Jump to content



Photo

Can someone please explain the appeal of aptitudes to me


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:20 AM

All I see is a system designed to encourage cookie cutter characters and actively discourage unique, interesting concepts.

 

I've never seen a need for aptitudes. I see nothing that makes them better than flat costed advances, honestly.



#2 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:31 AM

A lot of people like (and need) some kind of cookie cutter.

 

Nothing wrong about that. They want some orientation and guideline.

 

And the aptitudes, roles, backgrounds and homeworlds help with that.


Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#3 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:34 AM

The thing is anyone who wants to break out of the 'typical' character build suggested by their aptitudes is taxed pretty significantly for it; if you're buying advances outside of your optimal aptitude setup, you're paying far more, meaning you'll soon start to lag behind the rest of the party, assuming they're picking more optimal advances.

 

I think any system that can create that sort of void between PCs is a bad one, honestly.


  • yggZ likes this

#4 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 664 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:44 AM

i agree that the current Aptitude System is very limiting to the characters. It worked in OW because every character was a slightly different flavor of the same concept but DH doesn't work that way and the system can't handle the diversity.

 

Maybe increasing the number of starting Aptitudes would solve the problem. Say, 10 Aptitudes instead of only 7.


Edited by AtoMaki, 28 December 2013 - 05:47 AM.

  • Tom Cruise likes this

#5 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:46 AM

Maybe this gets better if in future supplements further backgrounds, roles and homeworlds are included.

 

Then you are more free to build your aptitude combination of choice.


Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#6 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:47 AM

I'd rather have a game that supports creative players from the outset.



#7 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 06:01 AM

Basically, the aptitude system is still a class-(career-, profession-)based system, with the bonus of being able to assemble your own class from prefabricated elements.

 

As for comparing it to a flat-costed open advancement, I'd wager the thinking goes a bit like this: if someone wants what you call a "unique, interesting character", chances are he doesn't care much about his "build" so much, and thus will be willing to pay a little extra. On the other hand, locking certain advancements behind higher exp costs will deter optimizers from grabbing all the best choices instantly, and at the end of the day, having a few cookie-cutter builds is better than having One Build To Rule Them All.


  • Soloman, Tenebrae, svstrauser and 6 others like 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.


#8 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 938 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 06:17 AM

Morangias pretty much nailed it.

 

I would just like to add that completely open systems abound out there, often mechanically superior to what the 40KRPGs ca become without being fundamentally re-written. And given the flexibilty of eg. GURPS it should be entirely possible to "build" a 40k setting in GURPS. It would would take a few hours/days with GURPS Vehicles and a spread sheet.

 

So why don't we?

 

I've already done most of that work, but I have my reasons. What are yours?



#9 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 06:24 AM

I think thats mainly a question of your RPG philosophy.

 

I for myself dont like GURPS at all, and I think a certain framework doesnt harm.

 

I also think there is rarely a "mechanically superior" system in general. Its mainly a matter of taste.

 

There are, of course, some really mechanically bad ones out there - but 40k is none of them.


Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#10 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 664 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 06:41 AM

At the end of the day, having a few cookie-cutter builds is better than having One Build To Rule Them All.

 

Uh... But we do have superior builds: Forge World/Outcast/Assassin(BS) and Hive World/Arbites(Defense)/Desperado. It just happens that the others are cookie-cutters and/or one-trick-ponies. 



#11 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 08:12 AM

Aptitudes are a step up from what we had before and FFG tried somthing else with beta 1 and it didn't take so it looks like the system has peeked.



#12 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 08:13 AM

If the system has peaked and it's still performing inadequately, maybe we need to scrap it?

 

I seriously don't see the flaw in a flat costed advance scheme. So many other systems do it without issue.



#13 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 740 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 08:23 AM

You do realize the characteristic and skill tables presented in the original beta was effectively a table of costs derived from assumed aptitudes, right? Talent costs were flat but Skills came roughly from implied aptitudes.



