Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheFlatline

What happened to 2nd edition?

Recommended Posts

 

You never even considered that perhaps I have a large group of players who find grinding combat boring, or who want something that doesn't break narrative flow as much?

 

I do the same as you Cail, for the very same reasons.

My group wants this so that is what they will get.

(with my personal touch, twists and evil shenanigans, of course).

 

 

When the mood for combat heavy scenarios finally do set in, we default to Deathwatch - but that is rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway."

Sorry, but that's pretty explicitly stating that you had a player no longer enjoying your game and then implied if he quit (going by the context of the previous sentence, I assume you're talking about the same person playing in your game, as this is how English works) you'd be happy about it. Rather than , you know, talking about things with him.

"No, the problem is that your assuming I'm making these changes to discourage a kind of behaviour instead of to try and create a particular kind of game or mood, as if you can't conceive as to why I would add lethality if it wasn't to reign in behaviour. Your then extrapolating it into a passive aggressive personal attack."

You're the one who added a context about using the rules in the hopes that it would cause a player to quit, see above. If you misspoke, you misspoke and that's fine, I do it all the time. But the message you sent was about using rules to change player behavior, not invoke a mood. If I wrote a screed about killing characters anytime the player wanted to use complex rules, I'd hope it would be called out as bull and unfun to players.

"There's a difference between making changes to kick someone out, and making changes based on past experiences and saying 'I don't care if that means X or Y doesn't play, because they can join another of the 5 or 6 groups at our gaming centre and play that way with other people, but I know that A, B, C , D ,E, and F will love this, because they told me they would like to see it'"

Or you could just talk to the power gamer and tell him or her you want to play a low combat game and ask if there's any part of that he'd like to play. Rather than just set up rules in the hopes they'll exclude people on their own. Keep in mind that I have to assume this is what you're doing because you're not giving any other context. If the only thing you say you did is something kind of sh*tty outside of context, I have to assume you did something kind of sh*tty. I think unlike a lot of people I don't automatically associate power gamer with horrible people, so I assume you and the power gamer both have equally value desires in the game that should be discussed rather than turning them into a GM pissing contest.

"I use these rules because its more immersive, to encourage the purchase of a wide variety of skills and most importantly to speed up combat so that it can be resolved in around 4 turns and if it can't that it keeps flowing at an exciting pace instead of grinding games to halt. You never even considered that perhaps I have a large group of players who find grinding combat boring, or who want something that doesn't break narrative flow as much?"

I don't consider it if you don't bring it up. Making combat more lethal is a fine way of speeding things up, though again as I said some players may want to engage with combat because it's really the only part of the system he or she can actually interact with. If they just wanted to do roleplay, there are much more popular free form forums to work with.

Also, your listed reasons are at least partly still about shaping player behavior, and I've already said tht a better way to do that is reward things rather than punish them. Even if players get to make lots of non-combat skill checks, it doesn't change that making those is less exciting or interesting than doing cool combat abilities. It makes me wonder why you'd want to play this specific system, as it's primary rule focus is about combat. If you'd like some more narrative based systems, I'd recommend something like FATE, the 40K gumshoe conversion, or even doing a 40K themed fiasco play set.

You're obviously insulted that I called out your described behavior as passive aggressive. You're now backing up as much as you can to counter attack me rather than just recognizing that yeah it is passive aggressive out of context but here's the actual context. It makes me wonder if you're defensive by nature or if you think that it actually is acceptable behavior to force someone out by making the game unfun for them.

"He hasn't, because he thinks and "argues" like a televangelist."

What does this even mean? All flash, no substance? Only concerned with making money? What am I evangelizing here? If I could bop people on the head and cure them of their inability to imagine a rule system that's not a wargame with some roleplaying hits tacked on, I'd probably do it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Methinks thou doth protest too much," is hardly pseudo psychology, but you're right that if I recognized that I insulted someone I should apologize.

I apologize for my statement insulting Cail. I intended it to be an indictment of what I saw as bad behavior, not Cail himself. In the context of tailoring a game to players desires, there's nothing wrong changing around the rules. That said, I do think this should b discussed with every player beforehand, which I hope Cail would agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say something inflammatory...Insight endless debate...

