Jump to content



Photo

Proposed New Stage in Character Creation


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Plushy

Plushy

    Member

  • Members
  • 810 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 08:09 PM

With the reboot, there's a lot of discussion about what to keep. Most seem to be in favor of the new character creation system, with the multiple stages, though with some revision so as not to make characters so similar.

 

I like that system quite a lot, but I see within it a chance to fix one of my most niggling issues with Dark Heresy: "why were you recruited?"

 

As presented, DH had your cell as little more than a group of bumbling rookies in their fields working for the most secret organization in the Imperium of Man, for what seemed like very little reason. This was somewhat fixed with Background Packages, but I believe such a thing should be incorporated into character creation.

 

This is not to boost the power level, but simply give explanation. You would still be a lowly Administratum scribe or a rookie to the Guard, but you would be the scribe that stumbled across some critical error in the manifestos - one of a cult siphoning off war materiel - or the only recruit in your squad to have survived a massacre that really should've killed you.

 

Thoughts?


  • yggZ and Kiton like this

My apologies to anyone I offend; FFG staff, playtesters, and forum users alike. 

 

Please check out my Dark Heresy to Only War conversion! You can find it on the main Only War forum. I'm always looking for more people to playtest it!


#2 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 09:02 PM

I totally agree, it adds a very important aspect to the character concept AND would diversify starting characters a lot (which is much needed).



#3 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:55 AM

If we have another stage I would like to see ether a build stage so you can have a sneeky Death Worlder or a dumb mussel Void Born, something like the background packages from DH1 or some other optinal step.



#4 MaliciousOnion

MaliciousOnion

    Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 03:52 AM

I doubt something like background packages will be added - they were pretty messy and suffered from massive balance issues in 1e. I don't think we need another step in the character creation process either. Instead, FFG should focus on balancing what they've got, and adding in either/or options to the current skills/talents granted, making those choices more interesting. If you want to explain how your character came to be in the Inquisition, that's something you can always detail in your character bio.



#5 PencilBoy99

PencilBoy99

    Member

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 09:09 AM

I was going to ask this as a required question for character creation. Why did the Inquisitor recruit you? 

 

If we were going to make this a step of character creation, how would we reflect it mechanically? For example, your "why" --> bonus, e.g., "you found something important the Inquisitor needed" = Lore + xxx



#6 Kniightt

Kniightt

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 09:13 AM

We could turn divination into this. It was always pretty weird...



#7 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:39 AM

I think instead of a 4th step to add character diversity, we could simply go back to the A or B choices of the other games. The only problem I could see is that skills and talents come from your Background while their costs come from your Role, so you'd have the problem where choices are a cheap option vs an expensive one. 



#8 Nimsim

Nimsim

    Member

  • Members
  • 478 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 02:27 PM

Not to mention the fact that in the last iteration of the beta you could have starting characters with up to 800xp differences in starting talents and skills...



#9 Cogniczar

Cogniczar

    Member

  • Members
  • 254 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 06:31 PM

would this be a mechanical thing with rules adjoined? 

 

Having a pre-fabricated table for the Acolytes to be a part of a cell is a cool idea, but it shouldn't have any tangible effects in my opinion. Otherwise, I'd agree it'd be useful for quick-gens. 



#10 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,995 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 09:46 AM

AN additional step regarding the Motivation to join the Inquisition would be great. SImilar to the Motivations in RT.

 

Do you do it for the money ?

 

For faith and duty ?

 

For glory and honor ?

 

Maybe because you are forced to ?

 

Would add a really interesting layer to the character.


Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#11 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:06 PM

I see no reason that needs a mechanical stage and I would hate to see players picking a Motivation for the stat boost.



#12 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 05:55 PM

I'm all for tweaking the process of character generation. As it stands, it's not really living up to it's inherent potential, as Backgrounds appear to shoehorn characters about as much as Careers Paths did, except you get to fiddle with the costs of future experience spendings separately.

 

However, I don't like either "motivation" or "why you were chosen" as the extra mechanically defined step, as either of those would sacrifice the flexibility in defining what actually makes an acolyte. To explain: in some games I've played/run, players were asked by the GM to come up with something that got them the attention of an Inquisitor. In others, the reason for the Inquisition to call upon them was never explained, and sometimes even ended up as something of an ongoing mystery. In others yet, it was actually a major plot point, as the Inquisitor chose those particular Acolytes for very specific (and often nepharious) purposes. Whatever option was used, it did affect the feel of the game significantly, and helped reinforce the idea that the Inquisition is as diverse as it is mysterious. I feel that turning it into a rules-enforced choice would put a straitjacket on the number of stories that can be told about this aspect of Acolyte life.


