"Once again, I didn't address skills that cost 100 XP because all that do are usually Rank 1 skills that are baseline skills for that class."
I didn't do a count of what usually is the case but as long as there exist plenty outside of Rank 1 I feel it is relevant.
As I said, I did do a count of those career and 100 XP skills. There are 6. That fits within my definition of irrelevant. In addition, each of those 100 XP skills would amount 1/3 of 1% of each career's maximum XP. That also fits within my realm of irrelevant. Since the career with the most of those skills (AM) has a mere 3 that would account for 1% of that career's total...also irrelevant. You're arguing over petty points. It doesn't appear as though you want to play a game as much as you want to define a system. I won't argue about the system. I'm ok with FFG games, but I'm not a fan. I'm a fan of 40K. I play FFG because they have (had) the 40K license.
"Most of them are actually pre-purchased and come with the character at-start. The few that aren't are usually necessary skills that nobody would leave unpurchased."
No that isn't the case, it's about 50/50 ones that come with a Career Path, (eg missionary 8 100 cost skills you get automatically, 8 you don't in rank 1) definitely not "most" or "few". Also there are alternate career ranks at level 1 which you have no choice but to leave them unpurchased.
Now you're whining. In the Missionary example there are 13 skills that cost 100 XP, of which 5 come with the career at-start. The only way those other 8 end up costing you more is if you take that ACR at Rank 1, and nothing prevents you from purchasing them later at increased cost. And if you did, under my system that would wind up costing you 2.67% of your end-point XP. Even if you did something similar at every Rank that would only result in an additional 24% XP, and that's for a character with basically no career, since they spent the entire campaign picking up ACRs. The notion is ridiculous to me. I'm not detecting any roleplay here. I'm detecting cherrypicking and I doubt you can convince me that there isn't an ulterior motive involved. Since my experience suggests to me that this ulterior motive will impinge on the fun of everyone else in the game, I simply disallow it, avoiding the annoyance of all players involved. I do this with complete understanding that some players won't abide with my ruling. They are welcome to find another game. I'm not short of players.
"Once again, I didn't address skills that cost 100 XP because all that do are usually Rank 1 skills that are baseline skills for that class. Most of them are actually pre-purchased and come with the character at-start. The few that aren't are usually necessary skills that nobody would leave unpurchased."
Alternate career ranks? I'm sure I posted this before, but if not I'll remind you of the whole thing that you're overruling that is the reason I'm bringing this up. It seems to me you have no justification for overwriting this system other than (oh it's not common enough to matter?) Why not just make it double and cap it at 300 xp then?
Once again, you don't want to play the game. You want to play a character sheet. You want access to ACRs without paying penalties for them. I stated plainly in my house rules that I don't favor ACRs. You'd do better to approach me with an idea you've made up from scratch. I'd probably insist on modifying it as well, but I'd be more open to consideration. My social contract is quite fair. I apply my house rules consistently and with logic. You haven't played this game so many times that you've exhausted the roleplaying options permitted within the core rulebook. Why do you need all these other options? Show me you can play a stereotypical 40K character before you request an advanced option. Everyone seems to want to play the Tremere antitribu, the 1/2 elf 1/2 dragon, or the psyker Missionary. Show me you can play a zealous, heretic and xeno-hunting Missionary first. If you can't pass that test then you don't need a further option. And if you don't think you need to prove yourself because you've done so in other games, then go back to those games. I've been playing RPGs for 45 years and I know that I'll have to demonstrate my skills to the next group of strangers I play with before they respect me enough to stary off the beaten path. And guess what? If they let me stray off the beaten path as a complete stranger then it's time for me to find another group because I already know I won't be happy with that one...they aren't choosey enough.
The base rules go out of their way to emphasis and give you an actual rule that you've chosen to homebrew over.
If I don't like the ACRs, why would I like the rules that modify them after the fact?
Hmm, I don't know why do you use the word "usual career"? Why does it matter what a talent costs for someone else? Why are talents percentage based?
You've explicitly stated on other posts that you don't care for FFG or their systems. I'm not sure why you're here commenting on them. For what it's worth, I don't think d100 was the right direction. GW went d6 because they wanted lots of dice being rolled and an average figure coming out. To capture that flavor and still permit characterization I'd go with something like averaging dice, d6 dice numbered 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5 and roll 2-3 of them. After all, the only results are succeed, fail, or partly succeed and try again. You only need 3 actual outcomes from your dice. RPGs, though, want multiple outcome results, but you still don't need 100 of them.
"On the other hand, Arch-Militant is the only class I can think of that has 300 XP skills. I'm not sure why. I haven't had a player that wanted to play an AM since my 2nd campaign."
Sure hope that isn't because you've nerfed them with your homebrew rules.