I missed these forums!

Just to weigh in... I'm strongly in favor of FFG keeping DH2.0 compatible with BC & OW. So far I like the updates and don't mind the cut and paste. I am more than a little concerned that proof reading is still not a strong focus of FFG. Their books are generally not well edited and it has been that way since they first got the GW licensing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nim there is a quoting system if you didn't know, it makes reading what you're responding to easier.

 

I agree with the idea of playing how you wish, enjoyment of the many outweighing the few. You can't please everyone.

 

Yeah, I'm almost at the point where I want to read the entire core, correct all the little mistakes and send it to them so they can fix it for further printings, because they apparently don't want to hire a proof reader.

Edited by ThenDoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nim there is a quoting system if you didn't know, it makes reading what you're responding to easier.

 

I agree with the idea of playing how you wish, enjoyment of the many outweighing the few. You can't please everyone.

 

Yeah, I'm almost at the point where I want to read the entire core, correct all the little mistakes and send it to them so they can fix it for further printings, because they apparently don't want to hire a proof reader.

I was responding to deathbygrotz, who edited his post after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean the long post of different quotes, it was because I was posting on my phone and can't really do more than a single quote at a time. It seems like you understood who I was responding to, though. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to interrupt the inconsequential bickering that this thread has devolved into, but should I worry that Andy Fisher and Tim Huckelbery both viewed my forum profile on the 11th of this month?

http://imgur.com/saQxGml

I feel like there is a Vindicare getting a bead on me right n

Edited by gdiddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you are talking about Narrative Damage (instead of 'hit points') and Action Points (instead of 'two Half Actions and one Reaction')?

 

Narrative Damage, while a cool idea, had it's share of bugs. Playtesting results showed that it slowed combat down to a crawl (and slow combat is already a problem with WH40KRP). Plus there were built-in nonsensical results (taking a single hand cannon shot to the head was virtually never fatal, but five minor scratches and you were as good as dead), and it didn't 'scale up' well to take non-human adversaries into account (necessitating silly stopgaps like all daemons having force fields, for instance). Like I said, it was an interesting concept, but it needed more development to be 'ready for prime time'.

 

Action Points are a different matter. The negative comments about them on the Forum were almost exclusively in reference to Beta1's absurdly complicated Rate of Fire rules. I think Action Points would have been an improvement to DH2 if they had been applied to the 'standard' WH40KRP RoF rules, allowing us to replace the cumbersome Half Action/Full Action/Reaction language with "You have three Action Points- spend them however you want." I think ditching Action Points was a case of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water.'

 

I was wondering the same thing when I opened my copy of Dark Heresy 2.  I heard these strange stories of a radical new system that did not use hit points, as well as this crazy idea about action points.  Upon opening the book it looked cool, but it looked so...same.  Sure a Shuriken cannon did not hurt as much but the mechanics were pretty similar.

 

I was wondering how the new narrative combat would have worked and how it would incorporate Space Marines.  Anyone able to give an idea of how Astartes would work in that system?

 

I am more into the fluff anyways.  I think the idea was cool and I will continue to throw money at it so carry on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you are talking about Narrative Damage (instead of 'hit points') and Action Points (instead of 'two Half Actions and one Reaction')?

 

Narrative Damage, while a cool idea, had it's share of bugs. Playtesting results showed that it slowed combat down to a crawl (and slow combat is already a problem with WH40KRP). Plus there were built-in nonsensical results (taking a single hand cannon shot to the head was virtually never fatal, but five minor scratches and you were as good as dead), and it didn't 'scale up' well to take non-human adversaries into account (necessitating silly stopgaps like all daemons having force fields, for instance). Like I said, it was an interesting concept, but it needed more development to be 'ready for prime time'.

