Jump to content



Photo

Broken Builds?


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 susanbrindle

susanbrindle

    Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:27 AM

So, on another forum, I noticed someone talking about how they could get a Rogue Trader to 70+ Fellowship at Rank 1, and that it's trivial to get a Navigator making Navigation checks at over 140 by Rank 3

 

Could someone post some setups that amount to craaazy numbers? I'd like to see what exactly links together to get these kinds of results, so I can understand the limitations of the system a little better.



#2 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

susanbrindle said:

So, on another forum, I noticed someone talking about how they could get a Rogue Trader to 70+ Fellowship at Rank 1, and that it's trivial to get a Navigator making Navigation checks at over 140 by Rank 3

 

Could someone post some setups that amount to craaazy numbers? I'd like to see what exactly links together to get these kinds of results, so I can understand the limitations of the system a little better.

Im an old fart when it comes to gaming. Been doing it for 25+ years now. So I promise you that this system is not broken one bit. No system ever is. A good GM armed with a team of players trying to tell a story and play real characters with backgrounds and motivations will always be able to balance a game in any system. But a munchkin will always be able to waste hours and hours crunching numbers trying to min max. Once they inveritabily find something to exploit someone usually starts crying about how this or that rule is broken. But usually it's not the system that's broken but rather the player and any GM that allows those silly ass shinanigans. 

Forget about how u or anyone can abuse numbers to make unrealistic characters without any semblance of realism or depth. And focus on playing the game as it was intended. Because that's what's will suck the group into the story and make it come alive. You dont ever need to see how bad a system can be broken because I promise each and every one can be shattered by munchkinesqe behavior or the desire to institute rules that fail to reflect the realities of the setting that are made with the false hope of preventing abuse of the rules by said munchkins. 

If you find a munchkin at your table that is more interested in abusing the system than telling an amazing story with a deep character that utilizes the rules to bring that PC to life… I advise you immediately ban that person before they handycap your game. 

I always demand a player starts defining a character without crunching any numbers at all. Only after the pc has been brought to life with the settings fluff is a player allowed to crunch the numbers to flesh out the characters stats. 

If a PC is made without me being around I go thrue it with a fine tooth comb checking to see that the stats support the PCs backstory rather than the backstory justifying stats. (cuz backstories dat er invented only to legitimize munchkinesque behaviors just ain't allowed)



#3 lurkeroutthere

lurkeroutthere

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

DigitalRedneck this might come as a shock to you but.That's not what he asked. Personally at least, i don't give two thrones about your gaming bonafides or your opinions. Because frankly not only are they conceited as all heck, off topic as all heck, they completely overlook the fact that Rogue Trader does have some concerning power issue/overspecialization built right in. Whether or not they are a show stopper is a matter of opinionin. It's a matter of the way the advancement system is set up.

 

To answer the original question in both cases It's not so much a matter of having the straight stats that high from start but that with the situational/skill modifiers they might add up that high rather quickly.

 

Lets presume a Noble Born Rogue Trader Using the point buy system. If you are not using point by of course things get a lot more random and therefore more nuanced. Of course the problem with that is you have a situation where people's character concept or role might not be born out by their stats. A noble born Rogue Trader will presumably max out their points in fellowship (45), add 5 for being noble born, and can could pick up another +3 points from things like vaunted. There you have a RT right out of the box with a 53 fellowship. They will also get things like peer (nobility) and peer(Their Choice) giving them up to a 63 in those areas of speciality.At the end of the process by the book they have to take pride as their last link in the origin path, and presuming you are only using the base book, which i personally recommend against as it limits options a lot, or opening up the career options based on backstory. Pride will net them a talented trait which means if they select charm for it, which really why wouldn't they other then to make sure they conform to DigitalRedneck's ideals, They will be rolling against a 63 for charm tests for everyone and a 73 against their favored groups before spending a drop of even their character building experience.

For better or worse Rogue Trader by default tends to encourage and build really specialized characters, who are extremely good in their field in the early game and fairly worthless outside their area of speciality. Then you throw stuff like characteristic advance pricing in and things could get very silly very quickly. Alternatively you a school of thought where people build against type (that is say a rogue trader who wants to sink the experience at a premium into being a sniper) who then use their class discounts to still be more then passable in their chosen field.

