Jump to content



Photo

Can someone please explain the appeal of aptitudes to me


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#21 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 02:00 PM

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

Exactly.

It does seem to be a worry of FFG though.

#22 Brother Orpheo

Brother Orpheo

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 02:44 PM

Don't care for Aptitudes, myself. It's a very crunchy convention but bland. I don't much care for bland.


=][=


#23 TorogTarkdacil812

TorogTarkdacil812

    Member

  • Members
  • 211 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 03:27 PM

What was said about practically creating the career fit for your character (there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...), plus I love it for cutting down lot and lot and lot of advancement tables, which could be used for other stuff, and make even such crunch-heavy system as 40kRPG feel less like an accounting handbook.


There is nothing as good as seeing rebel scum running out of a cave full of gas, right into the blasters of your battalion-–well, except sunrises, but for those you have to get up early.


#24 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 03:45 PM

 

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. 

 

What makes those two superior? Are there no other sets of choices offering something desirable at lower cost?

 

It's expected that a powergamer will always find the closest semblance of a One True Build, and any method of advancement can be turned to such person's advantage with enough theorycrafting. Still, a system with inherent limitations at least pays lip service to the idea of not allowing munchkins free rein. Which may or may not be important to you or anyone in particular. Just showing the mechanism.

 

For those who want to get rid of aptitudes, it's exceedingly easy - just ignore the ones everyone should gain at character creation and assume everything anyone could possibly want to buy is priced as if he had one corresponding aptitude. It's generally way easier to houserule the aptitude system into a flat-cost system than it is to go the other way around and impose class-specific limitations on a system inherently built for freeform advancement.


  • Tenebrae 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.


#25 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 739 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 03:46 PM

(there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...)

 

You do know this isn't actually true, right?



#26 Durandal7

Durandal7

    Member

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 03:58 PM

 

(there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...)

 

You do know this isn't actually true, right?

 

 

It is in my experience. Now if you take into account that whilst not every group will have powergamers it's not unreasonable to say that every system will have powergamers (regardless of the effectiveness of such a strategy).


  • Tenebrae and Snowman0147 like this

+++DEATHWATCH POWER CARDS FOR ALL YOUR SQUAD/SOLO AND PSYCHIC POWER NEEDS!+++

+++Is up to and including First Founding+++


#27 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 04:04 PM

Of course it is always possible to built characters that benefit more from a system than others.

 

The systems task is to make this gap as small as possible though.


Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#28 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 04:14 PM

 

(there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...)

 

You do know this isn't actually true, right?

As long as it's possible to create an effectiveness gap between characters in the system, someone will attempt it, consciously or subconsciously. I've seen it happen in FATE, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Playing FATE with a competent powergamer is pretty seamless, but playing it with a bad one quickly becomes a chore.


  • Tenebrae and Snowman0147 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.


#29 Adeptus-B

Adeptus-B

    Part-Time Super Villian

  • Members
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 04:27 PM

I think Aptitudes are a reasonable compromise between narrowly defined (sometimes too much so) 'character classes' and wide-open 'classless' systems which, in my experience, tend to result in either nonsensical jumbles ("I'm a Pilot/Demolitions Expert, whose hobbies are Animal Training and Surgery! Signiture weapon: flame thrower!") or game-breaking MinMaxed nightmares.

 

And Aptitudes tend to make some real-world sense to me: if you are from a rural area, for example, it's probably going to be easier for you to learn how to ride a horse and survive in the wilderness than someone from an urban environment. Not that the person from the city is prohibited from learning those skills; it just requires more effort. And if you are working as a sniper in the military, you probably aren't also getting training in how to hack computers- if you also want those skills, it will require extra effort.


  • yggZ, Morangias, Tenebrae and 1 other like this

#30 TorogTarkdacil812

TorogTarkdacil812

    Member

  • Members
  • 211 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 04:34 PM

 

(there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...)

 

You do know this isn't actually true, right?

