Jump to content



Photo

Can someone please explain the appeal of aptitudes to me


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#81 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 09:25 PM

Yeah, I much prefer the idea of backgrounds giving you your starting skills, talents and etc along with some flavourful, exclusive benefits. But that's where they should end. Backgrounds should represent where you've been, not where you're going.

 

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.


  • Fgdsfg likes this

#82 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 05:42 AM

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't.  If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting.  But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.
 
I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter.  A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story.  That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story.  "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws.  Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting.  A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun.  Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun.  The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun.  Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose.
 
The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws.  When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun.  That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat.  If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive.  If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.
 
These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter.

 
I agree with the premise - that backgrounds should matter - but not the conclusion. The problem with the way it works in DH2 is that it makes it very hard to be a very wide range of very plausible characters. Like Tom Cruise says here above, Backgrounds should reflect where you've been, not where you're going.

Essentially, the way Aptitudes are doled out in DH2 - not an inherent problem with Aptitudes themselves - means that to be an effective character, you have to be one combination of a very limited set of backgrounds or roles and so on, no matter what actual role you want to fill or what kind of character you portray.

This is why I prefer Archetypes (no matter what we choose to call them; I prefer Archetype since it's more open than a definite role/in-world position) as in Black Crusade or Only War; it makes it easier to be a scoundrel from a Forge World, or from a Fortress World without being pigeon-holed into being a knuckledragger.

I am always of the opinion that rules should be moulded to be representative of the fluff, in a manner that is internally consistent with the universe portrayed. With this basic assumption in the back of my head, which may be debatable to many of you, I cannot defend a system that effectively punishes very reasonable fluff-consistent characters.

Take the Highborn Homeworld, for example. It gives you the Fellowship Aptitude. Why on Earth would every single Highborn have an Aptitude for Fellowship? What if you want to play a Malfian Noble? What if I want to depict a sleezebag seneschal? Or the Voidborn Homeworld. Are Voidborn all intellectually gifted?

And for Backgrounds, everyone from the Imperial Guard gets Fieldcraft. That's a big one. And it makes little sense. For all we know, the guardsman I want to make had exactly zero fieldtime. If I'm Highborn Homeworld and Imperial Guard Background, I would even have difficulty explaining how the hell I ended up with the necessary fieldtime to display an aptitude for Fieldcraft.

Aptitudes are not things you pick up or things you train. They are the things you are Apt at, that you do well, and they should determine - just like in real life - where you end up, and how your lot in life is ultimately interpreted. With that, I am saying that it's much more reasonable to have Aptitudes doled out more or less only as a part of your Career/Archetype/Specialization/Whatever, and not be overly confused with the backgrounds of the character as much as it is an intrinsic part of who you are; your aptitudes are why you ended up in the role you are now, either because you capitalized on your skills or because someone else noticed that you were good at it.

There are not many Aptitudes in the game, and while I'm not inherently opposed to giving out extra Aptitudes during creation, they should not be so closely tied to your actual backgrounds or origin as they are.

I say what I have always said. Basic rule for Aptitudes: You get a number of Aptitudes as part of your Archetype and then you get to pick one Characteristics Aptitude and one Professional Aptitude and you are allowed to switch each out for any other Aptitude of the same kind if you so desire.

This allows you to make atypical characters fulfilling specific archetypes or roles, while also maintaining limitations to any single character and prevent complete specialization and/or min/maxing.

Yeah, I much prefer the idea of backgrounds giving you your starting skills, talents and etc along with some flavourful, exclusive benefits. But that's where they should end. Backgrounds should represent where you've been, not where you're going.

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

The first part I complete agree with - but the second part, I just don't see the issue. The chance of that happening is very small, and is only an issue if a character chooses to consistently and constantly take Skills and Talents outside of their Aptitude range.

At that point, one has to ask themselves why they chose that kind of character to begin with.

And I might sound just as broken of a record as you, but; this is an issue with DH2 - not with the Aptitude system itself. DH2 has a quite small range of "Roles", where to make the most of the Aptitude system you also have to take the "correct" Homeworld and Background choice. This is terrible design on the character creation side of things - especially when they then throw even more Aptitudes at you as part of in-book suggested Elite Advancements (terrible, terrible, terrible idea).

But it's not the Aptitudes that cause that, but simply character creation seemingly not taking into account just how much of a deciding factor what Aptitudes you get actually are as to what character you can depict without being taxed into submission.

Edited by Fgdsfg, 05 January 2014 - 05:50 AM.

  • segara82, Tom Cruise and seanpp like this

Real men earn their fun

Unified WH40kRP Ruleset Homebrew - Personal Notes
Talking Necrons. Dreadknights. Centurion Armour. Sororitas-murdering Grey Knights.
These things are dumb and do not exist. This is non-negotiable and undebatable.


