? Oh. Gotcha.  :wacko:

 

 

I vehemently disagree. This is stuff the player and GM should decide, based on the character the player wants and the needs of the campaign. This is also why my reaction to the complexity of the Aptitude system is "Kill it with fire!" The system not only makes no provisions for the cases where it doesn't mesh well with the needs of the players and campaigns, it goes out of its way to make it hard for a group to hack it.

 

But, how so? I actually regard the OW system as much easier to "hack". If a player or a GM has a cool idea and it's not covered by the rules already, just trade one Aptitude for another. Should be much faster than re-calculating and balancing dozens of individual modifiers in some huge table.

 

Yes, this might still mean that a player won't be able to pick everything they want as a cheaper advance, but I'd interpret this as realism getting in the way of min-maxing, not an arbitrary limitation of ideas.

 

The Only War forum is filled with suggestions for alternate classes and mods, which I think is a good example to the level of freedom opened up with Aptitudes. A freedom gained by ease of modification. Those long modifier tables you described sound only marginally better than the option of re-writing entire DH1 Advancement Schemes we had all along, and considering how few people did this, it's a testament to which system seems easier to "make your own".

 

Yes, I think the concept introduced in Only War can still be improved somewhat (see the ideas the two of us kind of brainstormed in the previous posts), but if I were to write my own Unified 40k ruleset and had to pick an existing FFG RPG to base it on right now, I'd pick Only War. Same for that Necromunda mod I posted about here. My biggest problem with Aptitudes is that they're so many, which is kind of realistic, but not very user-friendly.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can playtest either, and not go: "Oh... These systems are actually pretty terrible."

 

I'm thinking the same about a lot of rules in these books. But, to be honest, it's probably just a matter of focus. In one's own mind, stuff may sound totally brilliant (otherwise you wouldn't have written it down), and it's not until someone else follows a different path than the one you are used to that problems may arise.

And even then you might dismiss the other's input because you think the path you took should be the one everybody takes.

 

The pitfalls of development. Or of the critic, because we tend to be just as convinced by "our ways". ;)

 

 

[edit] Thanks for explaining DH2.3 to me, by the way! I must've totally missed out on that update.


Edited by Lynata, 22 May 2014 - 10:31 AM.

  • darkforce and Tenebrae like this

#24 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 10:05 PM

Hehe, guess our tastes in RP-Systems are quite different at least in that regard. The Problem you mentioned, Lynata, with "Advances not being on the Table" and stuff I solved simply by giving away Elite Advances, of which I am actually a great friend.

 

I remember a Dark Heresy Campaign of mine where the players got quite a lot of those, as I really like handing out Adventure-Specific rewards (like Peer-Talents and some Lore-Skills and Secret Tongue/Ciphers where also among them). Not that the Aptitude-System makes that impossible, by the simple virtue of allowing everyone to buy everything, however, it devalues those rewards... but then again, one could always say that being a problem of the restrictions of the Advancement-Scheme system in itself. 

 

But still, I'm curious for the second edition... not gonna adapt it for the campaign I'm writing currently though, since one does not change horses in mid-stream, right? And converting those Characters later would probably not be worth the hassle, especially since I have a few ideas on how to not play Ascension (Will Adapt a few rules from Ascension, but overall it's rather... meh... in my opinion, but different can of worms.)

 

Especially curious how various in-game mechanics will or will not change... I do hope it will have the Psychic-Mechanics of the first Edition, cause I really love them. Like, really really... muchj better risk vs. reward system in my opinion then in other systems of the wh40k RPG-line.



#25 Cogniczar

Cogniczar

    Member

  • Members
  • 512 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:13 AM

Especially curious how various in-game mechanics will or will not change... I do hope it will have the Psychic-Mechanics of the first Edition, cause I really love them. Like, really really... muchj better risk vs. reward system in my opinion then in other systems of the wh40k RPG-line.

 

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's got the psychic system of Only War. =P



#26 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:56 AM

 

Especially curious how various in-game mechanics will or will not change... I do hope it will have the Psychic-Mechanics of the first Edition, cause I really love them. Like, really really... muchj better risk vs. reward system in my opinion then in other systems of the wh40k RPG-line.

 

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's got the psychic system of Only War. =P

 

 

So there's one thing I might House Rule cause I don't like it or I might not House Rule it because I'm too lazy. 

Curses!