 

 

I apologize for blanket statement, maybe it should be formulated "in every system I have played or gamemastered so far".  But the freshest experience is from gun-totting Irish lawyer friend of mine played in historical Victorian Era World of Darkness, which left me a bit bitter, horrified and cynical :D


There is nothing as good as seeing rebel scum running out of a cave full of gas, right into the blasters of your battalion-–well, except sunrises, but for those you have to get up early.


#31 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:07 PM

wide-open 'classless' systems which, in my experience, tend to result in either nonsensical jumbles ("I'm a Pilot/Demolitions Expert, whose hobbies are Animal Training and Surgery! Signiture weapon: flame thrower!"

I think if you have this problem, you may want to seek out a different group.


  • cps likes this

#32 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 05:59 PM

What was said about practically creating the career fit for your character (there will be powergamers and minimaxers in every system...)

 

I'm unclear what your message here is.

 

 

It's expected that a powergamer will always find the closest semblance of a One True Build

 

Can there be a one true build? Roleplaying games involve encountering such a variety of different circumstances that even in high-op games, different players will want to be good at different things. You can make Punchpriest, the Techpriest who Punches Hard Enough To Kill Carnifaxes (Canifaxi? Carnifaxus?), and I can make Orkface, the Ork Who Can Survive Being Hit By Planets, and Steve can make FaceFace, the Noble Who Can Convince Any Enemy To Switch Sides In Twelve Seconds Or Less and they're all absurdly overpowered but not identical or even measurable on the same metric. (Well, I suppose you could run the builds through hundreds of hypothetical scenarios and then grade them based on how many they could resolve, and how effectively they could resolve those, but even knowing that Orkface is the tactically optimal build wouldn't stop party members from wanting to play FaceFace, just because they like diplomacy)

 

 

 Still, a system with inherent limitations at least pays lip service to the idea of not allowing munchkins free rein. Which may or may not be important to you or anyone in particular. Just showing the mechanism.

 

 

I strongly doubt that preventing over-optimization of builds was FFG's intent with the Aptitude system, seeing as how the best builds in any system involve taking lots of related things that have good synergy, and the Aptitude system suggests doing exactly that. If anything, it's more likely to be broken than a flat rate, because it says to the player "No, don't have your assassin pick up Pilot! There's a tax on that! Just focus on Improved Knife, there's a discount on that."

 

For those who want to get rid of aptitudes, it's exceedingly easy - just ignore the ones everyone should gain at character creation and assume everything anyone could possibly want to buy is priced as if he had one corresponding aptitude. It's generally way easier to houserule the aptitude system into a flat-cost system than it is to go the other way around and impose class-specific limitations on a system inherently built for freeform advancement.

 

 

This is a fair point, but I'm still not convinced that class-based systems really add anything.

 

I think Aptitudes are a reasonable compromise between narrowly defined (sometimes too much so) 'character classes' and wide-open 'classless' systems which, in my experience, tend to result in either nonsensical jumbles ("I'm a Pilot/Demolitions Expert, whose hobbies are Animal Training and Surgery! Signiture weapon: flame thrower!") or game-breaking MinMaxed nightmares.

That sounds more like a problem with the player/GM, as mentioned. Also, how is that jumble nonsensical? Clearly, they were a veterinarian with a yen for tactical explosives before they joined the air force! Lots of people do it! And it's the 40k universe, so clearly their plane just has heavy flamers instead of heavy bolters! :P

 

And Aptitudes tend to make some real-world sense to me: if you are from a rural area, for example, it's probably going to be easier for you to learn how to ride a horse and survive in the wilderness than someone from an urban environment. Not that the person from the city is prohibited from learning those skills; it just requires more effort. And if you are working as a sniper in the military, you probably aren't also getting training in how to hack computers- if you also want those skills, it will require extra effort.

 

That's convenience, rather than aptitude though. It's easier for me, as a rural person, to learn to ride horses because if I ever want to ride a horse I can walk out the door and shout "Hey, you! You with the horses! Could you teach me?" It's not that being born in the open sky gives me a secret spiritual bond with horses so that I can master the art of riding in half the time.


Edited by susanbrindle, 28 December 2013 - 06:00 PM.