 

Action Points are a different matter. The negative comments about them on the Forum were almost exclusively in reference to Beta1's absurdly complicated Rate of Fire rules. I think Action Points would have been an improvement to DH2 if they had been applied to the 'standard' WH40KRP RoF rules, allowing us to replace the cumbersome Half Action/Full Action/Reaction language with "You have three Action Points- spend them however you want." I think ditching Action Points was a case of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water.'

 

I was wondering the same thing when I opened my copy of Dark Heresy 2.  I heard these strange stories of a radical new system that did not use hit points, as well as this crazy idea about action points.  Upon opening the book it looked cool, but it looked so...same.  Sure a Shuriken cannon did not hurt as much but the mechanics were pretty similar.

 

I was wondering how the new narrative combat would have worked and how it would incorporate Space Marines.  Anyone able to give an idea of how Astartes would work in that system?

 

I am more into the fluff anyways.  I think the idea was cool and I will continue to throw money at it so carry on.

The narrative combat system worked by basically getting rid of wounds and instead having a big critical hit table you always compare damage to. Each entry in the table would describe some kind of penalty you'd get with a narrative description. The table went from 1-30 in and higher numbers meant worse effects or death, with each previous hit you'd taken adding a static amount to the result of your next hit. These tables existed for each type of damage and each hit location. To help mitigate a bit of the workload, there were rules for minor NPCs not using the table and medium NPCs automatically dying to critical hits.

So really, the table wasn't really very much about narrative combat, as was basically just extending the effects of the critical hit tables to cover any time a player gets hurt. There would be no real difference on this for space marines other than soak values, the same as there is now.

The action points were basically giving every character 4 points they could spend and a cost or things like attacking, dodging, moving, etc. Each weapon (including melee) had rate of fire rules that said how many points it would cost to use that weapon. This meant some weapons could get off multiple shots in a single attack or that they would cost multiple action points to make a single shot.

The idea was cool, but the execution was left wanting. Rather than trying to fix it, FFG scrapped everything. The biggest core problem of the system was how much extra tracking and math was involved, as well as chart lookups. Minor problems included weapon balance, action balance, and narrative consequences of the damage system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "old" beta combat system was a good idea but, it was clunky and unmanageable as well as tactically unrealistic. Additionally, the entire armory section was rewritten so as to be unrecognizable from the rest of the system. The problem as I see it was NOT ffg's unwillingness to fix it! They tried repeatedly! The problem was twofold: First, at it's core the combat system wasn't working well! Secondly; while some people (You know who you are so I won't bother calling you out!) wanted a "new shiny" just for the sake of "different", the (apparent) majority wanted something more closely aligned to the rest of the line! I want to stress that this is NOT cowardice or any other pejorative on FFG's part! It's actually listening to the feedback generated by the beta! Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "old" beta combat system was a good idea but, it was clunky and unmanageable as well as tactically unrealistic. Additionally, the entire armory section was rewritten so as to be unrecognizable from the rest of the system. The problem as I see it was NOT ffg's unwillingness to fix it! They tried repeatedly! The problem was twofold: First, at it's core the combat system wasn't working well! Secondly; while some people (You know who you are so I won't bother calling you out!) wanted a "new shiny" just for the sake of "different", the (apparent) majority wanted something more closely aligned to the rest of the line! I want to stress that this is NOT cowardice or any other pejorative on FFG's part! It's actually listening to the feedback generated by the beta! Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I won't argue much with this, although there are a few things I disagree with, beyond saying that FFG's unwillingness to fix it stemmed from the fact that the whole thing needed a heavy re-write which they were unwilling to do in lieu of copy-pasting an old ruleset. Given that this is what literally happened (copy-pasting old rules), I'm going to go ahead and say there is criticism to be had for how FFG handled it.