  • cps likes this

There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#13 MaliciousOnion

MaliciousOnion

    Member

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:38 PM

I'm all for tweaking the process of character generation. As it stands, it's not really living up to it's inherent potential, as Backgrounds appear to shoehorn characters about as much as Careers Paths did, except you get to fiddle with the costs of future experience spendings separately.

 

However, I don't like either "motivation" or "why you were chosen" as the extra mechanically defined step, as either of those would sacrifice the flexibility in defining what actually makes an acolyte. To explain: in some games I've played/run, players were asked by the GM to come up with something that got them the attention of an Inquisitor. In others, the reason for the Inquisition to call upon them was never explained, and sometimes even ended up as something of an ongoing mystery. In others yet, it was actually a major plot point, as the Inquisitor chose those particular Acolytes for very specific (and often nepharious) purposes. Whatever option was used, it did affect the feel of the game significantly, and helped reinforce the idea that the Inquisition is as diverse as it is mysterious. I feel that turning it into a rules-enforced choice would put a straitjacket on the number of stories that can be told about this aspect of Acolyte life.

 

I agree. As much as the Rogue Trader character creation system is lauded, I have found it limiting at times, in that I have an idea for a character that doesn't fit into the options presented and so instead have to settle for something else.

 

The 2e Roles choice is perhaps the best part of the new character creation process, as it's almost entirely up to the player exactly what "Seeker" or "Mystic" entails for their particular character. (On a side note - this is why I don't think Sanctioned should be tied to Mystic, it constrains the role.)



#14 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:56 AM

Ok so what do we need to fix with the system as it is?



#15 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,174 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 03:09 AM

Background defines your character way too much, leading to two characters from the same background being near identical.


  • Morangias likes this

#16 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:17 AM

Background defines your character way too much, leading to two characters from the same background being near identical.

This. I initially thought the problem only applies to the AAT background due to Sanctioning, but that's only because I failed at reading comprehension and AAT was the only thing that caught my eye back then.

 

As it stands, all Backgrounds shoehorn people into pretty much the same character concepts 1e careers did:

 

Arbites - you're a shotgun-wielding "field agent"

AdMech - you're a Tech-Priest (admittedly this one may be less offensive than some due to AdMech being 99% tech-priests anyway)

Administratum - you're a wise guy, and that's pretty much it.

AAT - you're a psyker, except you still have to choose another option to really be one.

Ministorum - you're a priest, 'nuff said.

IG - you're the bog-standard, foot-slogging, cannon-fodder conscript

Outcast - you're... actually more of a gang enforcer than the quite social Scum of 1e, but still pretty limited.

 

Then, you pick your role, which does almost nothing at this stage of character creation (there's simply too little exp, considering new costs, for the role to really make much of a difference), and thus you're left with a very standard character with maybe a minor twist due to buying one atypical skill thanks to the Role.

 

I think more mechanical weight should be tied to the role to facilitate more diverse takes on the background.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#17 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:04 AM

So step 1 is to have some x or y choices in the backgrounds. Is step 2 more xp? If OW like aptitudes are coming in then you could say each role has x number of aptitudes and must inclued whatever, you may then pick your remaining aptitudes from those options listed for your home world background and role.

Is it worth droping stats back to 20+2d10 to balance the xp?



#18 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:56 AM

I really hope they don't bring back Aptitudes and just stick with the cost by Role table. They're a nice idea, but figuring out what each advance costs is a pain.



#19 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:24 AM

I actually prefer Aptitudes to the new cost table. They allow for more nuance, and the table strikes me as a very inelegant solution.

 

Back when I was resigned to not caring about 2e ever again, I was pondering stealing the character creation scheme and slapping Aptitudes on it in the following manner:

 

Home World - two Aptitudes, Characteristic only;

Background - two Aptitudes, non-Characteristic;

Role - three Aptitudes, whichever fit best.

 

As usual, repeated Aptitudes would be converted into Characteristic Aptitudes of player choice.


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#20 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 693 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 07:28 AM

I actually prefer Aptitudes to the new cost table. They allow for more nuance, and the table strikes me as a very inelegant solution.

 

Back when I was resigned to not caring about 2e ever again, I was pondering stealing the character creation scheme and slapping Aptitudes on it in the following manner:

 

Home World - two Aptitudes, Characteristic only;

Background - two Aptitudes, non-Characteristic;

Role - three Aptitudes, whichever fit best.

 

As usual, repeated Aptitudes would be converted into Characteristic Aptitudes of player choice.

If FFG put together a spreadsheet you could use to input your Aptitudes and spit out a printable table of advance costs I would be totally on board with this. As OW stands now we have to flip back and forth from the rulebook and our character sheets to figure out the proper cost of whatever and it's kind of cumbersome.






© 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