Don't care. Inflexible career choice. My players don't even want many of them for sidekicks. Improve your game play and you won't want to play one, either.
" Regardless, I don't see why other classes should be penalized in purchasing Scholastic Lore (Tactica Imperialis) as an Elite Advance just because AMs have to pay 300 XP. "
It's just so crazy that you wrote this while having the rule that if it is a talent then you should have to pay more just because AMs have to! Also as I said, the reason they should have to pay 300xp is because that's how it is valued in the system, if people who are entirely skilled around tactical fights are just as good at that knowledge as an astropath who has never left their bedroom then why bother playing them?
Because it isn't a talent. Talents and skills are different because they have different effects. The system treats them differently and so do I. What holds true for one doesn't necessarily hold true for another. You've invoked another logical fallicy, the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity (you don't understand it therefore it doesn't make sense). Astropaths often serve in the Imperial Guard. They have access to Common Knowledge (IG) and Peer (IG), among other skills, and it stands to reason they might have learned something else while in that service. After all, they tend to be smart cookies.
"If I had an AM in my game, and that player felt other characters was horning in on his/her niche over 100 XP I'd certainly consider the complaint. But that just means I'd be charging that other person 400 XP instead of 300. It's just not that big a deal."
But suddenly if you change skills to talents it is a whole different ball game!
"Anyone wanting to play such a character really needs to talk with the other players first anyway."
I don't want to sound patronising but this is the case for everything. You want to play a Renegade Navigator? Talk to the other players. You want to play a crazy Rogue Trader who hates the Emperor, talk to the players. All characters should be made with other player's input by the by. At least to get people on the same page, but once they're on that, why are you striking things off the page when you've already have a filtering process to be on the page in the first place! It's completely needless.
Sorry, but nothing you've said leads me to believe that this is your style of play. You strike me as a person who draws up a character, tells everyone what you want them to know about your character (leaving out critical knowledge that you will spring on them at a later date), and threaten to disrupt proceedings if you don't get your way. Not all games are group-oriented. Some games thrive on player-driven conflict. Some even require it. Try GMing a game with 50-100 players. You have no time to present plots. You're too busy adjudicating player conflicts. But, RT is not that style of game...generally...the players could always decide that's what they want. In that case, I'd advise BC with the RT inputs.
"That really demonstrates that my house rules are more in line with a party that wants to colonize, conquer, and trade."
No it doesn't. There are tons of career paths which are actually focused on the bigger picture, Seccessionist being the most obvious. In fact there's very little in the base classes that add anything to do more stuff. At least a Beastmaster would have some rationale for trading in beasts or colonising with a symbiotic beast. What it demonstrates is my specific example of a career path which makes sense you somehow used as justification that all alternate career paths should be considered denounced.
Seccessionist is exactly the kind of ACR that needs entire party permission. The actions of the seccessionist can get the entire party in trouble or worse. And mind you, I reserve the right to denounce, though I'd say disallow, any and all ACRs. I'm the one doing the lion's share of the work. If you don't like it, find another game. Better yet, draw up one of your own. Fill it with all the cheese you want. There's nothing quite like experience, and nothing grants experience quite like failure. You could just read these forums going back 3 years and get that experience but you seem to want to graduate from the School of Hard Knocks, and I'll not dissuade you.
"If the party like their idea then I'm open to their ACR."
Right, read that and compare that to "I don't like ACRs and Players who wish to take multiple ACRs will be disappointed", now which one of those attitudes do you think will let players make the choices that reflect best what they want their character to develop into? Hmmm. If someone wants to be both a Swashbuckler and a Legend of the Expanse and everyone in the party likes that idea too, I simply do not understand why you have to start off with the attitude that thinking of a famous rogue like Rogue Trader/Arch-Militant/Void-Mistress/whatever is so bad. From everything you've said to me it seems like your rule is not stopping any sort of power plays and is simply stifling people.
Oh, for Pete's sake, now you don't like my attitude. If I were drawing up a game, I simply wouldn't make up stuff like ACRs. They aren't balanced. They don't even appear well thought out...to me...feel free to think differently. I don't like GW codexes for Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, etc., et al. If the first volume doesn't have the right kinds of rules to draw the others from then it's a faulty set of rules. Call me elitist. I can take it.
"Look, I keep the Origin Path as it is because I've run the game enough times to know what cheese already exists and can easily say, "No" when it becomes necessary."
That doesn't make sense. If you have ran it enough to know what cheese then you could easily spot any attempts at Origin Path cheese and shut it down. The purpose of a closed Origin Path is twofold: one for newer players to create characters that fit better with lore and second for newer GMs who would feel unable or incapable of stopping a player from asking for a different path for power reasons. You don't sound like you fit either of those.