Also, I think it's an oversimplification to say that some people wanted a "new shiny" as opposed to wanting a new set of core rules with the understanding that the old rules have some demonstrable problems and are disliked by a number of people who would otherwise love doing a 40K RPG. The core rules do not work well for everyone, so of course they want something new rather than a bunch of patches to the old system. The argument of new vs old basically came down to the "new" side wanting the "old" side to try something different, given that they already had an old system to play with that the "new" side didn't really like that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "old" beta combat system was a good idea but, it was clunky and unmanageable as well as tactically unrealistic. Additionally, the entire armory section was rewritten so as to be unrecognizable from the rest of the system. The problem as I see it was NOT ffg's unwillingness to fix it! They tried repeatedly! The problem was twofold: First, at it's core the combat system wasn't working well! Secondly; while some people (You know who you are so I won't bother calling you out!) wanted a "new shiny" just for the sake of "different", the (apparent) majority wanted something more closely aligned to the rest of the line! I want to stress that this is NOT cowardice or any other pejorative on FFG's part! It's actually listening to the feedback generated by the beta! Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I won't argue much with this, although there are a few things I disagree with, beyond saying that FFG's unwillingness to fix it stemmed from the fact that the whole thing needed a heavy re-write which they were unwilling to do in lieu of copy-pasting an old ruleset. Given that this is what literally happened (copy-pasting old rules), I'm going to go ahead and say there is criticism to be had for how FFG handled it.

Also, I think it's an oversimplification to say that some people wanted a "new shiny" as opposed to wanting a new set of core rules with the understanding that the old rules have some demonstrable problems and are disliked by a number of people who would otherwise love doing a 40K RPG. The core rules do not work well for everyone, so of course they want something new rather than a bunch of patches to the old system. The argument of new vs old basically came down to the "new" side wanting the "old" side to try something different, given that they already had an old system to play with that the "new" side didn't really like that much.

 

Nim, I know you were there for both beta's just like I was. I also know that we were often at odds in our opinions (I say with respect.). But what I'm saying is not really an oversimplification. Most of the people who were "anti" first beta were willing to try something new provided it was as good or better as the old system (I was, it wasn't!). What followed was a tirade of personal attacks and insults by a small minority of the testers at the naysayers. When FFG decided to go with their already "proven" system that same crowd shifted their attacks to primarily be directed at FFG's staff and management. Apparently the naysayers were more common than the "shiny's". If FFG was guilty of anything it was they were unwilling to commit the same mistake as WOTC by alienating their customer base. Criticize? Perhaps. But when said criticism became vitriol I can understand why FFG and many of us were... disturbed by some of these folks! It is not cowardice to fall back on something that already works (Even if imperfectly at times.) I suspect that FFG realized, like many of us did, that the new system needed more than some casual or minor tinkering and thus decided to scrap it. 

 

That being said, There were many things in the original beta that were almost universally applauded like the whole "narrative tools section". These were basically kept unchanged. Other's, like Chargen, were basically kept but were changed to reflect the realignment of the system. Let's not forget that OW's aptitude system was pretty well regarded prior to DH2 beta. It's not really a surprise that FFG used it as the base for CharGen. For all the people that advocate for "freedom of choice" in Chargen, I'm surprised that they would have a problem with the aptitude system. It gives you exactly that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that OW's aptitude system was pretty well regarded prior to DH2 beta. It's not really a surprise that FFG used it as the base for CharGen. For all the people that advocate for "freedom of choice" in Chargen, I'm surprised that they would have a problem with the aptitude system. It gives you exactly that!

 

Wowowowow... Slow down here brothers! The aptitude system was cool in Only War not because it was so good, but because it was fitting to the setting of the game. You could make stuff like Soldier Type A, Soldier Type B, Soldier Type C and so on. All soldiers, basically the same role with slight variety. The aptitudes can handle such low diversity, because characteristic/skill/talent versatility is not a big deal when all you have to do is fight. 

 

Now, Dark Heresy is not just about fighting at all, so character versatility becomes much more important. Your acolyte has to be able to handle himself in a fight, get along with people, and investigate stuff. But the aptitudes will usually allow him to do only one of these sufficiently and pretty much suck with the others because of the high xp costs. Characters will inevitably specialize, and die/sit idle in situations outside of their specialization. At best, you can have a combo where your character mildly suck in everything, but that's pretty much the best you can do. 

 

And the aptitude system would be a "freedom of choice" only if you could choose your aptitudes freely instead of taking "packages". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...