#83 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 09:59 AM

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

..and I feel like a broken record trying to explain that a truely balanced system is a pipe dream and that imbalances of character effectiveness will occur, regardless. Aptitudes just change where they are.



#84 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:03 AM

Most imbalances occur in the minutiae; the individual talents and skills themselves. Whereas this is an entire system built in a way that promotes imbalance between PCs. I'd say it's a much more major issue than the minor imbalances you're always going to get in any RPG.



#85 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 868 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:13 AM

 

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

..and I feel like a broken record trying to explain that a truely balanced system is a pipe dream and that imbalances of character effectiveness will occur, regardless. Aptitudes just change where they are.

 

 

True balance is impossible, therefore we should not strive to build a balanced system? Is that where you're going with this?



#86 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:18 AM

Most imbalances occur in the minutiae; the individual talents and skills themselves. Whereas this is an entire system built in a way that promotes imbalance between PCs. I'd say it's a much more major issue than the minor imbalances you're always going to get in any RPG.

Please understand: I too prefer flat-costed systems.

 

BUT!

The aptitude system isn't bad, since it allows for specialisation of characters (which some people feel is very important) while still allowing characters to advance outside of their specialties.

 

It appears that the designers of this game favour some form of class/career/discipline/whatever structure. They've invested a lot of time in figuring out what rewards should be differentiate these elements. I don't care for them as written and honestly consider them worse than surpefluous, but I'm not designing the game.

 

Considering that this type of structure has been decided to be a design feature, the aptitude system are about the best compromise between structure and freedom that we can get. Like I've been trying to explain since page 1 of this thread.

 

cps: Have you actually read the posts I've made in this thread?


  • yggZ, Felenis and Fgdsfg like this

#87 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 868 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 11:54 AM

Yes. And from what I can tell we have exactly opposite opinions on how a game should be designed. I've asked you several questions that I haven't seen answered.



#88 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 04:39 PM

Yes. And from what I can tell we have exactly opposite opinions on how a game should be designed. I've asked you several questions that I haven't seen answered.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed those. Could you please post those again?



#89 Felenis

Felenis

    Member

  • Members
  • 333 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 04:46 PM

I'd like to see every home world and background have the choice between at least 2 aptitudes
  • yggZ, Cail, Adeptus Ineptus and 1 other like this

#90 Cail

Cail

    Member

  • Members
  • 391 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 03:38 AM

^ This. Basically the background packages should offer multiple choices for aptitudes that are still fitting.


  • dava100 and Lok Hambrock like 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

 


#91 seanpp

seanpp

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:27 AM

 

 

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent. 

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't.  If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting.  But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

 

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter.  A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story.  That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story.  "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws.  Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting.  A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun.  Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun.  The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun.  Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose.

 

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws.  When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun.  That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat.  If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive.  If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

 

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter.

 

 

You do realize there are ways to highlight a character's background story without punishing the player, right?

 

Your last sentence is the height of ridiculousness. Character advancement schemes and background benefits can be totally separate items in a game. Dark Heresy 2 has chosen to combine them, but it is a fallacy to say that equal advancement for all invalidates a character's background.

 

Do you realize how insane it is to say, "Oh, you want Skill X? Only Backgrounds 2, 5, and 6 are good at Skill X. Since you took Background 4 you have to pay double the XP Steve does to get Skill X." There are better ways to make a game.

 

"Highlighting" a character's background is not what I'm talking about - and "Punishing the player" certainly has nothing to do with it.  The point is telling a story.  If you "highlight" that background/story and then move on with no one much worrying about it from there...well now you know that you don't really want PC backgrounds/stories to matter much in your game.  That's fine - it's your game.  I want PC's stories to actually matter in my game.  One big factor of that story not being just lip-service but actually mattering comes from the system.

 

Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much.  And that's fine - to each his own.  In my game they matter, so I want a system where they matter.  "Equal advancement", practically speaking, greatly reduces the meaningfulness of a PC's background & story.  If a PC is a Guardsman one month, then really more of a surgeon the next month, suddenly more of an Adept the next month & a Tech-Priest after that - IMO, that's not a story...that's a video game.  (Hey - and I like video games...just not in my Role-Playing Games. :P )

 

Why is it "insane" for PCs to have a "role" in a Role-Playing Game?  Your example of "Skill X" and "Backgrounds 2, 5 and 6" sounds like the building of a wargaming army, which isn't what this is about.  After the player chooses a path for his character, that character is not then limited because of an army-point-total ceiling, it's limited because of the story that that player chose to tell with that character...strengths, limitations, flaws & all.