Basically the game supports playing "big damn heroes" and rare paragons of your particular class in life at the expense of others. Whether this is a problem or not is up to you.

 

 



#4 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Im an old fart when it comes to gaming. Been doing it for 25+ years now. So I promise you that this system is not broken one bit. No system ever is. A good GM armed with a team of players trying to tell a story and play real characters with backgrounds and motivations will always be able to balance a game in any system. But a munchkin will always be able to waste hours and hours crunching numbers trying to min max. Once they inveritabily find something to exploit someone usually starts crying about how this or that rule is broken. But usually it's not the system that's broken but rather the player and any GM that allows those silly ass shinanigans. 

Forget about how u or anyone can abuse numbers to make unrealistic characters without any semblance of realism or depth. And focus on playing the game as it was intended. Because that's what's will suck the group into the story and make it come alive. You dont ever need to see how bad a system can be broken because I promise each and every one can be shattered by munchkinesqe behavior or the desire to institute rules that fail to reflect the realities of the setting that are made with the false hope of preventing abuse of the rules by said munchkins. 

If you find a munchkin at your table that is more interested in abusing the system than telling an amazing story with a deep character that utilizes the rules to bring that PC to life… I advise you immediately ban that person before they handycap your game. 

I always demand a player starts defining a character without crunching any numbers at all. Only after the pc has been brought to life with the settings fluff is a player allowed to crunch the numbers to flesh out the characters stats. 

If a PC is made without me being around I go thrue it with a fine tooth comb checking to see that the stats support the PCs backstory rather than the backstory justifying stats. (cuz backstories dat er invented only to legitimize munchkinesque behaviors just ain't allowed)

 

I'm.. I'm not sure what your point is. Was there one? Because I don't see how this relates to the thread at all. Am I missing something? Because that's a mighty hefty rant to go on, like the homeless person going on about Vietnam when someone asked for the time.

That said, returning to the topic at hand; I'd love to see some of these builds too. Because while I can see how it would be fairly easy to reach 70+ on specific skills, against specific persons, on creation.. I have no idea how you'd reach 70 Fellowship on a Rogue Trader on creation without spending any experience. Maybe if you spend the starting 500xp on the really good picks in Into the Storm.

I heard about someone managing to push Commerce up to a flat 100 on creation with a Seneschal. Using Press-Ganged (Trials and Travails) to pick Commerce, Disgraced: The One to Redeem Them (Legacy) for 300xp, Seneschal (starts with Commerce) and Prestige (Motivation) for Talented (Commerce) and you get +30 to your Commerce checks right there. Still, even with a Fellowship of 50, that's only 70 Commerce. Get a Calculance Array (Scarce availability) for another +10. That'd be a flat Commerce of 80, which, while impressive, still isn't near 100.

Edit: Although it is entirely possible to spend a Fate Point for another +10, and, if you succeed, spend another Fate Point for another degree of success, effectively making it as if you had had 100 Commerce. Get your Rogue Trader (who also starts with Commerce) to Assist for another degree of success. 110 Commerce. Boom.

Edit 2: Seneschals add an extra degree of success on successful Commerce Skill Tests. So as long as you make that Commerce 90 check, the result will be as if you had a Commerce of 120. And this is without having bought a single Fellowship Characteristics Advance, which can potentially add another +20, but at a hefty price, and obviously not on creation.


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.


#5 Cryhavok

Cryhavok

    Member

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

You can create a ship that gives something like +65-85 to nav warp tests, but it takes a ton of archeotech and xenotech, so its not to lkkely to ever exist. Still, maybe they added something like that to the equation. I wouldnt be worried about someone building such characters though, as they are the easiest type of character to fail with. Its not like the game will revolve around them repetatively using one skill.

#6 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,978 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 04:11 PM

Tech-Use seems to be one of the easiest skills to boost with gear and cybernetics.

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#7 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 902 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

Fgdsfg said:

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Im an old fart when it comes to gaming. Been doing it for 25+ years now. So I promise you that this system is not broken one bit. No system ever is. A good GM armed with a team of players trying to tell a story and play real characters with backgrounds and motivations will always be able to balance a game in any system. But a munchkin will always be able to waste hours and hours crunching numbers trying to min max. Once they inveritabily find something to exploit someone usually starts crying about how this or that rule is broken. But usually it's not the system that's broken but rather the player and any GM that allows those silly ass shinanigans. 

