Jump to content

gathrawny

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gathrawny

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    grandathrawn
  • MSN
    grandathrawn
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    grandathrawn
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , California, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just wanted to mention that I also support splitting the lore skills up. I think a big theme of DH1 and DH2 was the partitioning of knowledge. Forbidden knowledge should be very hard to come by, and partitioning them like they are in those books is an important part of conveying that. Considering running DH using these rules soon so I'll post any feedback I have then.
  2. I used to know all the key shipyard locations and such by heart, but unfortunately it's been a few years since I played in a good Star Wars game and I've mostly forgotten. Does anyone know of a good list or map of military-related POIs in the Star Wars Galaxy? I'm looking to let my players do a little bit of galaxy scale military planning on a strategic level, so it's important to know what the key choke points, important resources, and such would be for them to fight over. Thanks!
  3. gathrawny

    GMing a "Hardcore" Dark Heresy game

    Bad idea. They will still be less invested in their characters. Better to give them the illusion of terrible danger and lethality than to put real threat that will generally break them. The players must be in dangers when necessary and be in real danger when they do stupid things but, otherwise, it should be reasonable. Then, when they face great dangers, if they f*ck verything up, it will be super lethal. For example, if there is a bloodthirster, you make it not notice the player unless they attack him, but when the real challenge start, now there is danger. If players attack it without a plan, they will pay. But you don't make an awareness test to the bloodthirster just to see if he spotted them while it's not necessary to the story. I don't know if I'm clear enough but that's quite the idea. QFT. When I first set out to GM Dark Heresy I wanted the same thing you're describing. It was my first time GMin any game, and I was all psyched up for how realistic and dangerous and exciting I was going to make the game. But your campaign really won't take off until you're willing to "cut corners" somewhat with the "realism." You have to realize that GMing isn't really about making things "realistic." GMing is about telling a great story and making sure that your players FEEL challenged, so that the payoff is rewarding. Players form a connection with their characters when they've overcome challenges together, not when they've been ripped to shreds or bungled another awareness test. But you can't get the feeling of overcoming challenges without risk. The example with the bloodthirster is perfect. If you know that the bloodthirster will just rip the party to shreds then you should cut them some slack (or not put them up against a bloodthirster in the first place), but ONLY if you can do so without them realizing, which will break the meaningfulness of the encounter. Your time to pull no punches is in situations where the players have had a chance to prepare for it, and in situations where they have made key decisions that lead to it. And even then, you should always consider the parameters of the encounter fluid. If the PCs are on their last legs and you had another wave of enemies planned that can be easily dropped without harming the plot then you need to be willing to do that. Really the art of GMing is knowing the difference between a climactic battle that leaves everyone super psyched for the next session because they escape by the skin of their teeth, and a kick in the nuts when they're already down. Last point--sometimes the PC's screwing something up is the best thing for the story. In the last session I GM'd the moments that really made it memorable were the little 'errors' the PCs made that directly influenced the story and gave their characters personality. Knowing the difference between that and an unnecessary focus on "realism" is the key.
  4. gathrawny

    Online Games Looking for Players

    Hey Everyone!! Empires of the Expanse is looking for players! Do you dream of building an empire that spans the stars. all the while battling players and NPCs alike in the arenas of Void Combat, Ground Combat, and Political Intrigue? If so, Empires of the Expanse is the Rogue Trader game for you! We are looking for more players who are interested in a free form, sandbox campaign where you are free to set your own motivations in a living breathing Koronus Expanse and explore, and exploit to your heart's content. Qualifications: Players must Be able to commit to posting at least an average of 1-2 times per day (Of course we all have real lives, no one is going to be sitting there with a calculator checking that you keep this up but it's the approximate level of engagement required to get anywhere in your story) Be able to self-motivate to some degree: Your story will be largely up to you! The campaign is set in a sandbox where you are given license to go out and do what you want with very few restrictions. Be interested in the theme of Empire Building. We're working out a new economy system that focuses on strategy and play at the macro level. If that doesn't interest you then this game probably isnt a good fit (Though I'm working on getting the GM to loosen this restriction a bit) Check out the link or post in the thread!
  5. gathrawny

    Daemon Hunter table of contents

    Siranui said: Grey...Knight PCs...in non-ascended DH games...? Does Not Compute *bzzzzztfizzle* I have the book, and while there are (semi-)distinct rulesets for use in DH and DW, rank 1 for a Grey Knight starts at 13k xp. You won't be getting Grey Knight level 1 acolytes from this book.
  6. gathrawny

    Daemonhunters book?

