There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

Or allow other players to assist with their Influence.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

Or completely revising the system and create a Cadre entity and a system for running it. Which is what I have done.

But to paraphrase some RPG designer whose name I forget: if the system requires houserules, why am I buying it?

- Not that this is equally true for the entire extended family of this system.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

Or completely revising the system and create a Cadre entity and a system for running it. Which is what I have done.

But to paraphrase some RPG designer whose name I forget: if the system requires houserules, why am I buying it?

- Not that this is equally true for the entire extended family of this system.

What system doesn't use house rules though? There will always be some kind of house rule or any system out there no matter how good the rules are. It depends on the group and style of the players.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

Or completely revising the system and create a Cadre entity and a system for running it. Which is what I have done.

Interesting. Can I see what you've done?

Uhm.. Sure. I'll write it up over at Dark Reign soon'ish if you want

But to paraphrase some RPG designer whose name I forget: if the system requires houserules, why am I buying it?

- Not that this is equally true for the entire extended family of this system.

What a jerk (the designer). I have never seen a system that didn't require a fistful of house rules.

Alex

But to paraphrase some RPG designer whose name I forget: if the system requires houserules, why am I buying it?

- Not that this is equally true for the entire extended family of this system.

What a jerk (the designer). I have never seen a system that didn't require a fistful of house rules.

Alex

While the tone of the statement is needlessly categorical, the underlying concern is valid - generally speaking, the amount of house ruling required to make the game run to your liking is a reasonable factor in choosing the right game for you.

For example, the reason I really like 40k is because I find it running satisfactorily with only minor house rules, and I can homebrew rules easily enough due to familiarity with the system. If I needed more complex house rules to play 40k to my satisfaction, I'd seriously consider switching my 40k games to another system, at which point my need for new 40k material would be reasonably diminished.

There is nothing stopping GMs from averaging everyone's influence together and using it solely as a group mechanic.

Or completely revising the system and create a Cadre entity and a system for running it. Which is what I have done.

But to paraphrase some RPG designer whose name I forget: if the system requires houserules, why am I buying it?

- Not that this is equally true for the entire extended family of this system.

What system doesn't use house rules though? There will always be some kind of house rule or any system out there no matter how good the rules are. It depends on the group and style of the players.

No, the point is that a system should not require house rules to be workable. Individual groups house ruling in a few things to their taste is fine, but when the majority of groups end up house ruling something (or at the very least complaining about it) then it's a design failure.

EDIT: Essentially it's a response to the "if you don't like it, just house rule it!" argument. Any system, no matter how bad, can be house ruled into something serviceable. With enough house rules you can turn DH into Star Wars. But when you get down to it "you can house rule" is not a valid defence of bad design.

The "The just house rule it" statement does have some truth to it though. No two groups have the same play style and every group always has a unique dynamic based on who is the GM and who the players are. There is a reason why there has never been a "perfect" system or anything even close to it. Where one person thinks a system is ideal, another thinks it's terrible. So yes, the "just house rule it" argument is valid and has been since the inception of role-playing games.

The "The just house rule it" statement does have some truth to it though. No two groups have the same play style and every group always has a unique dynamic based on who is the GM and who the players are. There is a reason why there has never been a "perfect" system or anything even close to it. Where one person thinks a system is ideal, another thinks it's terrible. So yes, the "just house rule it" argument is valid and has been since the inception of role-playing games.

True, but there does come a point where you transition from writing "house rules" to "writing my own game based on this ruleset." (I speak from experience.) When you reach that point, there arises the very legitimate question of "why did I spend $60 for this?"

It's a matter of degree. Small issues, related to play style and preference can often be "house ruled" away. Larger issues, which could require a group to do a wholesale re-write of parts of a system, can represent serious flaws in that system.

I agree, however, I don't think the reinforcements system constitutes a major part of the the game.

While some of the rules could have certainly been designed better in my opinion, what we got is not surprising when some people wanted 2.0 to be backwards compatible. Usually backwards compatibility requires the core mechanics of the game to remain the same or close to the same such as D&D (1st Edition) to AD&D (2nd Edition). 2nd Edition was backwards compatible because it used the same framework but had "improvements" and extra flexibility, content, features, etc that added on.

Dark Heresy 1.0 and the original 2.0 Beta were more akin to AD&D 2nd Ed. and D&D 3rd Ed which had very little in common as far as overall game mechanics. Even though Wotc released a conversion manual, major systems within the rules worked distinctively different.