Forget about how u or anyone can abuse numbers to make unrealistic characters without any semblance of realism or depth. And focus on playing the game as it was intended. Because that's what's will suck the group into the story and make it come alive. You dont ever need to see how bad a system can be broken because I promise each and every one can be shattered by munchkinesqe behavior or the desire to institute rules that fail to reflect the realities of the setting that are made with the false hope of preventing abuse of the rules by said munchkins. 

If you find a munchkin at your table that is more interested in abusing the system than telling an amazing story with a deep character that utilizes the rules to bring that PC to life… I advise you immediately ban that person before they handycap your game. 

I always demand a player starts defining a character without crunching any numbers at all. Only after the pc has been brought to life with the settings fluff is a player allowed to crunch the numbers to flesh out the characters stats. 

If a PC is made without me being around I go thrue it with a fine tooth comb checking to see that the stats support the PCs backstory rather than the backstory justifying stats. (cuz backstories dat er invented only to legitimize munchkinesque behaviors just ain't allowed)

 

I'm.. I'm not sure what your point is. Was there one? Because I don't see how this relates to the thread at all. Am I missing something? Because that's a mighty hefty rant to go on, like the homeless person going on about Vietnam when someone asked for the time.

That said, returning to the topic at hand; I'd love to see some of these builds too. Because while I can see how it would be fairly easy to reach 70+ on specific skills, against specific persons, on creation.. I have no idea how you'd reach 70 Fellowship on a Rogue Trader on creation without spending any experience. Maybe if you spend the starting 500xp on the really good picks in Into the Storm.

I heard about someone managing to push Commerce up to a flat 100 on creation with a Seneschal. Using Press-Ganged (Trials and Travails) to pick Commerce, Disgraced: The One to Redeem Them (Legacy) for 300xp, Seneschal (starts with Commerce) and Prestige (Motivation) for Talented (Commerce) and you get +30 to your Commerce checks right there. Still, even with a Fellowship of 50, that's only 70 Commerce. Get a Calculance Array (Scarce availability) for another +10. That'd be a flat Commerce of 80, which, while impressive, still isn't near 100.

Edit: Although it is entirely possible to spend a Fate Point for another +10, and, if you succeed, spend another Fate Point for another degree of success, effectively making it as if you had had 100 Commerce. Get your Rogue Trader (who also starts with Commerce) to Assist for another degree of success. 110 Commerce. Boom.

Edit 2: Seneschals add an extra degree of success on successful Commerce Skill Tests. So as long as you make that Commerce 90 check, the result will be as if you had a Commerce of 120. And this is without having bought a single Fellowship Characteristics Advance, which can potentially add another +20, but at a hefty price, and obviously not on creation.



#8 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

A couple people have indicated that my first post did not address the OPs topic. The OP asked how to build in order to get craaazy numbers to learn the limitations of the system. I think I coverd the fact that the system was made to make interesting characters to explore the Warhammer universe. So any limitation of the system would be where the rules fail to support effective roleplaying. Just because a bunch of numbers are crunched and exploited is not going to actually demonstrait any failings of the system. Because the system was not designed to be maxed out and exploited. 

 



#9 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,978 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

DigitalRedneck said:

A couple people have indicated that my first post did not address the OPs topic. The OP asked how to build in order to get craaazy numbers to learn the limitations of the system. I think I coverd the fact that the system was made to make interesting characters to explore the Warhammer universe. So any limitation of the system would be where the rules fail to support effective roleplaying. Just because a bunch of numbers are crunched and exploited is not going to actually demonstrait any failings of the system. Because the system was not designed to be maxed out and exploited. 

 

The issue is that you appear to be condemning him for having an interest in pushing the boundaries of the system. He might enjoy gaming that way, or could just be doing it for a thought exercise. Regardless, he doesn't need a lecture telling that it's the wrong way to play.

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#10 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 



#11 Darkheyr

Darkheyr

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:48 PM

Testing the boundaries is fun - and educational. It helps in learning the system quite a bit. Even without going completely overboard, detailed knowledge of the rules might just work out well enough to make that new character concept viable instead of bloody hell stupid, efficiency wise.

Concept > numbers, yes. But a routinely useless character isn't fun to play, and rather strange to be on an RT team. The knowledge you gather through thought exercises like this can help in making that useless concept become a useful concept, instead.



