Acolyte: That weapon has been lying on the ground, It's all dirty now, best to leave it there.

There aren't loot tables for dark heresy. I assume by looting you meant "taking weapons and armor" which are pretty handily available for most enemies. A single gun or melee weapon, maybe a knife or grenades, low grade armor, and an insignificant amount of money. Anything else you can just make up, like having a clue on one of them. If your players are expecting treasure, I think they're trying to play a different kind of game. You can either adjust/change what you're playing, or try to adjust their expectations. I don't know why you'd think "let your players loot NPCs tey kill" translates to "have a full equipment list for every NPC to check from." All that the players will care about is weapons/armor and clues.

You kind of sound like you dislike the people you're playing with. Or at least that you want to play a game that's different from what they want to play. No game is going to fix that. Even with that, you'd be better served playing a game that specifically works toward a certain style of play rather than something as neutral toward playstyle as the DH ruleset. If you want to run things with more investigation and less body looting, a game that is still working as a successor to D&D 3.5 is not going to do what you want.

What tone do you think dark heresy has that makes tracking encumbrance fit? Is it the whole grittiness=tracking minor things aspect? If so, the game also smashes this tone by having super powered weapons, armor, combat, and talents. There is this sort of hint of a zero to hero progression, but the game has little guidance on how to make this narratively make sense in the setting. Something to be said for DH2 is that they recognized the gulf between call of cthulhu investigators, D&D 3.5 based mechanics, and the fact that this setting is based on a WAR game. So in DH2 the characters are pushed to be more along the lines of heroes to start with rather than zeros. The encumbrance system is a legacy mechanic from original D&D that was kept in 3.5 for no reason than it had been there before, then ported over to DH1 along with other mechanics because D20 was the big thing, then carried over to DH2 because it was in DH1 and "realism" is gritty, right?

There are better ways to make the game gritty than the encumbrance system. There are better ways to make items feel gritty. Limit player items heavily and have the ones they do have be fantastic, but require heavy attention from the priests to keep functioning. Something like a lasgun doesn't have amazing performance, but also isn't as finicky. Instill that setting-based sense of wonder at technology in the players by having the mechanics reflect it, rather than just making everything into just another equipment list.

Nim npc statblocks have armor, weapons, and gear. That gear may need to be looked up if it's actually significant, and frankly I don't want to go through the motions to "make stuff up" I was running an adventure path all the blocks were there with loot already in them.

Sometimes people aren't open to playing different systems Nim, it's personal preference. I'm not going to force them to play something they don't want to because by extension I won't enjoy it. I still can't get them to play anything with the word Cthulhu in it. Sometimes we just don't get to choose who we play with. They're good at what they like, and I can appreciate that for what it is.

Encumbrance fits the tone because of earlier reason stated, it requires them to kit up with what they think may be applicable and if it's not they're going to have to take a pen or let something else go. If that isn't good enough for you I don't really care.

There are indeed better ways in your, and my opinion, but what we have isn't bad by any means.

To Fgdsfg, don't know did they start out on DnD? If not then that's probably why. They're better off for it. If they need to acquire clues put it in the mission specifications. That's what I do.

I don't want you to feel bad so much as I want to divest people of this sort of Stockholm syndrome for bad game mechanics. Ill level with you and say that there are plenty of games I've played that are objectively bad and that I've still enjoyed, but I still recognize them as unfulfilling and able to be improved. I don't want YOU to feel bad for having players use the mechanics, I want the designers to recognize that they published bad mechanics. I want mechanics to be designed with playability and theme in mind rather than because D&D did it. The only thing I want you to change is not sticking up for bad/mediocre mechanics when you could have better. Like, I get that you have your own opinions and preferences, but I imagine that they're not far from those I used to have and that if you experienced better things your preferences would change.

I think your main issue here is that your belief that other people are suffering from Stockhold syndrome for bad game mechanics, because you see bad mechanics, and are not realizing that the mechancs are only 'bad' based on your personal subjectivity.