Edited by darkforce, 23 May 2014 - 03:56 AM.


#27 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:29 AM

Hehe, guess our tastes in RP-Systems are quite different at least in that regard.

 

I blame Das Schwarze Auge 4th Edition. Ever since seeing the freeform model in action there, I keep thinking something like that ought to be the standard everywhere.  :lol: Not to mention the way its characters were created...

 

I remember a Dark Heresy Campaign of mine where the players got quite a lot of those, as I really like handing out Adventure-Specific rewards (like Peer-Talents and some Lore-Skills and Secret Tongue/Ciphers where also among them). Not that the Aptitude-System makes that impossible, by the simple virtue of allowing everyone to buy everything, however, it devalues those rewards... but then again, one could always say that being a problem of the restrictions of the Advancement-Scheme system in itself. 

 

You could still make it so that players have to have any advances they want to buy get "confirmed" by their GM first, with the requirement that they have to either reflect something that happened during the session or special training acquired during downtime. I've played games (in a different system) like this in the past, and thought it was a cool idea. :)

 

And yeah, I thought the original psychic system was best, too. I guess it was just a different vision due to a different design team.

 

But still, I'm curious for the second edition... not gonna adapt it for the campaign I'm writing currently though, since one does not change horses in mid-stream, right?

 

Understandable. ^^

 

I'm on the fence as well. DH2 does feature some cool new ideas (including desirable features introduced in the other games), but on the other hand it's also taking a few steps backwards, or not going far enough with other changes ...

I guess we shall see!


  • darkforce likes this

#28 segara82

segara82

    Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:23 AM

4th Edition of the Dark Eye had sadly a few very big foul ups in the character creation section that could be exploited.
And as a GM i did not keep a too close eye on the necessary training sessions required to advance a skill (getting one or a special maneuver was a different thing) since they could make advancing very tiresome. And skill points in DSA are your bread and butter.
But i also love the 'free' advancement you have. You could go in any direction.
Pacifistic Healing Mage that only uses illusions and stuns in fights, soldier-with-bought-nobility learning etiquette ... fun times.
Something like that should be do-able for DH.

Edited by segara82, 23 May 2014 - 06:24 AM.

  • darkforce and Lynata like this

Courage is the mastery of fear - not the absence of fear


#29 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:29 AM

huh... quite a lot of Dark Eye players in here (I, myself am one as well, a pretty avid one at that). Curiously, I also really like the Freeform Advances of Dark Eye 4, but it somehow... idk, might be some sort of fear of too much change or something (having played DH/RT/DW for quite a long time) I think the rank-system fits more with my vision of Warhammer 40k being mostly suffocating, keeping most people down etc etc. 

 

Interestingly enough, Dark Eye is currently getting a 5th Edition and my GM is far from happy with some of the changes, the biggest one being Magic and Divine Intervention now working exactly the same way with difference in name only. Also, the various Advantages and Disadvantages are either too cheap (in case of the Advantages) or too expensive (in case of the Disadvantages) for the further development of the character. 

 

And, yeah 4th Edition could be Powergamed quite heavily... especially when specializing in summoning magic, wow, the stories I heard xD

 

Anyway, I think sometime in a few years I'll make some sort of Franken40kSystem brutally cannibalizing the various systems for parts... not that I'm not doing that already...


  • Lynata likes this

#30 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:33 AM

5th Edition DSA? Wow, I've been out of touch. Maybe this time they'll keep an international release in mind - I recall the only English books that got published were the core rules and two supplements before the subcontractor vanished into thin air...

 

Not that your description sounds promising. :( I'll have to investigate ...

 

And yes, I've had the same thought stuck in my head @ Franken40k :D



#31 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:54 AM

Well, my GM said to the overall System "Good Ideas implemented badly"... lot of skills got dumped (like the transition from Deathwatch to Black Crusade), that annoying cost-table got boiled down, Characters are created by using EP only, no more "Creation Only" resource... it addresses a few points, but creates problems at other parts. Probably the same with DH 2nd Edition^^

 

That said, I should probably take some time to post a system I made differentiating rudimentary between weapon length, allowing someone with a spear keeping a sword-fighter and bay and stuff.