#12 lurkeroutthere

lurkeroutthere

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:05 AM

DigitalRedneck said:

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

 

Honestly I'm still quite lost on some of the conclusions you draw. Everytime you bring up implausable characters or number crunching I actually find myself wondering if you've ever actually played rogue trader for any length of time, as in sat down and played a re-occuring campaign. The simple fact is unless a character is actively not spending skills within their classes own advancement path they will very quickly be very very good at their primary skill set. They would have to actively try not to be. But that raises the question why should characters actively try not to be good at their supposed role. These characters will absolutely DESTROY book listed NPC's. They will take out battlecruisers with wolf pack raiders in ship to ship combat and a host of other assorted things covered in a myriad of thread on this very forum. I refuse to believe when there is a systemic occurance like that described by so many people and witnessed with my own eyes at my own table that all those people are playing the game wrong or trying to game the system. I tend to believe the system has some functional limitations. That it has a real feast or famine issue, your either exceptionally good at a skill or your so feeble at it that your honestly better off not even trying in many cases against a like experience opponnent. That is something people should be aware of because it seems to come up all the time.



#13 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:43 AM

lurkeroutthere said:

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

 

 

 

Honestly I'm still quite lost on some of the conclusions you draw. Everytime you bring up implausable characters or number crunching I actually find myself wondering if you've ever actually played rogue trader for any length of time, as in sat down and played a re-occuring campaign. The simple fact is unless a character is actively not spending skills within their classes own advancement path they will very quickly be very very good at their primary skill set. They would have to actively try not to be. But that raises the question why should characters actively try not to be good at their supposed role. These characters will absolutely DESTROY book listed NPC's. They will take out battlecruisers with wolf pack raiders in ship to ship combat and a host of other assorted things covered in a myriad of thread on this very forum. I refuse to believe when there is a systemic occurance like that described by so many people and witnessed with my own eyes at my own table that all those people are playing the game wrong or trying to game the system. I tend to believe the system has some functional limitations. That it has a real feast or famine issue, your either exceptionally good at a skill or your so feeble at it that your honestly better off not even trying in many cases against a like experience opponnent. That is something people should be aware of because it seems to come up all the time.

I don't get you question? If, as you say RT PCs are already bad ass to the hilt why would you need to min max your pc when as you say all you have to do is  just use any combo of your classes advancements to be a bad ass? Also. If your having overpowers pcs walking thru your NPCs how is maxing out a pcs stats going to make  the game run smother? Instead… Have the GM toughen the NPCs. 

You do describe real flaws in the system when u describe a pc not being any good at their supposed role. But you did not need to min max in order to find that limitation of the system did you? Also. The answer will lie in housruling a solution rather than crunching numbers until a pc does not suck. Same with the wolf pack raider scenario. Fix your cruisers or your raiders but don't expect to balance the game by tossing another broken build into the mix. 

 

And for the record. I never said the system was perfect. What I said was that min max will not expose any actual limitation because the game is not made to have maxed pcs.  As you pointed out you have to work at creating a weak pc.



#14 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:33 AM

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

 

The thing is.. nobody has argued that the system is functionally broken. The idea of "Broken Builds" assumes that we are all talking about the same things - the system itself, not the adjustments GMs are encouraged to make to it. While a game is intended to be played by RAI, adjustments made by the GM to tell a communal story that makes sense to the individuals involved and is (on average) mutually satisfying, we can only factually discuss the objective ruleset; RAW.

The same goes for any roleplaying system, none which can cover all situations (except.. FATAL, maybe?). Take DnD 3.5Ed:s Pun-Pun as an example. Or the Peasant Railgun. No GM in their right mind would allow you to create these abominations, save for the most autistically stubborn "That Guy"-GMs. Does the mere existance of these things mean that the rulesets are "Broken"? No, of course not.

But it does mean that it can be "Broken" insofar we can abuse the Rules as Written before adjustment or interference. A RAW that we all need to agree on as a matter of social protocol, simply because we cannot discuss the inherently subjective nature of RAI in this context, nor what adjustments would be necessary to "unbreak" the system.

Nobody argued that the system was broken. What was asked for was broken builds. The basic assumption has to be that we are all following the same general ruleset - RAW - before countermeasures to prevent shenanigans are taken.

