Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DocIII

Acolytes and power level

Recommended Posts

Varnias Tybalt said:

Oh well, I'll just shut up about the game for the time being, but its mostly this game i compare other rulessystems with. Its the high water mark in my RPG experiences...

Sounds interesting. Will have to check it out sometime. Noir you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cifer said:

Anything capable of summoning a hundred plaguebearers will very likely create some side-effects too as daemons warp their surroundings simply by their presence.

Anything capable of summoning a hundred Plaguebearers is likely to be capable of summoning other, nastier things as well... sure, you can kill plaguebearers... but the constant biting and clawing of the accompanying Nurglings will be a distraction, as will the onslaught of over-affectionate Beasts of Nurgle...

...and the Great Unclean One who followed on.

Cifer said:

In this situation, I'd have used ten plaguebearers, teleporting (because walking onto the battlefield is just so last-millenium) directly into different parts of the settlement and each striking every target they can see once - on a feral/feudal world, that settlement would have been dead due to lack of medical care. And let's not get into what the eleventh one in the granary could come up with...

In that situation, I'd be asking the group to take toughness tests at odd moments... they're surrounded by corporeal embodiments of pestilence and disease, beings whose 'bodies' are suffused with countless infectious diseases.

Similarly, if the veil between reality and the Immaterium is thin, I consider that to be ample justification for giving any Daemon the Stuff of Nightmares trait... which suddenly makes them much, much harder to kill.

Thing is, a neutral GM is just as bad as a hostile one. The GM needs to be involved, active in his participation - neutrality and even-handedness is fine for settling rules disputes but awful for actually running an engaging story, in my experience. Putting obstacles in front of players is not inherently a sign that the GM "has a grudge against the players"... just as often, it's a sign that the GM wants the players to be challenged, and thus is going to put them in a challenging situation. A GM should not set up a situation, and then sit back and say "go ahead" - he should be participating every step of the way, adapting to changing circumstances to make such massive encounters as climactic and nerve-wracking and exciting and exhilarating as possible. Satisfying triumphs come from overcoming difficult challenges... and difficult challenges only come from the GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM fudging is not an acceptable substitute for rules that work. It leaves the players with no way to tell if an action is within their capability, leading to players who can only sit passive, waiting for the GM to let them win.

Theres no effort when you know the GM will just fudge it so it all comes down to an exciting conclusion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezmond said:

GM fudging is not an acceptable substitute for rules that work. It leaves the players with no way to tell if an action is within their capability, leading to players who can only sit passive, waiting for the GM to let them win.

Theres no effort when you know the GM will just fudge it so it all comes down to an exciting conclusion...

But you want RPGs to be World of Warcraft, so you don't really want a GM at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that GM fudging is what roleplaying is all about. No game can hope to take everything the players might do into account, a GM has to get creative or any cold, inflexible rulesystem is going to break down. It's just a matter of time.

So not only is GM fudging an acceptable subtitute for rules that work, it is the only way to have rules that work.

 

Honestly, from reading your posts around here, I don't understand what you're actually doing here. You don't seem to want roleplaying games to have anything to do with, well, roleplaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezmond said:

GM fudging is not an acceptable substitute for rules that work. It leaves the players with no way to tell if an action is within their capability, leading to players who can only sit passive, waiting for the GM to let them win.

Theres no effort when you know the GM will just fudge it so it all comes down to an exciting conclusion...

A player presents a scenario, the GM provides the modifiers he deems acceptable, and the end conclusion is a probability for the success of said task. The player takes or leaves the situation depending on his risk aversion. Pretty standard RPG fare.

The complaint so far can be easily summarized as: "I'm not comfortable with the level of risk inherent in the current system. I do not want such a great level of uncertainty attached with my actions, and any outside interference by the GM with the odds as presented are unacceptable."

You might do well to look at a system like Nobilis, where you don't even have to roll for anything. If your stats match up to a certain guideline you can do anything up to and below that point. If you want to go further, you spend points to buy a temporary stat increase. Translated to the DH system this might be:

BS 50: You can hit a fist-sized target in a stationary target.

BS 75: You can hit a dime-sized target in a fast moving target

BS 100: You can shoot a demon through the eye.

So for example, if you have BS 50 for a shot, you can hit a character's head/arm/leg. If you have BS 75 you can hit the spinal chord on a fugitive fleeing from you. etc... You can spend fate points to get +10 increases. Figure out what each level means for you, eschew the use of dice or the GM playing a role in any of this.

There's also a wargame based on the Dark Heresy setting that might better suit your needs, it tends to cover most of these things in greater detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slaunyeh said:

But you want RPGs to be World of Warcraft, so you don't really want a GM at all.

Back on the BI forums, years ago now, Dezmond was once at least halfway coherent and lucid in his posts (and still got banned; it just goes to show how bad he's gotten and how unmoderated this forum is). While there, his comments often presented an image of a person so scarred by games involving bad GMs that he's essentially paranoid of them.

It's a common condition amongst D&D players, actually - gamers who are so terrified of the power that a GM is able to wield that they vocally and insistently decry any kind of GM-originated imagination in their games, and would rather just line their characters up outside a randomly generated dungeon and hit things in a nice, safe arbitrary manner away from nasty things like GM arbitration.

I don't have those problems in my game. All but two of the players in my current Dark Heresy campaign have GMing experience of their own, in various games, and there is a sufficient degree of mutual trust between players and GM (because we're all there for the same reason; there's no actual need for antagonism between the players and GM) that we can just get on with gaming and enjoying ourselves without anyone agonising over irrelevant minutia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, years of playing the wrong kinds of games and a foolish desire for 'realism' have left me traumatised.

Mostly White Wolf, which can have a real problem with always following around the cool NPCs watching them be cool. White Wolf played with GURPS for ultra-dysfunctional gaming.

I want cool characters and rules you don't have to fight to act like a hero or let rip with the cool toys.

Sod the waiting, we'll never get to it. Sod beating yourself with knotted ropes by denying yourself the cool toys you really want to play with. Sod characters who arn't up to the challenge of the adventure and can only run and hide.

Sod it all.

HAND ME MY GODDAM GREY KNIGHT WIF A DAIKLAVE, I WANNA KILL SOME **** THEN POSTURE ABOUT IT!!!!!111!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezmond said:

HAND ME MY GODDAM GREY KNIGHT WIF A DAIKLAVE, I WANNA KILL SOME **** THEN POSTURE ABOUT IT!!!!!111!!!!!

You realize while the other characters are investigating and being useful to the group dynamic you'd be kneeling in your cell praying/meditating/waiting to use your daiklave... 

Or if your whole group is a bunch of Space Marines you'll all be kneeling in your cells praying/meditating/waiting to use your collective bad assery. All in all it ends up making for a rather boring game. Or a dungeon crawl with uber badasses in which case go back to DnD or pick up Exalted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that you want a game where you start at level 50, tier 8, what-have-you and start from there.

so... err.. why don't you?  Why don't you talk your GM into simply allowing your character to start at teir 5 with a couple of bolt pistols and a powersword?  What exactly is stopping you?  Just because the game has a tier 1-4 doesn't mean you have to start there.

The more and more  I read your posts Dezmond, I'm beginning to realize that its not so much a problem with the GAME as much as it is with your gaming group, your GMs, and your expectations.   Simply put, there is nothing stopping you from rolling a tier 5 character, outfitting it with meltas, heavy bolters, and powerswords, and going up against teir 1 level enemies except your own group and your GM.

Its not the game thats broken (and the game isn't perfect) but your expectations, combined with what your group and your GM is allowing you to do.  Course after that my next question is... what exactly is your group and GM doing that is leaving you so dissatisfied with the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezmond said:

Aye, years of playing the wrong kinds of games and a foolish desire for 'realism' have left me traumatised.

Mostly White Wolf, which can have a real problem with always following around the cool NPCs watching them be cool. White Wolf played with GURPS for ultra-dysfunctional gaming.

I want cool characters and rules you don't have to fight to act like a hero or let rip with the cool toys.

Sod the waiting, we'll never get to it. Sod beating yourself with knotted ropes by denying yourself the cool toys you really want to play with. Sod characters who arn't up to the challenge of the adventure and can only run and hide.

Sod it all.

HAND ME MY GODDAM GREY KNIGHT WIF A DAIKLAVE, I WANNA KILL SOME **** THEN POSTURE ABOUT IT!!!!!111!!!!!

Dezmond, you are becoming a parody of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kage2020 said:

And, thus, Dark Heresy.

It's kinda crap, but that's what I get from reading DH-bawed material... bostezo.gif

Kage

Its crap in your opinion Kage. We understand you dont like it, but honestly sometimes your stance against the game sounds alot like Dez's. Its not the way you wanted it.

We get it, really we do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peacekeeper_b said:

Kage2020 said:

 

And, thus, Dark Heresy.

It's kinda crap, but that's what I get from reading DH-bawed material... bostezo.gif

Kage

 

 

Its crap in your opinion Kage. We understand you dont like it, but honestly sometimes your stance against the game sounds alot like Dez's. Its not the way you wanted it.

We get it, really we do.

 

I have to agree with you, Peacekeeper.  It is a shame that he is so negative towards the game in a large number of his posts.  Each to their own, I guess.

Personally, I think the game is great despite its small flaws.  Anyone who argues for a generic 40k rpg does not really understand the 40k universe, so DH really does fit the setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilfred Owen said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

Kage2020 said:

And, thus, Dark Heresy.

It's kinda crap, but that's what I get from reading DH-bawed material... bostezo.gif

Kage

Its crap in your opinion Kage. We understand you dont like it, but honestly sometimes your stance against the game sounds alot like Dez's. Its not the way you wanted it.

We get it, really we do.

 

 

I have to agree with you, Peacekeeper.  It is a shame that he is so negative towards the game in a large number of his posts.  Each to their own, I guess.

Personally, I think the game is great despite its small flaws.  Anyone who argues for a generic 40k rpg does not really understand the 40k universe, so DH really does fit the setting. 

I agree and I disagree. I disagree that people who want a generic 40K RPG dont understand the 40Kiverse. I think Kage probably understands the 40Kiverse better then I do and he has a lot of passion and care for the setting.

I wouldnt have minded a more generic core game with Dark Heresy as a campaign setting and so forth. But at the same time I do like Dark Heresy alot. What I dont care for is people assuming that Rogue Trader characters are, by necessity, much better then acolytes. That I dont agree with.

In general I like reading Kage's posts, most are thoughtful, knowledgable and well worth reading, but his negativism to the system and game as it is presented is quite annoying and boring after hearing it over and over again. Especially in the above message when really doesnt add anything to the conversation and just laments the system/game.

I have no issue with him not liking it, the same as I have no issue with Dez wanting space marines. I just dont need to hear it every day I read a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slaunyeh said:

Varnias Tybalt said:

Oh well, I'll just shut up about the game for the time being, but its mostly this game i compare other rulessystems with. Its the high water mark in my RPG experiences...

 

Sounds interesting. Will have to check it out sometime. Noir you say?

Indeed. check out their website: www.noir.nu

Of course its all swedish but if you can understand this obscure language (or perhaps you are a swede yourself) you will probably find it interesting.  I must point out once again that its a shame that the game hasn't been translated and been sold overseas. But I read somwhere on their forums that they were looking for people with good language skills for a possible translation of Noir to english. But being a pretty small company (almost on the verge of indie-size in my opinion) and the people behind the game have "real jobs" on the side of making RPGs, it takes a very long time for things to get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varnias Tybalt said:

Indeed. check out their website: www.noir.nu

Of course its all swedish but if you can understand this obscure language (or perhaps you are a swede yourself) you will probably find it interesting.

I think I'll manage... I had to take ranks in obscure languages when I played Drakar och Demoner some, oh, 25 years ago. :)

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N0-1_H3r3 said:

 

Cifer said:

 

Anything capable of summoning a hundred Plaguebearers is likely to be capable of summoning other, nastier things as well... sure, you can kill plaguebearers... but the constant biting and clawing of the accompanying Nurglings will be a distraction, as will the onslaught of over-affectionate Beasts of Nurgle...

...and the Great Unclean One who followed on.

Cifer said:

 

In that situation, I'd be asking the group to take toughness tests at odd moments... they're surrounded by corporeal embodiments of pestilence and disease, beings whose 'bodies' are suffused with countless infectious diseases.

Similarly, if the veil between reality and the Immaterium is thin, I consider that to be ample justification for giving any Daemon the Stuff of Nightmares trait... which suddenly makes them much, much harder to kill.

Thing is, a neutral GM is just as bad as a hostile one. The GM needs to be involved, active in his participation - neutrality and even-handedness is fine for settling rules disputes but awful for actually running an engaging story, in my experience. Putting obstacles in front of players is not inherently a sign that the GM "has a grudge against the players"... just as often, it's a sign that the GM wants the players to be challenged, and thus is going to put them in a challenging situation. A GM should not set up a situation, and then sit back and say "go ahead" - he should be participating every step of the way, adapting to changing circumstances to make such massive encounters as climactic and nerve-wracking and exciting and exhilarating as possible. Satisfying triumphs come from overcoming difficult challenges... and difficult challenges only come from the GM.

 

 

The daemons werent exatcly summoned actually. It was more of a really scary side effect of a space hulk having crashed on that particular world.

And about the toughness tests, we were forced to take those frequently due to the diseased miasma surronding the host of plaguebearers. However having encountered Nurgle's abominations in an earlier adventure our entire group have learned the hard way that re-brathers/gasmasks are REALLY important to bring with you, no matter what mission you are sent to. And those helped during the Toughness tests, greatly, which explains why we didnt suffer an awful lot of damage from the sick miasma.

As to the neutrality og GMs and the subject of GM fudging. Sure i seriously dislike when an adventure turns out like World of Warcraft (i hate world of warcraft, its one of the most boring games I have ever played). HOWEVER, something equally boring is when a GM plays the RPG with himself instead of involving the players, like arbitrarily up-scale the enemies power levels on the go, and arbitrarily down-scale the power-level of the PCs skills, abilities and brought equipment.

Take the example of the re-breathers we brought. The reason we brought them is we had learned our lesson the hard way that when investigetions get dangerous, heretics seldom shirk from using poison gas or spreading air-borne diseases of different kinds, so us bringing such equipment isnt munchkiny its just us being smart. And our GM in this case did indeed apply several toughness tests for just being in the prescence of the Plaguebearers (like you said yourself that you would do), however these were severely nullified by the fact that we had brought relevant equipment. So what was the GM supposed to do? Arbitrarily decide that "all of your re-breathers malfunctions"? How fun would that be?

Sure I concede to the fact that a GM have to improvise in certain circumstances because its impossible to predict what the players will do in any given scenario, BUT in order to keep things fair the GM should have worked out a clear understanding of what his adventure should include, pre-constructing challenges on before hand and let the players face them anyway they want. Arbitrarily tossing in challenges just for the heck of it will wont work in the long run, and we are pretty keen at discovering when its obvious that the GM is just playing with himself/herself (and stop giggling at that choice of words you chilidsh people reading that last phrase! :P).

Another reason for which i like Noir (seriously its hard to stop praising the game). It also involves a fate point mechanic like Dark Heresy. However this fate point mechanic is much more advanced, and the GM also has a pool of fate points set aside for him/her. The fate points can be used to do more than just re-rolling failed results or survive imminent death, you can use them to change an entire situation in the game. For instance, if a PC is chasing an NPC and the NPC flees into a building and shuts a heavy metal door behind him locking it and keeping the PC out. The PC might try to pick the lock but realizes he or she simplys sucks at picking locks. In this situation the player can (if he or she wishes) spend an amount of fate points in order to change the door from being a heavy metal door to a rickety wooden door which the PC can kick open, or if he or she spends a higher amount of fate points (the greater the change, the higher the cost) he or she can decide that there was no door at all to begin with and continue to give chase to the NPC.

However, the game master also have access to such fate points and if he or she thinks that a certain NPC was chased down to quick by the players or a fight is looking to easy, he or she can use these special GM fate points to make the situation worse for the PCs or granting temporary bonuses to NPCs die rolls etc.

Suffice to say that the game Noir is very story driven, and the fun being that its much more interaction between the game master and the players in creating a cool story TOGETHER, instead of just the game master having to do everything. And instead of being able to infinately and arbitrarily fudge the game (like GMs some times do in otjher RPGs) s/he has a set amount of fate points to access when s/he wishes to fudge the game a little BUT there is at least a limit to the amount of fudging s/he is allowed to do. Making eventual fudging seem a lot less arbitrary, and given the fact that the players have access to similar fate points they also get some power in influencing how the game unfolds. Making the overall experience a lot more fair than in RPGs im used to. Of course giving the players such power puts a little more preassure than usual on them to make decisions that are good for the story rather than whats best for their player character, but the game heavily encourages everyone to focus on the unfolding story, even going so far as giving additional experience and fate points to players who let their own previous PC die in a dramatic and spectacular way that drove the story forward, and then letting that player spend these "story points" on the next character they create.

Sure this kind of role-playing might not be everyones cup of tea (especially not players who prefer a more World of Warcraft:y playing style), but I was just blown away completely of this fantastic way of playing an RPG. There just isnt ANY World of Warcraft:y stuff or munchkinism in the game at all, it simply shuts the door on such things and opens up a very different way of playing.

Im sure by now some people probably think that im doing comercials for the game or something. XD

But seriously, Im not. This is just blatant fanboyism pure and simple (although very well founded fanboyism in my own maybe not so humble opinion)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varnias Tybalt said:

And about the toughness tests, we were forced to take those frequently due to the diseased miasma surronding the host of plaguebearers. However having encountered Nurgle's abominations in an earlier adventure our entire group have learned the hard way that re-brathers/gasmasks are REALLY important to bring with you, no matter what mission you are sent to. And those helped during the Toughness tests, greatly, which explains why we didnt suffer an awful lot of damage from the sick miasma.

As to the neutrality og GMs and the subject of GM fudging. Sure i seriously dislike when an adventure turns out like World of Warcraft (i hate world of warcraft, its one of the most boring games I have ever played). HOWEVER, something equally boring is when a GM plays the RPG with himself instead of involving the players, like arbitrarily up-scale the enemies power levels on the go, and arbitrarily down-scale the power-level of the PCs skills, abilities and brought equipment.

Take the example of the re-breathers we brought. The reason we brought them is we had learned our lesson the hard way that when investigetions get dangerous, heretics seldom shirk from using poison gas or spreading air-borne diseases of different kinds, so us bringing such equipment isnt munchkiny its just us being smart. And our GM in this case did indeed apply several toughness tests for just being in the prescence of the Plaguebearers (like you said yourself that you would do), however these were severely nullified by the fact that we had brought relevant equipment. So what was the GM supposed to do? Arbitrarily decide that "all of your re-breathers malfunctions"? How fun would that be?

Rebreathers are fine for airborne toxins... but they won't help against the toxins and diseases carried on the daemons' blades or claws, or the stuff that's just contagious (that is, infectious by skin contact). Everything about a Daemon of Nurgle is infectious, not just the air around them. And the problem with rebreathers is that they do have a limited air supply (a rebreather is SCBA - self-contained breathing apparatus). A respirator/gas mask doesn't have this problem (it filters the air rather than providing its own supply), but most respirators I've encountered (and I've worn several different kinds) need to have the filters changed regularly even then. That's not an arbitrary ruling, that's a logical conclusion based on reasonable notions.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Sure I concede to the fact that a GM have to improvise in certain circumstances because its impossible to predict what the players will do in any given scenario, BUT in order to keep things fair the GM should have worked out a clear understanding of what his adventure should include, pre-constructing challenges on before hand and let the players face them anyway they want. Arbitrarily tossing in challenges just for the heck of it will wont work in the long run, and we are pretty keen at discovering when its obvious that the GM is just playing with himself/herself (and stop giggling at that choice of words you chilidsh people reading that last phrase! :P).

Which is more important, fair or exciting? Which would your players prefer - a fair fight, or a tense and difficult one that they'll remember fondly months or years later? "GM improvisation" is not a dirty word (nor is it two dirty words, for that matter), and should not be something that only happens in extreme situations. What happens if that encounter you've set up in advance which you thought would be a reasonable challenge turns out to be too difficult or too easy? Do you just let it run it's course? I certainly don't. It's not arbitrary - there should still be a reason for everything, but changing things on the fly to better suit the situation is, IMO, a big part of GMing. Just sitting back and rolling dice for the monsters every so often is frankly boring - should all the interesting parts of GMing be over and done with before the session even begins, should GMs be relegated to the role of spectator during the game itself? Worse, it results in encounters with a very World of Warcraft feel - there's no dynamism, no sign of the world and the situation adapting to the circumstances of the encounter.

I see what you're saying about Noir - one of the early playtest versions of Dark Heresy (before it was rewritten almost entirely) had a mechanic like that, where the GM had a single fate point, plus a few for major NPCs (1 per major NPC), but gained more every time the players made certain choices (when a player used a fate point, they could either pick one of the effects with no consequences, or pick two of the effects, with the consequence that the GM got an extra one to use later that session), that gave the GM an extra tool for influencing the game. It worked nicely, but it didn't invalidate other methods of GM influence - even in my normal games of WFRP and Dark Heresy, my NPCs don't break the rules... but the situations within which they exist are not inherently bound by any rules, so I can manipulate those as I see fit. That kind of limitless power is fine so long as the GM has sufficient judgement to use it correctly, and the appropriate intent and mindset behind the use of that power (the intent being that everyone has fun... not just the players, not just the GM... everyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++++What happens if that encounter you've set up in advance which you thought would be a reasonable challenge turns out to be too difficult or too easy?+++++

Well, with no permadeath, you just dust them off and try to balance the next fight better. While retaining the ability of the players to understand the rules by which the game works instead of simply waiting for the GM to let them win, like he always does.

--

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N0-1_H3r3 said:

 

 

Which is more important, fair or exciting? Which would your players prefer - a fair fight, or a tense and difficult one that they'll remember fondly months or years later? "GM improvisation" is not a dirty word (nor is it two dirty words, for that matter), and should not be something that only happens in extreme situations. What happens if that encounter you've set up in advance which you thought would be a reasonable challenge turns out to be too difficult or too easy? Do you just let it run it's course? I certainly don't. It's not arbitrary - there should still be a reason for everything, but changing things on the fly to better suit the situation is, IMO, a big part of GMing. Just sitting back and rolling dice for the monsters every so often is frankly boring - should all the interesting parts of GMing be over and done with before the session even begins, should GMs be relegated to the role of spectator during the game itself? Worse, it results in encounters with a very World of Warcraft feel - there's no dynamism, no sign of the world and the situation adapting to the circumstances of the encounter.

 

 

In my opinion: fair and exciting is equally important. If a pre-constructed challange proved to be a little too easy, then its back to the drawing board and making a mental note for the future. A good way to anticipate such things is to borrow your players' character sheets and check them thorughly for what they can and cant do, and then match the challenges according to that information.

My philosophy goes kind of like this: if the players manage to stay on course of the intended adventure then I play it as I have planned it. If they manage to "outsmart" me in some way, then their reward should be to overcome the challange with their ingenious plan (because nothing stifles creative thinking worse than when the GM makes the players' smart plans fail simply because the GM "Hadn't thought of it"). HOWEVER! If the players deviate drasticly from the planned adventure I consider myself well within the rights to improvise. Sometimes improvise harshly in order to guide the players back to the planned adventure at hand.

And that philosophy could be quite bad if I mostly ran "on-rails" types of adventures, but i try really hard not to. I try to design my adventures in a pretty open ended way (a lesson learned from... Yep you've guessed it: Noir). Instead of just staking out events in a pre-constructed chronological order I create a plot, the NPCs within that plot and what their intentions are (both the open and secret) and how the PCs fit in within the plot, and then just let the situation play out the way the PCs reacts to it. However there are certain limitations of course, because I like to shove cool events and challenges in the adventures, I have to place them in a somewhat chronological order. But I try to keep it as open ended as possible. For instance if one of the PCs feel like putting a bullet through the head of their Inquisitor while s/he is briefing his acolytes on the mission at the beginning, then be my guest I wont say "no, you cant do that" or simply kill the entire group off as punishment. But because they have deviated harshly from the intended adventure, they can be sure to expect some pretty harsh improvisation from my part.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

 

I see what you're saying about Noir - one of the early playtest versions of Dark Heresy (before it was rewritten almost entirely) had a mechanic like that, where the GM had a single fate point, plus a few for major NPCs (1 per major NPC), but gained more every time the players made certain choices (when a player used a fate point, they could either pick one of the effects with no consequences, or pick two of the effects, with the consequence that the GM got an extra one to use later that session), that gave the GM an extra tool for influencing the game. It worked nicely, but it didn't invalidate other methods of GM influence - even in my normal games of WFRP and Dark Heresy, my NPCs don't break the rules... but the situations within which they exist are not inherently bound by any rules, so I can manipulate those as I see fit. That kind of limitless power is fine so long as the GM has sufficient judgement to use it correctly, and the appropriate intent and mindset behind the use of that power (the intent being that everyone has fun... not just the players, not just the GM... everyone).

 

 

Its a shame they rmoved the mechanic and just made it a generic Life-saver/re-roll mechanic. The one you mention seems a lot more interesting in my opinion. However I guess it was refitted in Disciples of the Dark Gods where certain antagonists can have fate points and even inflict "UNrighteous fury". However im still more intrigued by the mechanic you mention, than the current one.

I concede to a certain degree to your points about situations not being bound by rules. However If a GM is going to fudge the situation because his planning was insufficient then it takes a lot of skill in order for the fudging not being too overt. Which is why I generally shy away from arbitrary fudging because doing so breaks the illusion of the gaming world being another "real" world, unless done with great subtlety. As I might have told you, in our gaming group there are several GMs who take turn in handling the game mastering bit, and as one could expect we have learned the many tricks of the Game Master, making subtle fudging harder (its not very hard to spot when you've used the same tricks yourself from time to time). And sure when the other GMs are acting as players they could just have oversight on the matter and let things be, but if you suffer from this kind of "GM damage", accidentally spotting overt fudging just brings a sense of boring predictability.

Anyhow, the subject is a vast one with many different philosophies, and it can be debated til the end of the world. : /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dezmond said:

+++++What happens if that encounter you've set up in advance which you thought would be a reasonable challenge turns out to be too difficult or too easy?+++++

Well, with no permadeath, you just dust them off and try to balance the next fight better. While retaining the ability of the players to understand the rules by which the game works instead of simply waiting for the GM to let them win, like he always does

How would the players learn the rules better if you coddle them by taking away the risk of death? That's essentially the GM letting the players win, no matter what.

Maybe you should check out Demon: the Fallen. Players are essentially immortal in that game, and it makes sense within the context of the setting. Or Paranoia... you're far from immortal, but you have multiple lives.

Or, perhaps YOU should try GMing so you'll stop being so friggin afraid of the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through the rules for the first time, I'm a bit suprised with the attribute advancement being maxed out at +20 (expert); isn't this a bit low? Wouldn't it be better to advance attributes +10% at a time instead of +5% (like in WFRP v1), or would this completely unbalance the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PearlChoco said:

Reading through the rules for the first time, I'm a bit suprised with the attribute advancement being maxed out at +20 (expert); isn't this a bit low? Wouldn't it be better to advance attributes +10% at a time instead of +5% (like in WFRP v1), or would this completely unbalance the game?

Yes and no.

The problem is with the +20 to skills.  Character rolls a 38 for an attribute (not even remotely impossible, especially with bonuses at such from homeworld) right now if you max out the +20 to attributes thats a 58.  Add +20 to skills and that's a 78, which is pretty good for hitting, but not a guarentee at an average roll with no modifiers.

On the other hand, a 58 is kind of rough on a attribute check, espcially since it seems that every time you roll an attribute roll, you're getting a negative modifier to it.

Now that said, Dark Heresy, and 40k in general, isn't about winning.  Its about the cost of winning.  It is very rare in any of the fluff, that anyone, including the marines, do not suffer some kind of spiritual, psychological, or physical cost for winning.  Everything from Dawn of War where Marines actually form pseudo-alliances with hated aliens to defeat chaos, to Eisenhorn becoming a cripple and a heretic.

So to portray this aspect of 40k, of sacrifice and death and insanity and corruption, Dark Heresy is kept rather low so that there are consequences to your actions and you simply don't just "win".

To have a cost to survival in a game with a ruleset, you need to have there be a good chance of loosing SOMETHING.

40k isn't about winning, its about the cost of surviving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PearlChoco said:

Reading through the rules for the first time, I'm a bit suprised with the attribute advancement being maxed out at +20 (expert); isn't this a bit low? Wouldn't it be better to advance attributes +10% at a time instead of +5% (like in WFRP v1), or would this completely unbalance the game?

 

The +20 cap is deceptive. The real measure of a character's abilities are in the skills and talents. Someone who spends all his xp to get +20 to WS will probably be beaten by someone who spend that xp on combat talents. Having +20 to your Int is nice, but with that xp you could have bought a lot of Lore skills instead. The base attributes aren't nearly as important in DH as they are in WFRP.

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...