The Encumbrence rules are both playable, and thematic, to the setting. It may or may not have something to do with roots via Dungeons and Dragons. It is not a hundred percent realistic, but neither is is it a hundred percent illogical. Its based on the realistic assumption that characters in this game would suffer similar weight restrictions as in the real world. For Dark Heresy, there will be times when it's both appropriate and reasonable to have the weight of gear effect characters. For a good amount of time, it probably won't matter in the slightest.

Much like the entirety of the book, it is an optional rule to be used when needed. It should be kept in mind the other basic rules, such as Combat, Movement, and Investigation rules are essentially equally optional (despite the game being coupled with a hyper-violent setting).

I would really like to hear why you believe these rules to be so rubbish Nim without comparing it to DnD (as if that in itself held negative conotations), or insisting there are better alternates (without providing a clearly superior way of replace them).

I think your main issue here is that your belief that other people are suffering from Stockhold syndrome for bad game mechanics, because you see bad mechanics, and are not realizing that the mechancs are only 'bad' based on your personal subjectivity.

Nimsim: It's an uncharitable and frankly condescending approach to take when entering a discussion about any game, and while you may not intend to accuse people of "having fun wrong", that's how it comes across, particularly when terms like "Stockholm syndrome" are thrown around. I deal with that kind of thing anyway - I'm a croupier, and I've had to handle many disputes on Blackjack tables because one experienced-but-tactless player has decided to tell everyone else what they 'should' be doing - and it comes across badly, regardless of how well-meaning the intention.

The Encumbrence rules are both playable, and thematic, to the setting. It may or may not have something to do with roots via Dungeons and Dragons.

Dark Heresy 2nd edition is the latest in a long line of RPGs with wargaming roots - the first being D&D (which was one of many wargames that Gary Gygax published in the early days of TSR - the idea of it being a distinct form of 'role-playing game' came later). That it has a strong element of wargaming in its rules should come as a surprise to nobody.

Holy wow. Leave it to this forum to come to the consensus that game mechanics cannot be objectively analyzed.

Game mechanics can be bad. They can fail at their stated goal. They can incentivize behavior wholly at odds with the themes of the game they appear in. These effects aren't nebulous, subjective anecdotes.

That's not to say people can't have fun using them. I've had fun playing Pathfinder, which is an incredibly poorly designed game. The thing is, 'having fun' is an exceptionally low bar. A person can have fun doing literally anything . So let's leave that out of discussions of how rules work.

You all are missing the point. Nimsim isn't saying you're having fun wrong. He's saying the encumbrance rules are poorly written and any fun had with them is in spite of the rules, not because of them. He's arguing for a system that encourages the themes of the game (namely intrigue, espionage, infiltration, etc.) rather than one ported over from a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

[...]

To Fgdsfg, don't know did they start out on DnD? If not then that's probably why. They're better off for it. If they need to acquire clues put it in the mission specifications. That's what I do.

The game I'm running is actually Black Crusade, so there's no mission specifications. At the end of the day, it's just stuff I dangle in front of them to make things interesting and to see if they nab at the plot hook.

I can't wait to actually run some Dark Heresy just so I can send these people (with other characters) on actual missions . It must be heaven.

Missions are all fun and games until the players think out of the box and screw up your well planned encounters...

Holy wow. Leave it to this forum to come to the consensus that game mechanics cannot be objectively analyzed.

Game mechanics can be bad. They can fail at their stated goal. They can incentivize behavior wholly at odds with the themes of the game they appear in. These effects aren't nebulous, subjective anecdotes.

What is far, far more common with game design is that the mechanics are inappropriate - something you've lumped in with "objectively bad". It is entirely possible to have an excellent game, with excellent mechanics, which doesn't do well because the mechanics themselves are ill-suited to the game's genre. That doesn't mean that the rules are bad, merely that they're in the wrong place. It's also possible to see something as inappropriate because it doesn't fit with your particular views on what is an appropriate mechanic for a given theme.