It makes perfect sense to me. I don't want to bother combing through the all the possibilities of every character drawn up crazily just because some greenhorn roleplayer thinks a couple loose ends make a great backstory. Draw up your backstory and ROLEPLAY it. You still seem to think the character sheet is your character. I think differently.
"Opening it up permits too much cheese to filter through unnoticed and I want to avoid saying, "No" after the game starts."
For a start, I don't actually believe there is that much cheese, I've been making a bunch of characters for my own amusement and even the most abusive of plays and the best lenient of rules with no thought for story all suffer from the following: You have at most 500xp, even the most OP routes aren't really that good, the most OP routes within the system and without are very similar in power level. I would really appreciate an example of what you find to be cheesiest in an open system.
You don't. I do. That hardly merits a page.
ON TOP, of all this, the book in ITS recommends opening up rows for your players! So even the bloody writers didn't think high level cheese was possible.
However, I'm immediately going to pick up on something, your players make their characters independently? How is that at all people on the same page? The whole point of origin paths is to have intersections and the such, and this makes me incredibly worried that you don't work with players backstories at all (since you don't know if it's going to fit or what it is if the game has started by the time you realise).
But neither you nor I think that highly of those writers.
"I don't find that people pick different options on the Origin Path for purposes of backstory. It is my experience that people pick them to min/max. And don't get me wrong, I've always said the RT is a game that lends itself well to min/maxing without balance getting out of hand. So I keep the options vanilla and tell my players to min/max all they want. I already know what's coming that way. There's nothing that keeps a person from adding a story to their backstory. My take on the Origin Path merely keeps them from getting that extra +3 INT while they're at it."
With all of what you said somehow I don't find it surprising that your players min max with backstory, because you don't even know what it is before the first session started! Not only that this particular sentence: "There's nothing that keeps a person from adding a story to their backstory." tells me that in your campaign the origin backstory is pointless because you can write what you want.
I completely and totally disagree with this. If you're from a deathworld in your origin story, then you're from a deathworld, you can't write that you're from a hive world, not only is that just dumb, it makes no sense (why can't you speak Hive Dialects). When you divorce Origin Story from the backstory of the characters it serves no purpose other than min maxing. Players choosing to take the same motivation to have an intersection (either with one other player or more) is what makes the Origin Stories such a fantastic roleplaying mechanic.
I think you're the one limiting the players, not me. Death Worlds have Noble Born that probably were sheltered from the ravages of that environment, and Imperial Worlds have Techpriests that weren't indoctrinated into the Imperial Cult.
"As for the Navigator, that first warp journey along a new route is always without a chart unless one is purchased. Agility means nothing at that point. Astrography only comes into play after a successful warp journey. At that point a chart can be created. Again, I think IT is more appropriate. Let me be more explicit. Let's say our heroes are travelling from Footfall to Lucien's Breath" How often do you travel a warp route that you never travel again? Also, you were the one who made is so uncharted routes are at -60, in the book basic charts are +10, detailed charts are +20. So yes, you are the one who made it incredibly dangerous by changing how charts work. Yes agility is irrelevant in the first time, but if you somehow manage to make a -60 roll (good luck to you, we almost died in our very first session (pretty sure the DM mucked about to let us live)) then you'll bloody need agility for the next bunch. As I said it's your rules that make warp a million times more dangerous. (Unless your Rogue Trader grew boldly goes where people have already been all the time, then the chart rules are totally irrelevant!)
I've already noted that you want no-lose situations for rookies. I want rookies to walk on ice. After all, my telescoping XP system ensures that they don't remain rookies for long and spend most of the game in the mid-to-high Ranks. The rest of your rant on Navigation is entirely about uncharted routes, which I've already countered. It works for my Expanse. In fact, our current Navigator at Rank 6 is nigh unstoppable, even when charting unknown courses through the hearts of warp storms. It's just not that hard to develop a character capable of handling these modifiers. Maybe you're not as good a gamer as you thought.
Let's do worst case (wait this isn't even close to worse) scenario with an endgame Navigator. After a bit of combat or whatever inside the ship, maybe a saboteur or something whatever it doesn't matter, the Navigation Station is damage (-20), their charts are destroyed (-60), the warp is black with storms (-40), and the route is haunted (-20).
And end-game Navigator that doesn't have a Bellecane Field, Warpsbane Hull, Ship Master's Bridge, Fleet Flag Bridge, Runecaster, Warp Sextant, or an Astrae Almanac Divinitus or any number of reasonable facsimiles that might appear in the course of a normal game. Truly amazing example.