 

Overall, however, in DH a system where the various skills have set costs (determined by sorcery?) along with Talents having a lot more requirements (I.E. Blademaster requiring WS 40, Swift Attack, Parry +10 and 2 Melee Weapon Trainings or something)... I think what really annoyed me about the Aptitude-System really was often the lack of prerequisites, allowing for (already mentioned) overspecialization and some quite brutal talents potentially being available very early. Yeah, I could restrict that, but that'd sort of invalidate the point of the whole system again, no?

 

Guess I'm just not a friend of players growing in power too much too fast, sort of. But I should get back to writing House Rules and Adventures for my campaign... still needs a hell lot of work... or simply sleep considering the time here :/



#32 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:16 AM

That said, I should probably take some time to post a system I made differentiating rudimentary between weapon length, allowing someone with a spear keeping a sword-fighter and bay and stuff.

 

Oh yeah - I did enjoy the Attack and Parry modifiers in DSA4. Much more elegant than in the previous 3 editions (where you still had to compare both weapons and calculate stuff). I wonder if something like this could be worked into DH ... probably a question of how much crunch people are willing to tolerate in their games.  :lol:

 

I think what really annoyed me about the Aptitude-System really was often the lack of prerequisites, allowing for (already mentioned) overspecialization and some quite brutal talents potentially being available very early. Yeah, I could restrict that, but that'd sort of invalidate the point of the whole system again, no?

Guess I'm just not a friend of players growing in power too much too fast, sort of.

 

I dunno if it'd invalidate the point - I think it would depend on just how you restrict it. In my opinion, the point of the Aptitude system is not to make every Talent or Skill available immediately, but to make it available, period. Which is also why I happen to be fine with Talent Trees, as long as they don't grow too convoluted.

 

Alternatively, it could simply be a matter of pricing, in that higher tier abilities are considerably more costly, whilst the XP your players get increase gradually the more dangerous/important the stuff is they pull off. This might have the effect that players who start it slow might get an ordinary amount of low-tier Skills and Talents early on, and take the higher costed stuff later when they receive more XP - whilst on the other hand there is always the option to get that one Talent you think you absolutely need for your character right away, if you're willing to save up enough XP ... thus missing out on other potentially useful stuff.

 

As mentioned earlier, I believe that if you have players who are fine with overspecialising, then that's a problem of the player - and they will always find ways to minmax; the system could merely attempt to govern how much ... but it'd do so to the chagrin of every other player who might like a more balanced approach, but whose character concept would be invalidated or sabotaged by stricter rules.

 

Another idea entirely for more well-rounded characters would be to "split" XP into different categories, so that players may only invest a portion of the XP they gain into combat Talents, being forced to buy at least some social and/or knowledge stuff. It could be justified for just about any Career/Role.

 

 

Oh, and: good luck, or good night.  :P



#33 Covered in Weasels

Covered in Weasels

    Member

  • Members
  • 537 posts

Posted 15 June 2014 - 03:05 PM

A quick note about psychic powers in DH2: while the system overall looks similar to the OW power rules, they massively changed the way psychic tests work in the last beta update. Basically, you choose the effective Psy Rating of each power when you cast it. A lower effective PR gives you a greater bonus on the Focus test (+10 per point under your own Psy Rating) but weakens the effects of the power. There is no Fettered power level, so there is no way to manifest powers without any chance of Psychic phenomena.

IMO, this is a massive improvement over both the original DH psychic system and the OW system. The out-of-control scaling of psychic powers (Force Barrage, that means you) has been brought in check, and the variable PR setting gives players meaningful choices when manifesting their powers. I have some disagreements with the selection of available powers: there is no Mind Probe-like in-depth mind reading power, and some of the Divination powers have very strange in-combat effects (though there is a detailed sidebar explaining how to use them narratively). The psychic disciplines in general are too combat focused in general, and I'll probably houserule in a new "utility" power for each discipline. Overall, I really like the new system and will definitely be using it in my campaign.
  • darkforce and Lynata like this

Do not ask why you serve.  Only ask how.

 

Synonymous names include: Buried in Ferrets, Enveloped by Ermine.

Currently GMing a Dark Heresy 2.0 game and inflicting untold misery upon Martin Lockheed and company.


#34 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:24 AM

That sounds quite promising... in fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

 

Simple, elegant, effective. 

 

A lack of "utility-type" powers is regrettable, especially due to my interpretation of psykers being the best game-changer - the right power at the right time can be the difference between life and death, but should you totally botch it... uhm, yeah, life and death. 