Along those lines, the application of rules can be a crucial factor. Applying every rule constantly in all contexts does not serve some game systems - it leads to weird outcomes. Skill tests in the 40k games is a good example - the rules specify only to require tests when the outcome is interesting or chance of failure is meaningful, and requiring skill tests for every situation and every task will result in problems, as will the GM ignoring the modifiers that should be applied to any skill test (in this sense, the 40kRP rules are very 'Free Kriegspiel' - the GM is responsible for interpreting player choices through the lens of the rules, and the players interact with the rules using the GM as their medium).

Similarly, an unwillingness to engage with the mechanics in the intended fashion can produce conflicts - the Leverage RPG (using the Action variant of Cortex Plus) gives players narrative control over numerous elements, allowing them to retroactively plan using flashbacks, stumble upon coincidences, or define what their characters observe by creating and naming assets in particular ways. A player unwilling to engage with that premise - and it isn't for everyone - will find that the rules don't work in his case.

There are games out there that are just plain bad - like FATAL. Most things, though, tend to sit in the grey area between "the absolute hypothetical pinnacle of games design" and "this is awful and you're delusional if you like it".

RPG mechanics in particular are very, very subjective - they exist in a context (a group) which changes how they operate.

You all are missing the point. Nimsim isn't saying you're having fun wrong. He's saying the encumbrance rules are poorly written and any fun had with them is in spite of the rules, not because of them. He's arguing for a system that encourages the themes of the game (namely intrigue, espionage, infiltration, etc.) rather than one ported over from a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

There is no way that this isn't disrespectful. And saying "you're having fun in spite of the rules" is basically another way of saying "you're having fun wrong".

Further, Dark Heresy is not exclusively or absolutely a game of espionage, infiltration, and intrigue. The premise of Dark Heresy supports those themes, yes, but it's a 40k RPG. The Warhammer 40,000 universe comes with inherent expectations of blowing things up with bolters and ripping them apart with chainswords. Militaristic overtones are a fundamental part of the setting. More than that, the possibility of trekking through the wilderness with only limited supplies (a situation for which encumbrance rules are valuable, as it imposes decisions about carrying supplies) is no less an element of Dark Heresy's particular slice of 40k than crime scenes and interrogations are.

You only get to decide which of the games themes you want to adopt. You don't get to force your perceptions on anyone else

There aren't loot tables for dark heresy. I assume by looting you meant "taking weapons and armor" which are pretty handily available for most enemies. A single gun or melee weapon, maybe a knife or grenades, low grade armor, and an insignificant amount of money. Anything else you can just make up, like having a clue on one of them. If your players are expecting treasure, I think they're trying to play a different kind of game. You can either adjust/change what you're playing, or try to adjust their expectations. I don't know why you'd think "let your players loot NPCs tey kill" translates to "have a full equipment list for every NPC to check from." All that the players will care about is weapons/armor and clues.

You kind of sound like you dislike the people you're playing with. Or at least that you want to play a game that's different from what they want to play. No game is going to fix that. Even with that, you'd be better served playing a game that specifically works toward a certain style of play rather than something as neutral toward playstyle as the DH ruleset. If you want to run things with more investigation and less body looting, a game that is still working as a successor to D&D 3.5 is not going to do what you want.

What tone do you think dark heresy has that makes tracking encumbrance fit? Is it the whole grittiness=tracking minor things aspect? If so, the game also smashes this tone by having super powered weapons, armor, combat, and talents. There is this sort of hint of a zero to hero progression, but the game has little guidance on how to make this narratively make sense in the setting. Something to be said for DH2 is that they recognized the gulf between call of cthulhu investigators, D&D 3.5 based mechanics, and the fact that this setting is based on a WAR game. So in DH2 the characters are pushed to be more along the lines of heroes to start with rather than zeros. The encumbrance system is a legacy mechanic from original D&D that was kept in 3.5 for no reason than it had been there before, then ported over to DH1 along with other mechanics because D20 was the big thing, then carried over to DH2 because it was in DH1 and "realism" is gritty, right?