#14 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 09:59 AM

You know I was about to say "Well at least it's better than the old Career Path system!" but now that I think about it, uh, yeah, why not just remove that entirely? Can't we just have a Shadowrun style system where you buy whatever you think your character needs for the same point cost as everyone else?


  • LuciusT, Tenebrae and Tom Cruise like this

#15 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:22 AM

As much as I like shadowrun, this wide scale of flexibility and freedom soon comes with a loss of identity.

 

A lot of players like to have a certain picture in their head for their character. And even more important - for their comrades characters.

 

I really prefer to remember, that Cyrus the Outcast Assassin and Luke, the Forgeworld Arbites Seeker are with me, than something too specific that only exists in the other players head (especially if he plays one of these so-so-deep-and-mysterious characters).


Edited by GauntZero, 28 December 2013 - 10:25 AM.

  • BrotherBoil and seanpp like this

Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#16 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 902 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:29 AM

Personally, I see no appeal to the aptitude system at all. It's overly complex, restrictive and doesn't add anything of merit to the game. However, it is still a marginal improvement over the godawful Career system of the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch. I would prefer a completely open character advancement system. The Homeworld/Background/Role templates are useful for guiding character creation but I really don't like how Role defines character advancement.



#17 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 938 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 12:16 PM

I agree that I prefer fully free systems. Many complain that this leads to cookie-cutter characters though.

 

However I find the aptitude system to be fairly simple and to be honest, if we must have classes/careers/roles/whatever, then aptitudes are a much better way of doing them than that godawful Career system of the Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch.


  • yggZ likes this

#18 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 12:58 PM

A lot of players like to have a certain picture in their head for their character. And even more important - for their comrades characters.

 

I really prefer to remember, that Cyrus the Outcast Assassin and Luke, the Forgeworld Arbites Seeker are with me, than something too specific that only exists in the other players head (especially if he plays one of these so-so-deep-and-mysterious characters).

 

Does the Aptitude system really achieve that? It seems like you're identifying people by their background and roles rather than by their Aptitudes. The Aptitude system says "If you're playing an assassin, don't take too many not-assassin talents" but that's a good rule of thumb for any character build. It'd be quite disingenuous for a player to say "I'd like to make a psyker!" and then not raise willpower or learn any psychic powers. Why do we need a ruleset specifically to prevent that? Can't we have Backgrounds and Roles without Aptitudes?

 

Also, I'm really curious how freedom leads to identical characters? I mean, with flat rates, my Assassin is as likely to pick up hacking as a secondary gig (to fit the infiltration theme) as he is to pick up psychic powers (for a more mystical vibe) as he is to pick up investigation-related skills (for that hunter-of-prey vibe). With Aptitudes, I'm penalized for picking up any of them.


Edited by susanbrindle, 28 December 2013 - 01:04 PM.

  • segara82 likes this

#19 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 740 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 01:24 PM


Also, I'm really curious how freedom leads to identical characters? I mean, with flat rates, my Assassin is as likely to pick up hacking as a secondary gig (to fit the infiltration theme) as he is to pick up psychic powers (for a more mystical vibe) as he is to pick up investigation-related skills (for that hunter-of-prey vibe). With Aptitudes, I'm penalized for picking up any of them.

 

 

I think the concern is if that all advances cost the same amount for everyone than everyone in the party will build beastly combat monsters and ruin the game.

 

It's not a criticism I see as realistic. FATE is built like this and definitely does not have this problem.



#20 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 01:49 PM

 

I think the concern is if that all advances cost the same amount for everyone than everyone in the party will build beastly combat monsters and ruin the game.

 

It's not a criticism I see as realistic. FATE is built like this and definitely does not have this problem.

 

 

Me neither. I mean, if everyone wanted to play a combat master, they could! Make sure to get combat Aptitudes, and you're done.






© 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