  • yggZ and Fgdsfg like this

#92 MagnusPihl

MagnusPihl

    Member

  • Members
  • 219 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:00 AM

There's no problem with a PC having a role in a role-playing game. The problem is that you're forcing the PC to have one of X very narrow, utterly clichéd roles. If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

 

I'm all for background stories having an effect on the system (though I don't think it's strictly necessary - a group can make stories matter as much or as little as they wish), but then I'd want it to be my story that had an effect - not a generic one written by FFG.



#93 Brother Orpheo

Brother Orpheo

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:26 AM

 

 

 

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent. 

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't.  If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting.  But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

 

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter.  A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story.  That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story.  "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws.  Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting.  A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun.  Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun.  The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun.  Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose.

 

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws.  When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun.  That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat.  If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive.  If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

 

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter.

 

 

You do realize there are ways to highlight a character's background story without punishing the player, right?

 

Your last sentence is the height of ridiculousness. Character advancement schemes and background benefits can be totally separate items in a game. Dark Heresy 2 has chosen to combine them, but it is a fallacy to say that equal advancement for all invalidates a character's background.

 

Do you realize how insane it is to say, "Oh, you want Skill X? Only Backgrounds 2, 5, and 6 are good at Skill X. Since you took Background 4 you have to pay double the XP Steve does to get Skill X." There are better ways to make a game.

 

"Highlighting" a character's background is not what I'm talking about - and "Punishing the player" certainly has nothing to do with it.  The point is telling a story.  If you "highlight" that background/story and then move on with no one much worrying about it from there...well now you know that you don't really want PC backgrounds/stories to matter much in your game.  That's fine - it's your game.  I want PC's stories to actually matter in my game.  One big factor of that story not being just lip-service but actually mattering comes from the system.

 

Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much.  And that's fine - to each his own.  In my game they matter, so I want a system where they matter.  "Equal advancement", practically speaking, greatly reduces the meaningfulness of a PC's background & story.  If a PC is a Guardsman one month, then really more of a surgeon the next month, suddenly more of an Adept the next month & a Tech-Priest after that - IMO, that's not a story...that's a video game.  (Hey - and I like video games...just not in my Role-Playing Games. :P )

 

Why is it "insane" for PCs to have a "role" in a Role-Playing Game?  Your example of "Skill X" and "Backgrounds 2, 5 and 6" sounds like the building of a wargaming army, which isn't what this is about.  After the player chooses a path for his character, that character is not then limited because of an army-point-total ceiling, it's limited because of the story that that player chose to tell with that character...strengths, limitations, flaws & all.

 

Sounds like we need more roles, more permutations of Aptitude sets. Which is what splats are for, yah? 

 

I agree; the player is choosing which role he/she best thinks fits the PC concept. Aptitudes then focus that concept in a particular direction. So, if you don't want to go that direction, choose another role.

 

Aptitudes still need going over, though. The ratios between them and what they make available for access are horribly wonky.   


  • Fgdsfg and seanpp like this

=][=


#94 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 673 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:28 AM

If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

 

Uh, this example is actually pretty bad because the Assassin is one of the "multi-role roles" so two Assassins can differ greatly depending on the players' choices. 

 

The Hierophant, the Warrior and the Sage are much better to represent cookie-cutter characters. 



#95 MagnusPihl

MagnusPihl

    Member

  • Members
  • 219 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:05 AM

 

If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

 

Uh, this example is actually pretty bad because the Assassin is one of the "multi-role roles" so two Assassins can differ greatly depending on the players' choices. 

 

The Hierophant, the Warrior and the Sage are much better to represent cookie-cutter characters. 

 

 

Warrior, then. It really makes no difference, though - the point is that someone else has decided what my backstory is for me. In that case, I'm not particularly interested in having it make an impact. Whether Assassins have 1 or 10 potential backstories is just decorating the turd.



#96 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 868 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 08:48 AM


Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much.

 

 

Go play a FATE game and try telling me this with any modicum of honesty.



#97 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 363 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 12:42 PM

As someone else pointed out, the Hammer of the Emperor sourcebook made it possible to "re-class", gaining an entirely new set of Aptitudes.  That one decision by itself largely invalidated any reason for having an Aptitude system in place.  The decision is a min-maxers dream, and only those who plan their characters and optimize are truly rewarded by the re-class function...thus making it an overall toxic system for casual gamers and non-optimizers.  Aptitudes in the OW system are added complexity merely for the sake of complexity, and rewards those who game the system the most.  While that is true in any system, the degree of separation is a bit too severe for my taste.