"Where they are broken, they need fixed. Where they aren't, I leave them alone. I don't find any of the Core powers, disciplines, or techniques completely broken anyway. In fact, I don't find many of them broken if you use all the rules, and this includes Stack the Deck, which many players and GMs find to be horribly broken." So don't limit them! If a player buys it and you don't even want to talk with them about it, and they get the wrong impression of what it does, let them get back the xp for free, there's nothing lost here, and everything is gained in that Navigators and Astropaths get to have much greater freedom in how they want to specialise their character.
No. Again, I don't know what you expect with your posts. I have my house rules for the game I am running. I have developed them over multiple campaigns for reasons of my own. I have shared them with those that wanted to see them. I didn't invite you. You invited yourself. I'm not going to change simply because you disagree. I don't know you and I have no reason to respect your opinions. You're new here. You've inserted yourself in a long-running thread in a very aggressive and impolite fashion. What about this formula says to you I should grant your wishes, reply to your posts, or even listen to your rants?
"Of course, this means you need to keep track of fatigue. I like fatigue. It makes my players want to use drugs. That lets me bring addiction into my game. I love addiction. It also makes them want to learn Meditation. I like systems that encourage skills that otherwise don't get used much. Win-win."
I don't really see why you wouldn't keep track of fatigue anyway. This seems a non-sequitur to me.
Again, your lack of experience is showing. Many gaming groups in many genres decide to ignore some systems in any game. I've rarely played any version of D&D where people actually kept track of encumbrance. It's unwieldy and time-consuming, and doesn't really affect play that much, and usually only negatively when it does.
"I do use the rules from ItS about Multiple Acquisitions. I've merged the Unwelcome Attention with Misfortunes,"
Uh, you say that, but it's not in your acquisition rules, and it's very specifically an optional rule, and if I wanted to include optional rules from the rulebook in my game and I am already giving them a list of rules that apply then I think that I might include it there...
This one truly cracks me up. So according to you I should post all optional rules I'm using in my house rules. That ranks up there with your statement where anything I don't specifically forbid must somehow be permissable. Your logical fallacies are numerous.
"My home rules are open to reinterpretation every time I sit down. I'm not publishing a book for money. If I were I'd try to word them in a more concrete fashion."
The only reason I am encouraging you to write them in a more concrete fashion is to keep players expectations consistent and more importantly for me and for the player base at large because GMs look to more experienced GMs without knowing the motivations behind their rules. I don't expect you to write an explanation for each rule, though of course the best form of law is one that is annotated with rationale but I would be grateful and I imagine the world at large if GMs weren't killing their party off because they are blindly following it.
Are you offering me money? In fact, I once did have explanations for each of my house rules. My players told me they didn't want to read 40 pages of house rules and asked me to shorten them. It would seem you are in the minority.
And again I will reinforce that the base game has very little room for cheese outside of the acquisition system. And I will ask for some examples of you of what exactly a character could build that is so cheesy? What bunch of Alternate Career Paths break the game? Even every rank an alternate rank doesn't break the game at all, in fact such a character would be far weaker than normal.
To answer your 2 questions, no, and I'm guessing you've already got your own little plan.
I'm done. The rest of your post I'm not going to bother to respond to. I doubt I'll respond further, period. I will be candid. You're new here. You didn't go the time-honored method of lurking and posting, building your street cred, and eventually breaking out on your own. You burst on the scene as if everyone should stop what they're doing and give you their full attention. Well, you've got it, but I doubt it's going to be what you wanted. I'm also guessing this isn't the first forum that's happened on. You didn't happen to get permabanned from rpg.net, did you? I'm nonplussed over your behavior. It's like the person who calls me on my phone and asks if I'm there. Did their parents not raise them at all? You don't knock on someone's door and ask the person that answers if it's their house. You introduce yourself and your business with the person you're looking for, then you ask if they are available. Your questions were aggressive, your tone was alternatively offensive, condescending, and scornful. Your full page NYT ad doesn't help things either. Instead of questioning things one at a time and getting the feel of something you instead went for a full-out rant without no understanding of the underlying causes. The worst part is that those underlying causes weren't important to you. They were only your way to keep the conversation going. Only your own viewpoint means anything to you. You aren't going to listen to anyone else's arguments, regardless. What makes you think anyone would want to carry on a conversation with you?
I respectfully disagree MorbidDon. I see no passion. I see obsession. I've seen it grip gamers before. It affects relationships, friends, significant others, it damages lives. I think our acquaintance here needs to back out of gaming altogether for awhile. Distance grants a new perspective. I've had to do it, and I've seen literally dozens of others that needed to.
I have a family and a career. I also go to school on top of that. I have a load of other real life issues to deal with at any given time. Gaming is a hobby. It's been one of my hobbies for nearly 5 decades now. You might say I have a passion for it. You can't say it takes precedence over any of my responsibilities. I'm forced to wonder if RMcD can say the same.