Hell, the entire topic is based around shenanigans!

Musing on about "Broken Builds" is a legitimate mental exercise and has nothing to do with what a GM chooses to do at the table, or group dynamics, or homebreweing (unless specifically called upon).

That said, the Rogue Trader system is actually surprisingly robust when it comes to "Brokenness"; If you choose to specialize - which is in many ways encouraged by the system - it means that you will be doing other things worse. It it entirely legitimate to make a character in a group that will end up with potentially-possible Commerce-90-Succeeds-as-120 stats.

I even have an old criminal Acquisitionist Penal-Worlder build that is all about Commerce and the Peers, with a backstory as well-written and fleshed out as any other, that could arguably be considered "broken". But then you see a group of Space-Accountants taking on a group of Space-Crabs and the Space-Soldier takes the lead; after half the group has bled for two rounds, he Meltabombs 5 of the enemies in a single round. Broken? Of course not, because he's about as charming as a brick toaster. Every point of experience spent in one field, or every choice made during creation, is another point that could've been spent elsewhere, and a choice not taken.

So can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Wildy "overpowered" builds of varying shape or form, please.

 


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.


#15 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:58 AM

Fgdsfg said:

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

 

The thing is.. nobody has argued that the system is functionally broken. The idea of "Broken Builds" assumes that we are all talking about the same things - the system itself, not the adjustments GMs are encouraged to make to it. While a game is intended to be played by RAI, adjustments made by the GM to tell a communal story that makes sense to the individuals involved and is (on average) mutually satisfying, we can only factually discuss the objective ruleset; RAW.

The same goes for any roleplaying system, none which can cover all situations (except.. FATAL, maybe?). Take DnD 3.5Ed:s Pun-Pun as an example. Or the Peasant Railgun. No GM in their right mind would allow you to create these abominations, save for the most autistically stubborn "That Guy"-GMs. Does the mere existance of these things mean that the rulesets are "Broken"? No, of course not.

But it does mean that it can be "Broken" insofar we can abuse the Rules as Written before adjustment or interference. A RAW that we all need to agree on as a matter of social protocol, simply because we cannot discuss the inherently subjective nature of RAI in this context, nor what adjustments would be necessary to "unbreak" the system.

Nobody argued that the system was broken. What was asked for was broken builds. The basic assumption has to be that we are all following the same general ruleset - RAW - before countermeasures to prevent shenanigans are taken.

Hell, the entire topic is based around shenanigans!

Musing on about "Broken Builds" is a legitimate mental exercise and has nothing to do with what a GM chooses to do at the table, or group dynamics, or homebreweing (unless specifically called upon).

That said, the Rogue Trader system is actually surprisingly robust when it comes to "Brokenness"; If you choose to specialize - which is in many ways encouraged by the system - it means that you will be doing other things worse. It it entirely legitimate to make a character in a group that will end up with potentially-possible Commerce-90-Succeeds-as-120 stats.

I even have an old criminal Acquisitionist Penal-Worlder build that is all about Commerce and the Peers, with a backstory as well-written and fleshed out as any other, that could arguably be considered "broken". But then you see a group of Space-Accountants taking on a group of Space-Crabs and the Space-Soldier takes the lead; after half the group has bled for two rounds, he Meltabombs 5 of the enemies in a single round. Broken? Of course not, because he's about as charming as a brick toaster. Every point of experience spent in one field, or every choice made during creation, is another point that could've been spent elsewhere, and a choice not taken.

So can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Wildy "overpowered" builds of varying shape or form, please.

 



#16 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:03 AM

Fgdsfg said:

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

 

The thing is.. nobody has argued that the system is functionally broken. The idea of "Broken Builds" assumes that we are all talking about the same things - the system itself, not the adjustments GMs are encouraged to make to it. While a game is intended to be played by RAI, adjustments made by the GM to tell a communal story that makes sense to the individuals involved and is (on average) mutually satisfying, we can only factually discuss the objective ruleset; RAW.

The same goes for any roleplaying system, none which can cover all situations (except.. FATAL, maybe?). Take DnD 3.5Ed:s Pun-Pun as an example. Or the Peasant Railgun. No GM in their right mind would allow you to create these abominations, save for the most autistically stubborn "That Guy"-GMs. Does the mere existance of these things mean that the rulesets are "Broken"? No, of course not.