Its not surprising to me that the Official 2.0 DH is almost the same game as 1.0 because as I said, it uses the same framework as demanded by some folks with a little bit of extra flavor (features, content, flexibility, etc.)

This is why I was hoping for an iteration of the original 2.0 beta because the 1.0 system has some inherent flaws that will always linger even though some of them could have been worked out better than they seemed to thus far.

The "The just house rule it" statement does have some truth to it though. No two groups have the same play style and every group always has a unique dynamic based on who is the GM and who the players are. There is a reason why there has never been a "perfect" system or anything even close to it. Where one person thinks a system is ideal, another thinks it's terrible. So yes, the "just house rule it" argument is valid and has been since the inception of role-playing games.

No, it's not. If a rule is problematic then saying "just house rule it" is not at all a valid defence. You can argue that the other player has applied the rule incorrectly, or that he hasn't understood all the implications of the rule etc. Those are valid defences. If your only argument is "just house rule it" then you've conceded the point - the rule is problematic and needs to be house ruled to be workable.

Well, if one doesn't like the rule regardless of its implications or their understanding of it, then the GM is free to change it if they desire. House Rules are not always used because a rule or system is perceived as "bad". One can either keep a disliked rule or change it. Over 22 years of gaming, I have never seen a system that I didn't feel I needed house rules for but that's just my experience. All systems require tailoring to different tastes.

A system needing no house rules is unrealistic and completely subjective based upon a countless amount of play styles and opinions on which rule would be "better".

Well, if one doesn't like the rule regardless of its implications or their understanding of it, then the GM is free to change it if they desire. House Rules are not always used because a rule or system is perceived as "bad". One can either keep a disliked rule or change it. Over 22 years of gaming, I have never seen a system that I didn't feel I needed house rules for but that's just my experience. All systems require tailoring to different tastes.

And that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that "you can house rule it" isn't a valid defence of a poor game mechanic. A system has to stand on its own merits, saying that it can be changed to taste is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a rule is good design or not.

A rule being good design or not is largely a matter of opinion, not in all cases but likely in most.

A rule being good design or not is largely a matter of opinion, not in all cases but likely in most.

This is a ridiculous statement. Building systems is as much of a science as it is an art form, and years of tried and failed attempts have shown there is such a thing as bad designs. Systems have a mathematical basis which is most definitely not a matter of opinion. Remember the opposed dodge vs binary dodge thing? Math showed us which was the bad design.

Don't confusing liking the design or not with design being a matter of opinion. For example, D&D 4E was a very well designed game, but if you didn't want to play a highly tactical combat game you probably didn't like it much.

I have played and run many rpgs in my life, and I will have to say I have never seen the same game run the same way by different GM's. Even after we've all been in the same room and "learned" the game from the designer. I have run games for those same designers and they have enjoyed my differing emphasis. We all have our buttons that please us or tick us off. There will never be a perfect system for everyone.

A rule being good design or not is largely a matter of opinion, not in all cases but likely in most.

This is a ridiculous statement. Building systems is as much of a science as it is an art form, and years of tried and failed attempts have shown there is such a thing as bad designs. Systems have a mathematical basis which is most definitely not a matter of opinion. Remember the opposed dodge vs binary dodge thing? Math showed us which was the bad design.

Don't confusing liking the design or not with design being a matter of opinion. For example, D&D 4E was a very well designed game, but if you didn't want to play a highly tactical combat game you probably didn't like it much.

Keep in mind that I said "not in all cases". I also agree that there is a difference between bad design and just simply not liking the rule. That is essentially what I'm trying to discern about people's arguments.

On a related note,

Remember the opposed dodge vs binary dodge thing? Math showed us which was the bad design.

I missed this, do you have a link to the thread or a brief summary?

Sorry for side-tracking. As for the OP, I'll be buying the physical book first and foremost.

Then, depending on the price, I may purchase the PDF release.

I wish I did. I think Nimsim wrote it? It was probably in a thread titled something like, "bring back opposed dodge" or "opposed dodge vs binary dodge"

This is relevant to my interests because I consider opposed dodge... not good. DoS on a Standard Attack represent exclusively an attacked placed for more damage. It does not represent an attack so well-timed that it is harder to defend against.

If you want that: Feint, Killing Strike or any other talent/special ability that makes dodging harder/impossible.

Alex

Well if it makes you feel better they ended up scrapping the whole opposed dodge and went back to how it works in Only War.

I can't take credit for that, but it was some brilliant math. Essentially, the amount of bonuses than can be added to an attack far exceed those that can be added to a dodge, thus making the probability of dodging an attack distressingly low if you use opposed dodge/attack.