#33 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 06:12 PM

This is a fair point, but I'm still not convinced that class-based systems really add anything.

I'll just have to repeat myself I guess:

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.


Now, since FFG seems to be stuck with this horrible idea that we must have classes/careers/roles/whatever, aptitudes get my vote for being the lesser evil.

#34 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 739 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:14 PM

And here I thought we were all here to provide feedback on a new game.



#35 Covered in Weasels

Covered in Weasels

    Member

  • Members
  • 445 posts

Posted 28 December 2013 - 10:20 PM

I often give my players the opportunity to purchase a skill at discounted price based on in-game experiences. For example, if the Mystic checks out several books on codes and ciphers from the library and spends some time studying them, I'll let him buy Scholastic Lore (Cryptography) at half price. The Warrior might be able to pick up the rudiments of Tech-Use at a discount after he saves an Explorator Magos from certain death and spends time learning some basic prayers to the Omnissiah. I use this technique to let players craft their character advances beyond what their Aptitudes normally encourage. While it works especially well with Lore skills, it can really work with just about anything, though I don't let people buy combat skills/talents for balance reasons.

I would like it if some similar guidelines were included in the final DH2 rulebook. I like to reward my players for spending actual game time improving their skills, and I think an official system for doing this will help creative players bring their character to life without lagging too far behind the min-maxed characters in terms of XP. Perhaps a significant time investment towards learning a skill would allow players to buy skills as if they had one extra associated Aptitude?
  • segara82, Tenebrae and Myrion 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.


#36 Cail

Cail

    Member

  • Members
  • 371 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 03:39 AM

And here I thought we were all here to provide feedback on a new game.

 

Then you are mistaken, we are here to provide feedback on a new edition of an existing game.


  • Snowman0147 likes this
  • Intellect is the Understanding of Knowledge.
  • Sentience is the Basest Form of Intellect.
  • Understanding is the True Path to Comprehension.
  • Comprehension is the Key to all Things

 


#37 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 04:40 AM

 

And here I thought we were all here to provide feedback on a new game.

 

Then you are mistaken, we are here to provide feedback on a new edition of an existing game.

 

 

We are here to improve Only War ;)


  • Snowman0147 likes this

Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#38 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 902 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 08:01 AM

 

 

And here I thought we were all here to provide feedback on a new game.

 

Then you are mistaken, we are here to provide feedback on a new edition of an existing game.

 

 

We are here to improve Only War ;)

 

 

Well, since each game in the 40K RPG line has been an improvement on the previous game, for once I would say you're not wrong in that statement.


Edited by LuciusT, 29 December 2013 - 08:01 AM.

  • Adeptus-B and Snowman0147 like this

#39 GauntZero

GauntZero

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,025 posts

Posted 29 December 2013 - 08:13 AM

As long as this improvement is a larger step than the one between BC and OW, I am fine with that.


  • LuciusT and susanbrindle like this

Respect your brothers and you will also be respected.


#40 seanpp

seanpp

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:56 AM

Well, just for flavor if nothing else, I'll go ahead and post since I see merit in those horrible class/career systems.   ;)

 

My group noticed a few 'disconnects' in the new char-gen system, for example the Tech-Priest having the Social Aptitude due to his Role, that otherwise seemed a good fit.  Obviously, some groups might have reacted with, "Wow, how creative", whereas mine reacted with, "Huh?  That's kind of off."  It's possible for a Tech-Priest to be a charismatic preacher or a nimble dancer...I guess.  But my group prefers them sturdy, mechanical & cogitating.

 

I know, I know...Adepts could be silent blade/blood-worshipping killing machines....but my group prefers those to be assassins.  I know boring!  <yawn>  Geez, what are you going to do with us?   :P

 

Imperial Guard could be great at languages and terrible at fighting....but, really?  I think the class/career system has its merits.

 

I like a system with 'paths', if that term is more palatable, but allows some differentiation - I think that's what the Aptitudes system attempts to do.  Not saying it's perfect, but I think it's reasonable (as long as you don't mind some of your Tech-Priests being oddly sociable).






© 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