    Dulahan said: And better, rules for using them with the Deathwatch book! HUZZAH! I actually don't really like that they're putting DW rules into DH books...
  7. gathrawny

    Daemonhunters book?

    I would really like information on it too, it's one of the books i'm most excited about.
  8. tzeentch obv. Convoluted crazy schemes ftw!
  9. gathrawny

    Is this a sound business decision though?

    I understand what people are saying about their concern over the release of so many core rulebooks, but we have to remember what form FFG acquired the license in. They got into working on this game when it was originally to be 3 distinct RPGs based around the same system. Rogue Trader and DH are distinct RPGs that happen to work quite well together because the power level of Ascension and Rogue Trader are so similar. DH and DW do not work well together, because they are different games based on the same system. FFG cannot retroactively go back and rewrite the plan from the ground up to work with a 1 core book, many sourcebooks approach. They inherited the DH core rulebook built around the idea of a trilogy of games based on the same general system. The DH corebook that they inherited would not have supported this approach. I would like to see BC link very closely with DH because the games seem to have similar enough settings (two sides of one coin even) to allow us to use sourcebooks between the games. I would very much like to see BC start at DH powerlevel and expand in the same way (level 1-8, then a dark-Ascension), so that we can use the sourcebooks from each between the two games very readily. It is a shame that with each core rulebook there must be rules reprinted and sections of each core book are rendered pretty uninspiring to fans of the other games. But it is important to remember the way they set about this project, and the current status of it. Not all 40k RPGers play all of the games, and many only play one. Each needs to be a standalone product. Hopefully in 40k RPG 2.0 we will see them rethink the whole system from the ground up to accommodate all 4 levels and styles of gameplay, maybe receiving one 40k RPG corebook and then sourcebooks for the 4 specific subsets of the 40k RPG, but I somehow doubt that. It's not like most RPGs where everything branches directly off the corebook, the 40k RPGs are all vastly different games built on a framework of similar rules. The only thing we really see repeated from core rulebook to core rulebook are the actual rules of combat and skill tests, and some fluff.
  10. gathrawny

    Gen Con 2011 'Taster' Game

    Yea they have definitely been improving. Maybe for BC they'll finally get enough to hold through all of Gencon, but I doubt it.
  11. gathrawny

    Gen Con 2011 'Taster' Game

    I find it likely that all of the above will happen. I'm 99% sure we will see some sort of product sold at GenCon and I'm 100% that if we do it will sell out before everyone who wants one gets one
  12. I spent some time trying to read it when the announcement first came out. All I could really make out was this of the first line: "The followers of Chaos do not have" and even that i'm not sure about. It seemed like the picture was a higher resolution on the FFG page because I also had some vague ideas of what the starting talents and such were but now i can't make them out at all. Those would be of the most interest to me and to many people I think, because they might give us some clue of starting power.
  13. gathrawny

    Collector's Edition?

    This alone might be enough to inspire me to go to Gen Con, so a purchase of the CE is without question. I can hardly let the 4th book in the series be the only one I don't have can I!?
  14. gathrawny

    Using this as an expansion instead of a new game.

    I would like to see a mechanic for DH characters falling into BC characters basically. Perhaps instead of Ascending there is a mechanic for them to fall to chaos and ascend along that route instead.
  15. gathrawny

    A quest for Daemonhood- and what else?

    I'm guessing they'll play it straight. 40k likes its grim dark
×