But it does mean that it can be "Broken" insofar we can abuse the Rules as Written before adjustment or interference. A RAW that we all need to agree on as a matter of social protocol, simply because we cannot discuss the inherently subjective nature of RAI in this context, nor what adjustments would be necessary to "unbreak" the system.

Nobody argued that the system was broken. What was asked for was broken builds. The basic assumption has to be that we are all following the same general ruleset - RAW - before countermeasures to prevent shenanigans are taken.

Hell, the entire topic is based around shenanigans!

Musing on about "Broken Builds" is a legitimate mental exercise and has nothing to do with what a GM chooses to do at the table, or group dynamics, or homebreweing (unless specifically called upon).

That said, the Rogue Trader system is actually surprisingly robust when it comes to "Brokenness"; If you choose to specialize - which is in many ways encouraged by the system - it means that you will be doing other things worse. It it entirely legitimate to make a character in a group that will end up with potentially-possible Commerce-90-Succeeds-as-120 stats.

I even have an old criminal Acquisitionist Penal-Worlder build that is all about Commerce and the Peers, with a backstory as well-written and fleshed out as any other, that could arguably be considered "broken". But then you see a group of Space-Accountants taking on a group of Space-Crabs and the Space-Soldier takes the lead; after half the group has bled for two rounds, he Meltabombs 5 of the enemies in a single round. Broken? Of course not, because he's about as charming as a brick toaster. Every point of experience spent in one field, or every choice made during creation, is another point that could've been spent elsewhere, and a choice not taken.

So can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Wildy "overpowered" builds of varying shape or form, please.

 



#17 DigitalRedneck

DigitalRedneck

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:01 AM

Crappy phone flipped out again. Sorry for the reposts without any comment. But I still fail to see your point here. Are you saying min maxing is good for a person to learn how to play this game? Are you saying that by min maxing you will become a better roleplayer? Are you saying the rules were built by the game designers for min maxers instead of guys who want to portray a deep PC?

 

Several people on this thread have argued that the system is broken "because you can use raiders to defeat cruisers" for example. that's bs unless you take a groups tactics into consideration and the a group with a raider is supposed to defeat he cruzer using good tactics, right? What's broke about tactics an luck of the dice? I have seen raiders try to exchange shots with a cruiser toe to toe and the raider does not fair well at all. (as it should be)

 As you say "RT is surprisingly robust" when it comes to "brokenness" so I fail to see why we need to examin and define how to make "Broken Builds" (title of thread) in order to be or prove we are deep and skilled gamers.. Unless we want to turn Warhammer 40000 into Munchkin 40000…

 

Now I've only played in one game that went six months 2x per week and ran a game that went just over a year and a half  2x a week so I don't have much exp with the game compared to folks who have ran six games in two years (or whatever. But I know the rules enough.)

If your saying that as long as your having fun your playing the game right I'd have to agree.  Never contended that. I do still contend that a person cannot define the limitations of a system be bending and exploiting the rules to min max an unrealistic character created in a manner and with intent not in keeping with the motivations of the games designers. That's unfair as hell to the guys that worked like dogs to bring us this game!  Especially in RT where you are a bad ass unless you try really hard to suck. Do you think the writers made the game to reflect the Warhammer setting with deep roleplaying characters in mind? or did they set out to make a system thats min max (munchkin) proof? I think they tried to provide rules to define a setting that has long been familiar to table top gamers and that would reflect the feel of the table top game. what do you think they did? And how do youth ink they hoped we would use/play it?

Bending the concepts and ideas of the game designers is not going to illuminate any problem with the game. But saying I made x and y happened sure could. But only if breaking **** was not the point from the start. Any game I ever played can be maxed into brokenness. Have you played one that could not? Do you think those flaws belong to the system or those broken players? 

 

 



#18 Fgdsfg

Fgdsfg

    Lrod-Iniquitsor

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:01 AM

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Crappy phone flipped out again. Sorry for the reposts without any comment. But I still fail to see your point here. Are you saying min maxing is good for a person to learn how to play this game? Are you saying that by min maxing you will become a better roleplayer? Are you saying the rules were built by the game designers for min maxers instead of guys who want to portray a deep PC?