 

I am currently a player in a campaign where we still run with Aptitudes, but in a relaxed fashion.  I am also GMing a campaign in which 75% of my players are brand new RPers, and the fourth player has had no prior experience with WH40K RPGs.  As a GM, I instantly made the decision to strip out Aptitudes completely and just adjust XP gain accordingly.  Even after just a few game sessions I am confident that the decision was the right one for my group.

 

But let's examine what Aptitudes are and what their purpose is:  As someone mentioned, its just a variation on a class based system.  It achieves this by "rewarding" a certain build path or character progression by allowing those attributes, skills and talents associated with that role to be purchased much cheaper than would otherwise be the case.  The "reward" is so significant however, that all it really does is PUNISH deviation. 

 

So, what you have is a system that is intended as a guidance for players (to build the character they want) which in actuality becomes a strait jacket.  This is the reality of the system from a design point of view.

 

Now, I am not necessarily condemning this sort of system, or those who like it.  I still enjoy a good run of Pathfinder from time to time.  But just because WH40K RPG dresses itself in a sexy new package in a compelling and popular setting, it still just a variation on Chainmail.

 

Personally, I think a game like Dark Heresy can do better than just the usual.  By their nature, Acolytes may start as one thing but are massively changed by the experiences they undergo.  A class based system has serious difficulty incorporating such character progression in an organic and natural way.

 

Rather than a strait jacket, I would love to see DH give player development guidance, backed up by GM/Player co-operative narrative rewards such as Recognition, Reputation and Control.  Recognition would be short term narrative gains that could be converted into various kinds of Reputation (Combat, Investigation, knowledge, etc) that would grant access to various services, NPCs, equipment, backup, etc in the purview of the Inquisition.  At the ultimate apex of this pyramid would be control:  Where the PCs themselves begin to master their destinies and exert control on the world around them. 

 

Again, just brainstormed ideas...but something I would rather see than just a re-hashed Aptitudes system.  I know that won't come to pass, but currently when identifying characters you would say things like Feral World Assassin.  Everyone now has a pretty good idea of the template, and "minor" details like name, appearance, personality are no longer really important.  Instead I would love to have a character described in terms like:  Osric Thrykian, Purger of the Pale Throng (combat rep), Stalker of the Dusk Dragon (stealth rep) and Illuminatus of the Unclean (rep for high Forbidden Lore:  Mutants, Heretics, Psykers).

 

Just ideas off the top of my head, but whatever happends with DH 2.0 I know realistically that I will probably end up ripping the guts out of the system to suit my own needs anyway.


Edited by Bladehate, 06 January 2014 - 12:47 PM.

  • LuciusT, Nimsim, Tom Cruise and 2 others like this

#98 Adeptus Ineptus

Adeptus Ineptus

    Member

  • Members
  • 292 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 08:30 AM

I'd like to see every home world and background have the choice between at least 2 aptitudes

or let players pick from the aptitudes their backgrounds unlock.

 

I feel compelled to point out that none of the lines were ever intended to be cross-compatible. That being said, is there any reason to believe the Aptitude system of Only War will be successfully ported (read as copy/pasted) over to a completely new core? Before answering, I would remind us all of the copy/paste errors we've already come to expect.

I still think we need new aptitudes and not copy/paste.



#99 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    The Empire Needs You!

  • Members
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:13 AM

A character who spends all his XP on things within his aptitudes is going to be far more versatile and competent than someone who buys a decent amount of advances that his aptitudes don't suit. This is pretty much an objective fact of how the system works, if we assume all advances that are of similar costs are of similar worth.

 

Competent? Yes, because he gets more skills within his stereotypical 'area of expertise' for the same XP.

 

Versatile? Well...I disagree on that one. Surely someone who's buying 'outside of type' is by definition going to be more versatile? An assassin bothering to buy pilot (at a surcharge) instead of two (discounted) levels of improved stabbyness is, to me, a more versatile character.

 

That said, I'm fine with 'open' characters. One game I really like is Traveller - now whilst it's extremely detailled in character generation (to the point of generating a lot of character background for you), the in-game character advancement is extremely loose, and essentially just boils down to guidelines on how long it would take to study for a new skill, regardless of what it is.



#100 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 673 posts

Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:49 AM

An assassin bothering to buy pilot (at a surcharge) instead of two (discounted) levels of improved stabbyness is, to me, a more versatile character.

 

Nonono... The Warrior buys that pilot and not the Assassin. The Assassin has cheap Operate. 

 

Actually, the Assassin is a bad example for hammering the Aptitude system: with Forge World/Outcast, the character will have only two expensive Skills (Command and Parry). And that's a pretty flexible character IMHO!






© 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