 

Then again, the new system might make it quite easy converting the powers from RT/DW/BC/OW in certain cases... simply replace "Degrees of success needed for effect X" by "effective psy-rating used", although that'd need a few adjustments depending on the actual power... maybe a conversion of 1 DoS = 2 EPR (Effective Psy-Rating) is better... increasing the difficulty of Focus Power Tests when employing higher Psy-Ratings (from... 6 or 7 upwards?) might also be necessary.



#35 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 12:38 PM

The DH2 system is probably an improvement, but in my opinion it makes the same core mistake of all the WH40KRP psychic power systems: treating powers like D&D magic spells. Rather than narrowly-focused powers, I would prefer broad categories of powers that can be 'sculpted' by the psyker for various effects, with the overall power level determined by the Psi Rating of the psyker. Hence, a 'Telepathy' category power could be used to send psychic messages over short distances at Psi Rating 1, or to dominate a mob of people at Psi Rating 5. 


  • Simsum likes this

#36 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:34 PM

The DH2 system is probably an improvement, but in my opinion it makes the same core mistake of all the WH40KRP psychic power systems: treating powers like D&D magic spells.


To be fair, that's how powers have always been treated in terms of game mechanics for all of GWs IPs.

But oh man, I can't express the depth of my agreement. I wish some clever soul out there would come up with a completely new system.
  • Adeptus-B likes this

#37 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:30 PM

hmm... maybe a system, where you get alloted a pool of points according to your psy-rating which you can then use to increase certain aspects? Like "Range, Mind Control, Information-Extracting, Number of Targets" for Telepathy, or "Lifting Power, Precision, Force, Range, Target-Count" for Telekinesis, with increasing Psy-Rating first leading to the ability to manifest more aspects of the power at the same time (or increase power of one aspect) while later allowing for interesting combinations...

 

WOuld certainly be interesting


  • Simsum likes this

#38 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:49 PM

Something like this must already exist somewhere. There's sooo many games out there ...

Perhaps GURPS? Or one of those superhero P&Ps where you can build your own powers?

 

I tried to build something (very) remotely comparable for a German Star Wars game once (probably only interesting if you can read German tho :P) ... it basically used the three "common" themes of Sense, Control and Manipulate as categories, and then branched out into a number of disciplines, which each had sub-abilities to unlock. Which you could put further points into for some bonus. However, to get really good at something specific, your character needed to know at least the basics of a connected discipline. For example, you couldn't reach the Advanced level of "Healing" without at least Basic knowledge of "Force Sight". In this way, every single ability was connected to one of the disciplines, promoting a somewhat broader skillset even for characters that would specialise in something.

 

It was still prefabricated, but the system at least felt like everything was connected/related to everything else rather than just a random assortment of spells. And you had the option of basically "inventing" new abilities by combining two disciplines as a new Force Secret - with approval of the GM, of course.

 

Maybe something like that would at least be a good starting point - unless someone manages to come up with a good idea on how to construct and properly balance a sort of toolkit that lets you go wild? I'm sure this would be the best possible solution simply for the creativity it allows the player to exert, and how it reflects the inner workings of the Warp, but it sure would be a tough job to get it right!


Edited by Lynata, 16 June 2014 - 07:57 PM.

  • Simsum likes this

#39 darkforce

darkforce

    Member

  • Members
  • 191 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:49 PM

Gonna give it a read once I've got a bit more time... pretty busy lately with work, studying and various presentations :/

 

I do know that BESM: 3rd Edition has a pretty interesting concept of building abilities, weapons, etc, allowing you to build... basically anything... comes at the price of the system being slightly bloated. 

 

Hmm, I should totally check out that World of Darkness: Mage system or something... if I remember, it has a very interesting concept of magic itself and the rulesystem might work as an inspiration... gonna see if that is of some use, but we should probably move our discussion on the Powers of the Warp and how they can be better expressed in rules to another thread, should we continue these thoughts :)


  • Simsum and Covered in Weasels like this

#40 Simsum

Simsum

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:49 PM

Something like this must already exist somewhere. There's sooo many games out there ...

Perhaps GURPS? Or one of those superhero P&Ps where you can build your own powers?

 

Ars Magica and Dresden Files, I think. GURPS doesn't really do on-the-fly magic, at least not as far as I'm aware.

 

I actually played Ars a long, long time ago and still have a couple of the books. But if I ever try to tackle this, it won't be any time soon.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS