Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDaze

Did I read that right? Redone to be BC/OW compatible?

Recommended Posts

 

Ultimately, whether you personally agree with the change or not, FFG asked, listened and responded.

 

This is a good thing for a company who provide a product which is fundamentally entertainment value and ease of use.

So much this.

 

I don't think those who talk about FFG caving under pressure understand how tough a decision they made. I've briefly discussed it in another thread, but just to recap: they devoted time to come up with new rules and internally playtest them, and they paid people who came up with it and wrote it down. They paid someone to cobble together the beta document and they devoted time and effort to read through our feedback and work it into the rules.

 

Now, they chose to throw it all the way and start the process anew. They have it somewhat easier this time since the foundation of the rules is already there, but they still have to devote time, money and effort to make it into a coherent book, hopefully further improving upon the system. They'll have to pay someone again to write the new bits, they'll have to pay someone to put together a new beta document, and while doing so they have to postpone their release schedules a good chunk of a year forward, which may actually give them trouble with the distributors.

 

That's not a decision a company takes lightly, and that's even disregarding the personal investment the authors no doubt had in the new rules, which now they're supposed to throw in the trash. I don't think any RPG open playtest up to date ever resulted in such major change in the development direction. That can only mean one thing - the gathered feedback was overwhelmingly clear in that the majority of people involved in the playtest doesn't like the new direction taken.

 

I bet it sucks for the people who liked the new direction, just as the new direction sucked for people like me. I can sympathize, in a way. But all the sympathizers of the now-scrapped rules have to understand one thing: it's not that your opinion was a minority, it's that your opinion was so much in the minority that someone at FFG questioned the ability of the new system to turn a profit based on customer data gathered, so much so that they chose to cut their losses completely on the new project.

 

Which isn't to say "you're in the minority, so you're wrong" or anything like this. Obviously, it's never a matter of right and wrong when it comes to roleplaying systems' mechanics (except if it's about FATAL, then liking it is not just wrong but also a deadly sin against all recognized religions, Pastafarianism included). I just want everyone to realize how controversial the issue has been, and how tough a decision FFG made by "caving in" rather than sticking to what they came up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if the decision is in part based on the idea that, by making the original DH sourcebooks compatible, they don't need to worry so much about a robust line of new material for DH 2.0. IOW, what if the plan is to go with a 2.0 Corebook that includes conversion notes and a new setting and then let the line slow way down in releases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I bet it sucks for the people who liked the new direction, just as the new direction sucked for people like me. I can sympathize, in a way. But all the sympathizers of the now-scrapped rules have to understand one thing: it's not that your opinion was a minority, it's that your opinion was so much in the minority that someone at FFG questioned the ability of the new system to turn a profit based on customer data gathered, so much so that they chose to cut their losses completely on the new project.

 

 

That's a fair, and well-written, point.

I do think this was the wrong decision, but if their market analysis told them this was the way to go, I can't blame them for being a business first and game designers second.

 

It's funny how this turned out for me. When I heard about the second edition, I was convinced that it would basically be an OW clone - and I was happy, even excited, about that.

Like so many things in life, though, now that I've actually tried the (in my opinion) new-and-improved edition, I just can't see myself going back. I was ready to house-rule Space Marines, heretics and Imperial Guard in just so I could keep playing second edition, rather than going back for the other lines.

 

That's what's really getting me down here: I already had OW house rules for DH. I could play that. Now I had something new and different, but it's a broken, unfinished mess. I don't want to play the old anymore and I can't play the new without major house-ruling. I'm stuck in the middle, and it's making me not want to play 40k RPGs at all, which is a damned shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if the decision is in part based on the idea that, by making the original DH sourcebooks compatible, they don't need to worry so much about a robust line of new material for DH 2.0. IOW, what if the plan is to go with a 2.0 Corebook that includes conversion notes and a new setting and then let the line slow way down in releases?

I don't think that's the case. They wouldn't have pushed for edition change at all if they didn't feel they have enough ideas to rekindle the interest in (and thus, saled of) Dark Heresy.

 

 

 

I bet it sucks for the people who liked the new direction, just as the new direction sucked for people like me. I can sympathize, in a way. But all the sympathizers of the now-scrapped rules have to understand one thing: it's not that your opinion was a minority, it's that your opinion was so much in the minority that someone at FFG questioned the ability of the new system to turn a profit based on customer data gathered, so much so that they chose to cut their losses completely on the new project.

 

 

That's a fair, and well-written, point.

I do think this was the wrong decision, but if their market analysis told them this was the way to go, I can't blame them for being a business first and game designers second.

 

It's funny how this turned out for me. When I heard about the second edition, I was convinced that it would basically be an OW clone - and I was happy, even excited, about that.

Like so many things in life, though, now that I've actually tried the (in my opinion) new-and-improved edition, I just can't see myself going back. I was ready to house-rule Space Marines, heretics and Imperial Guard in just so I could keep playing second edition, rather than going back for the other lines.

 

That's what's really getting me down here: I already had OW house rules for DH. I could play that. Now I had something new and different, but it's a broken, unfinished mess. I don't want to play the old anymore and I can't play the new without major house-ruling. I'm stuck in the middle, and it's making me not want to play 40k RPGs at all, which is a damned shame.

Hopefully what we'll get will be different from OW enough to justify the purchase.

 

Once again, as much as I'm overjoyed to know that DH2 will be something I can fundamentally enjoy due to all the stuff I didn't like being cut, I am seriously afraid that the apparent backlash against the new rules will cause FFG to be too conservative with trying new solutions within the old framework.

 

Heck, even the backwards compatibility isn't actually that important for me. I never hated the proposed new system for not being the old system, I hated it because the particular changes proposed sat completely wrong with me.

 

Tim, Andy, anyone involved in the project - if you're reading this, don't be afraid to keep trying new things. We'll either love them or rip them to shreds, but we want to see them first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that in pen and paper RPG mastering a good and working model is better then creating a new one, especially so controversial as this one. Look what happened to Warhammer Fantasy RPG. Do you really want simmilar results of your experiments to be relased? Not everyone wants to houserule the system to be compatible. If someone is so good at houseruling and he likes it so much maybe he should houserule the whole new system insted of buying one.

Edited by tymon69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)

 

I've noticed people pointing out flaws in the specifics of the older systems (OW), as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those old systems rather than throw them out entirely? They are, after all, proven to be successful for the most part and and would be far better than a system that still's untested, muddled by inconsistency and very much in it's infancy. 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)

 

I've noticed people pointing out flaws in the specifics of the older systems (OW), as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those old systems rather than throw them out entirely? They are, after all, proven to be successful for the most part and and would be far better than a system that still's untested, muddled by inconsistency and very much in it's infancy. 

 

:D

This as well. "New" and "old" aren't really qualities of the system, at least not ones that translate directly into "good" and "bad" respectively.

 

At the end of the day, it's what the system does that's important, not what year it was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't an actual problem.   Currently, a space marine and a human can both have 50 Strength and the Space marine gets unnatural strength, but it doesn't affect his actual strength rolls at all.  So a space marine and a human have the exact same chance to pull themselves up on a ledge despite the fact that one is twice as strong as the other.  

Also, a human can hit 85 Strength in Dark Heresy with the Ascension rules, which were baked into DH 2nd ed.   

 

Original Unnaturals did affect straight skill rolls, at least after the publishing of the inquisitor's Handbook. However, if they can find a way to do what they need to without Unnaturals there certainly isn't anything that should stop them getting rid of the system.

 

An Ascension was a broken mess... and even with it you couldn't reach 85. The maximum is 75. A maximum base stat of 25 and rolling maximum on your stat, equals a maximum starting stat of 45. +20 for non Ascension upgrades gives a maximum of 65, and then Ascension gives another possible +10. A much more common maximum would be 65.

 

Now, personally I am saddened that we will likely see a return to wound chipping and I thought AP was really interesting. I very much hope they push forwards, not only updating OW. I'll wait and see what comes in december.

While as I might think something could have been salvaged from the AP system, the new wound system didn't end Wound Chipping, it just hid it very well under a lot of clunky chrome, and everyone had about 6 hit points, and attacks either did 1 or 2 HPs of damage.

 

 

It occurs to me that the major obstacle to compatibility is AP, not wounds. Converting a character to use the wound system is simple, just ignore it wound count and use the new system. It only gets tricky for the creatures where the critical charts for the previous games didn't apply.

There are some creatures where they are designed to take a lot of punishment, but are not necessarily that hard to damage (average toughness and armour, but with lots of wounds). The new wounds mechanic doesn't (yet) cater for that kind of thing. The only thing that differentiates how tough something is is their Toughness Bonus, as everything dies at +30 critical effects.

 

But personally I'd almost consider not houseruling it all away simply because it isn't hit points. because hit points is - in my very personal opinion that nobody is obliged to share - the worst idea RPG'ers have so far inflicted on each other. I loathe hp.

 

 and for toughness damage soak to die in the fires of hell forever and ever and ever.

 

... Sorry, toughness soak kind of bugs me too, and has been for.. like.. 20 years or something. Please let this be the time it finally goes away and stays gone.

The main advantage of HP is that they are easy. They are easy to create a system around, they are easy for a player or GM to keep track of or monitor. Are the realistic? No, but there are few systems I have come across that deal satisfactorily with a non-HP system.

 

I did find it odd that after many years of the TB mechanic being called odd and people wanting to see an end to it they introduced the new system which just made TB even more important. 1) It became entirely about soaking the damage, rather then just reducing it and 2) Toughness could be increased to previous unseen levels.

Edited by borithan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)

 

Howdy,

 

Even "refined", some of the new systems are problematic.  Change for the sake of change is NOT a good model for any business.  If the new DH 2.0 system  offered a compelling mechanics or an infrastructure that modeled the genre or source material better, then change is certainly warrented.  Ditching compatibility and a supportive customer base for mediocrity (at best) is never a good idea...

 

The system *has* evolved from DH through OW.  Just because it still bears resemblance to the WFRP engine from 8 years ago is NOT a compelling reason for change.  Heck, FFG drank the Cool Aid of D&D 4th Edition and gave the Warhammer Fantasy crowd WFRP 3rd Edition, which was a clear misstep....

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".

 

 

Businesses listening to their customers is certainly an unfortunate development, and one that needs to be stomped out forthwith!  Consumers prefer companies that sneer at them when they have a concern, this is just established fact.

 

 

In a word: yes.

 

If I hire a professional to do a job, I expect them to do it. I can criticize my electrician for installing all this fancy new wiring when all my old stuff was working fine, but I bloody well expect him to tell me what's right and what isn't, and not just lean over and do as I tell him to. If I don't like what he's doing, I can fire him.

 

I was worried about this when the first beta update came out. FFG were doing what we were suggesting almost verbatim. I was glad that they were listening to us, but worried that they were doing this with very little personal thought.

This is taking that problem to the limit.

 

I hire professionals because they know better than I do (at least I must assume that they do). If it turns out they didn't, I'll hire someone else. If I wanted something done my way, I'd do it myself.

 

 

 

Here's the real worry, whether you liked the beta or not: They now have two months to quickly cobble together something, practically from scratch. The budget is going to be smaller. The deadlines are going to be shorter. There won't be time for a (sufficient) internal playtest.

You thought this beta felt rushed (it did)? Oh boy.

 

 

Howdy,

 

Good thing that Electricians are not a consumer-impulse entertainment commodity....

 

...Like gaming. :)

 

We are involved with a business that NEEDS to listen to its customer base.

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)

 

Howdy,

 

Even "refined", some of the new systems are problematic.  Change for the sake of change is NOT a good model for any business.  If the new DH 2.0 system  offered a compelling mechanics or an infrastructure that modeled the genre or source material better, then change is certainly warrented.  Ditching compatibility and a supportive customer base for mediocrity (at best) is never a good idea...

 

The system *has* evolved from DH through OW.  Just because it still bears resemblance to the WFRP engine from 8 years ago is NOT a compelling reason for change.  Heck, FFG drank the Cool Aid of D&D 4th Edition and gave the Warhammer Fantasy crowd WFRP 3rd Edition, which was a clear misstep....

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

 

A lot of people have been characterizing the beta as "change for the sake of change", which I believe is a mischaracterization. While the progression from DH to OW has been an improvement, there's only so much you can do with the core system.  DH2 was an attempt to create a new system with a resemblance to the original. I think the fact that they attempted it shows that FFG has at least acknowledged that the base 40k mechanics are not as smooth or maintainable as they'd like. I'm sure that DH2 will be better than OW, mechanically, but how much refinement can there be before you have to start from scratch? 

 

D&D 4E is a result of the same - the core mechanics of the game were fundamentally flawed and WotC revamped them from the ground up. This is not change for its own sake, but change in pursuit of a more fun, more balanced game. 

 

I can't speak to WHFRP3E as I haven't played it, but the ideas are at least interesting and prevent the line from being a fantasy flavored version of what we have in the 40k games (which is good from a product diversity standpoint). Haven't they used the same mechanics in their new Star Wars game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I will be waiting to see what they change before I cheer or complain. I see nothing which specifically states that the AP system will disappear, and even if it does you can always houserule it back without a large amount of hassle. Everything else aside, many of the new rule systems would become very old very fast. For example, while the wounds system could add flavour, I can see way too much table flipping.

 

As another poster stated, new doesn't necessarily mean better anymore than either new or old meaning bad. I am confident that FFG will do a proper job in melding aspects of the OW system with those aspects of the new system which are pertinent to the setting,

 

My own group, who play DH and Deathwatch regularly, found the original Beta document changed so unecessarily that we would not have moved from the original system even with the flaws in DH1. So these new changes might change that.

 

Eldath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what people have against Unnaturals. Unnaturals are something that helps with scaling, just like converting many weapon qualities to types that have (X) after the name. They're a way of making things tough, strong, smart, quick, etc., without actually making them tough, strong, smart, and so on. They allow you to have things with a damage sink of 10 without needing to give them Toughness 100, and with the changes made in BC/OW (so they're +X rather than xX) there's no reason not to include them.

 

Generally anything that reduces scalability or granularity is a bad idea. Removing general rules to place specific special rules on certain items, removing (X) values for weapon qualities - all of these things lessen the control everyone has over the rules and necessitate further special rules and exceptions to exceptions.

BYE

Edited by H.B.M.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that means though that they skip the new interesting wound system and the tactical AP system, that would really be a pity.

 

As I do not like the old system very much - this means more or less, I am out.

 

Me also. I'm done with the Beta from here on. I'm very disappointed. I hope that this was done based on some actual data not just them reading angry posts on the forum from a self-selected subset of hardened existing DH players. There are always those upset at a new edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incredibly disappointing - I think it's the only news they could give that's even more disappointing than ending the beta.

 

FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".

 

Welcome back to mediocrity.

 

Sums up my feelings.

 

This reminds me of the Xbox One fiasco. Microsoft were touting a system in which you could lend games to people you'd never even met in person, could share with more than one person at once, you could sell your digital games and instead of GameStop taking a massive (massive) cut of the transaction, the original developer would get a small cut - meaning the profits all stayed between gamers and developers which was better for all, instead of some shop and their staff leaching the money out of the loop. You could play a game on a friend's console even if you hadn't bought the disc with you... Lots of advantages with the negative that you had to connect to the Internet once every 24hours (which you could do via tethering to your phone if you had to!). But mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, people who hadn't disconnected their Xbox in two years suddenly declaring that if they wanted to take the console to their Uncle's log cabin in the Rockies where there was no mobile phone signal, they wouldn't be able to play and that it had to be tied to a bit of plastic. Sony even produced a 'comical' video of "this is how you share games on the PS4" in which a person handed a disc to another person. MS should have responded with a video saying "and this is how you do it on XB1" where someone selects a friend in another state from the list on screen and presses 'Share'.

 

But they didn't. They looked at people who wanted things to be the same as they had before and said: "okay - we'll do that. We want to make you happy".

 

And then all the people who had been happy, weren't.

 

Seems the same situation to me here. I hate that FFG appear to have caved on this. I'll take a look at what the game is like when it's released, but I expect to be disappointed. Until then, I think that's me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that they broke the basic resolution mechanic completely by allowing normal humans to go up to 85 in characteristics, how do you model something that is meant to be better than a human can possibly be (of which there is plenty of things in the 40k universe) in a system like that.

 

 

 

You had creatures with characteristics over 100. The rules already mentioned that. Does that mean that a marine can automatically break down that wooden door with no chance of failure? Yes it does. Is that a problem? Not really, he's a Marine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a Beta, FFG asked for our opinions and we gave them. They took what we gave them and acted accordingly.  I, for one, am pleasantly surprised that they're not using their community as a bunch of glorified proof-readers, but are actually taking our opinions to heart.  Sure, it may be disappointing to folks that like the Beta, but you're doing FFG an injustice suggesting that they're cowards. They accepted criticism and used it, that doesn't sound like cowardice to me. It sounds like maturity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.

 

Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)

 

Howdy,

 

Even "refined", some of the new systems are problematic.  Change for the sake of change is NOT a good model for any business.  If the new DH 2.0 system  offered a compelling mechanics or an infrastructure that modeled the genre or source material better, then change is certainly warrented.  Ditching compatibility and a supportive customer base for mediocrity (at best) is never a good idea...

 

The system *has* evolved from DH through OW.  Just because it still bears resemblance to the WFRP engine from 8 years ago is NOT a compelling reason for change.  Heck, FFG drank the Cool Aid of D&D 4th Edition and gave the Warhammer Fantasy crowd WFRP 3rd Edition, which was a clear misstep....

 

Cheers,

 

Ken

 

A lot of people have been characterizing the beta as "change for the sake of change", which I believe is a mischaracterization. While the progression from DH to OW has been an improvement, there's only so much you can do with the core system.  DH2 was an attempt to create a new system with a resemblance to the original. I think the fact that they attempted it shows that FFG has at least acknowledged that the base 40k mechanics are not as smooth or maintainable as they'd like. I'm sure that DH2 will be better than OW, mechanically, but how much refinement can there be before you have to start from scratch? 

Quite a lot, actually. Issues so deep they require building the whole mathematical model from scratch are a very rare occurrence, and I don't think this is what current 40k is dealing with.

 

D&D 4E is a result of the same - the core mechanics of the game were fundamentally flawed and WotC revamped them from the ground up. This is not change for its own sake, but change in pursuit of a more fun, more balanced game. 

The difference here being, D&D 4e was a very well done system - like it or not, it works very good and actually solves all the issues 3e had that warranted the switch in the first place.

 

I don't think the beta rules we've been given here were created to address any specific issue in the previous rules that couldn't be solved with tweaking the previous system. It's also pretty clear from the beta updates that the devs themselves didn't have a very clear vision of what they wanted to do with the system - just take a look at how they dealt with the weapons/armor tables. You don't completely change something that important to the combat system at such late stage of development if you have a strong idea of what you're doing.

 

Thus, this particular rules we've been given were indeed change for the sake of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D 4E is a result of the same - the core mechanics of the game were fundamentally flawed and WotC revamped them from the ground up. This is not change for its own sake, but change in pursuit of a more fun, more balanced game. 

 

Erm... but... D&D4E was a disaster! What flaws there were in the D&D core system were largely overlooked by fans out of reverence and nostalgia for the 'grand daddy' of all roll playing games; drastically rewriting the game to make it play more like World of Warcraft was a terrible idea, and sales reflected that.

 

The apt comparison here is that FFG clearly felt they had 'another D&D4E' on their hands with the Beta, which, given how fast WotC washed their hands of 4E, is clearly not a good thing...

 

Sure, DH1 has flaws- that's to be expected of any brand-new system. But it doesn't follow that the solution is to introduce an experimental system that is sure to contain a whole new generation of bugs.

 

-And I really can't play along with the people saying that they refuse to play any RPG with a 'hit point' system, since they are just admitting that they don't play RPGs to begin with! Not exactly a viable target audience for FFG to persue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope they keep the comparative power levels for starting DH2ed characters & other characters across the other games, i.e. an Only War guardsman is roughly equal to a 2,000xp DH1ed character. 

 

The tier & aptitude system is good though as it allows  more betterer personalised charater development.

 

Now for segway:-

I always liked the way most Acolytes were not specifically chosen, but just happened to be in the right place at the right time (or wrong time depending upon point of view :) ) , they are just reasonable people experencing some pretty un-reasonable things.

 

The only thing all Acolytes have in common, is that the Inquisition has not got around to killing them yet.

 

Acolytes are in a worse position than Guardsmen, at least a Guardsman's death is recorded in some way, even as a note in Munitorium supply overview (eventually), & someone may take umbrage at the waste of a large number of Guard. Acolytes usually just vanish.

 

As long as that atmosphere (can't think of anything else to call it) is there all good, I reckon.

 

 

My dual Thrones;

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-And I really can't play along with the people saying that they refuse to play any RPG with a 'hit point' system, since they are just admitting that they don't play RPGs to begin with! Not exactly a viable target audience for FFG to persue...

For the sake of honesty, it's possible they're all playing Mutants and Masterminds  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

D&D 4E is a result of the same - the core mechanics of the game were fundamentally flawed and WotC revamped them from the ground up. This is not change for its own sake, but change in pursuit of a more fun, more balanced game. 

 

Erm... but... D&D4E was a disaster! What flaws there were in the D&D core system were largely overlooked by fans out of reverence and nostalgia for the 'grand daddy' of all roll playing games; drastically rewriting the game to make it play more like World of Warcraft was a terrible idea, and sales reflected that.

 

The apt comparison here is that FFG clearly felt they had 'another D&D4E' on their hands with the Beta, which, given how fast WotC washed their hands of 4E, is clearly not a good thing...

 

Sure, DH1 has flaws- that's to be expected of any brand-new system. But it doesn't follow that the solution is to introduce an experimental system that is sure to contain a whole new generation of bugs.

 

-And I really can't play along with the people saying that they refuse to play any RPG with a 'hit point' system, since they are just admitting that they don't play RPGs to begin with! Not exactly a viable target audience for FFG to persue...

 

Pfft whatever dude. 4E was fun as heck and a huge improvement on 3E, if you ask me.

 

Wait a minute, is this a bait post? Implying that only games with Hit Points are True Roleplaying Games? A World of Warcraft reference? You're setting up a grognard bingo card here.

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...