If you still haven't understood what this thread is for, I do not think that anything I can say will help you.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Several people on this thread have argued that the system is broken "because you can use raiders to defeat cruisers" for example. that's bs unless you take a groups tactics into consideration and the a group with a raider is supposed to defeat he cruzer using good tactics, right? What's broke about tactics an luck of the dice? I have seen raiders try to exchange shots with a cruiser toe to toe and the raider does not fair well at all. (as it should be)

Literally no-one has said that. Just because you use quotation marks doesn't make it so. It just means that you don't know how to use quotation marks.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

 

As you say "RT is surprisingly robust" when it comes to "brokenness" so I fail to see why we need to examin and define how to make "Broken Builds" (title of thread) in order to be or prove we are deep and skilled gamers.. Unless we want to turn Warhammer 40000 into Munchkin 40000…

It has nothing to do with proving anything. Not skill, nor being "deep". The only one that is trying to prove something here is you. Nobody else cares. You are the only one that is making an argument out what is literally a non-issue. For everyone else making broken builds is nothing but a mental exercise. For fun. To see what you come up with. As I have already explained.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Now I've only played in one game that went six months 2x per week and ran a game that went just over a year and a half  2x a week so I don't have much exp with the game compared to folks who have ran six games in two years (or whatever. But I know the rules enough.)

Nobody cares.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

 

If your saying that as long as your having fun your playing the game right I'd have to agree.

That's not what I said. You have to literally read some other post in some other thread, likely on some other forum, to reach that conclusion. Seriously, what the hell?

 

DigitalRedneck said:

Never contended that. I do still contend that a person cannot define the limitations of a system be bending and exploiting the rules to min max an unrealistic character created in a manner and with intent not in keeping with the motivations of the games designers. That's unfair as hell to the guys that worked like dogs to bring us this game!  Especially in RT where you are a bad ass unless you try really hard to suck. Do you think the writers made the game to reflect the Warhammer setting with deep roleplaying characters in mind? or did they set out to make a system thats min max (munchkin) proof? I think they tried to provide rules to define a setting that has long been familiar to table top gamers and that would reflect the feel of the table top game. what do you think they did? And how do youth ink they hoped we would use/play it?

You are once again off to a tangent in fairy-land that has nothing to do with anything. I just went over this. It's in less than three posts above you. Goddamn.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

Bending the concepts and ideas of the game designers is not going to illuminate any problem with the game.

Well, no ****. Nobody said it would.

 

DigitalRedneck said:

But saying I made x and y happened sure could. But only if breaking **** was not the point from the start. Any game I ever played can be maxed into brokenness. Have you played one that could not? Do you think those flaws belong to the system or those broken players?

I believe that's what I said. What is wrong with you? Are you Chris-Chan? Are you getting so hooked up on the words "Broken Builds" that you cannot tell that nobody has said anything about the system being broken whatsoever, but have, in fact, told you repeatedly that it is nothing but a discussion about how to "break" RAW? A RAW that, as I said, we all have to agree on in favour of RAI.. you know what? **** it. I think I'm speaking to a wall here.

This is you:


And this is me, giving up:

 


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.


#19 Darkheyr

Darkheyr

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:33 AM


Bending the concepts and ideas of the game designers is not going to illuminate any problem with the game.


 


Actually… Yes. It will.


Thought exercises like this actually do serve in learning the rules, especially the combination of such. Inevitably, if you spend enough time excessively reading and using the rules, you will stumble upon the up's and down's in the ruleset.


I cant begin to tell you how many characters I have created in various systems over the years, and what low, low percentage of those I ever played. But it helped learning. A lot.


 


Of course, thats only a side effect. The main reason for such build is pure, undilated fun.



#20 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,978 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:38 AM

Fgdsfg said:

DigitalRedneck said:

 

Crappy phone flipped out again. Sorry for the reposts without any comment. But I still fail to see your point here. Are you saying min maxing is good for a person to learn how to play this game? Are you saying that by min maxing you will become a better roleplayer? Are you saying the rules were built by the game designers for min maxers instead of guys who want to portray a deep PC?

If you still haven't understood what this thread is for, I do not think that anything I can say will help you.

From what I see of your posts on this thread, I don't believe that you are trying to help him/her. He/she already apologized, so let it rest. His/her subsequent posts don't appear to be intended to insult, but yours are certainly pushing in that direction.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.





© 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