There are better ways to make the game gritty than the encumbrance system. There are better ways to make items feel gritty. Limit player items heavily and have the ones they do have be fantastic, but require heavy attention from the priests to keep functioning. Something like a lasgun doesn't have amazing performance, but also isn't as finicky. Instill that setting-based sense of wonder at technology in the players by having the mechanics reflect it, rather than just making everything into just another equipment list.

Nim npc statblocks have armor, weapons, and gear. That gear may need to be looked up if it's actually significant, and frankly I don't want to go through the motions to "make stuff up" I was running an adventure path all the blocks were there with loot already in them.

Sometimes people aren't open to playing different systems Nim, it's personal preference. I'm not going to force them to play something they don't want to because by extension I won't enjoy it. I still can't get them to play anything with the word Cthulhu in it. Sometimes we just don't get to choose who we play with. They're good at what they like, and I can appreciate that for what it is.

Encumbrance fits the tone because of earlier reason stated, it requires them to kit up with what they think may be applicable and if it's not they're going to have to take a pen or let something else go. If that isn't good enough for you I don't really care.

There are indeed better ways in your, and my opinion, but what we have isn't bad by any means.

To Fgdsfg, don't know did they start out on DnD? If not then that's probably why. They're better off for it. If they need to acquire clues put it in the mission specifications. That's what I do.

Well, you generally need to know what armor and weapons your NPC has to run them in combat, so that's already taken care of. Pretty much all equipment for NPCs relates to combat, so you're going to want to have it ready anyway. If you're just making up the combat stats of NPC equipment, I don't see why you couldn't just make up their equipment when it's being looted. Like I don't get why you are against making up loot, but are implying you don't want to look up the NPC stat block when using them in the game. Either you already have the stat block out, or you're making their stats up on the fly. So why not just make up equipment?

I'm sorry that you're stuck with people who won't play different systems. That really sucks. Have you tried doing play by posts, Roll20, or doing Skype with people online? You may be able to find a group willing to run a cthulhu game with you. Not as good as in person, but it may be fun for you.

Well, I haven't really brought it up, but by most accounts I've read the ncumbrance system IS busted because of how it scales. So yes, what we have is both bad at what it is intended for, AND there are better ways to handle encumbrance and force your players to choose mission kit. Of course, the new influence rules also screw up the idea of limited resources unless the GM is restrictive with their use.

Also, is there any way you can talk with your players about trying something dfferent? Maybe if you offer to run the game, or sell it as being a one-shot thing?

No offense, but I'm not asking for a therapy session here. We've been through all discussions avaliable on the issue and it's moot. Online play has never really sparked with me, that's a personal issue. It's more fun to watch than run.

Yes I generally have already copied the necessary info for weapons and armor and combat related gear, but they want everything not just the combat related stuff. That requires look up.

Never had to worry with how encumbrance scales because I don't get min-maxers thankfully.

Further, Dark Heresy is not exclusively or absolutely a game of espionage, infiltration, and intrigue. The premise of Dark Heresy supports those themes, yes, but it's a 40k RPG. The Warhammer 40,000 universe comes with inherent expectations of blowing things up with bolters and ripping them apart with chainswords. Militaristic overtones are a fundamental part of the setting. More than that, the possibility of trekking through the wilderness with only limited supplies (a situation for which encumbrance rules are valuable, as it imposes decisions about carrying supplies) is no less an element of Dark Heresy's particular slice of 40k than crime scenes and interrogations are.

Well, the encumbrance rules are pretty useless during Exploration Missions, because it is very situational that the Acolytes need to calculate carrying capacity (they will either have transportation or don't have enough stuff to carry around to begin with). It is almost like rules for a 180° quick-scope jumping attack in combat.

Though, I must add, I think the carrying/lifting/pushing rules are roughly fine as they are, they only need a note that they are intended for special situations and not for general use.

To save having to make a massive quote block, I'm just going to make a general response to people.

So people are basically saying that criticism of the system comes entirely from my "opinion" and that "everything is subjective." Yeah, okay, no ****. Of course everything is subjective. But the point of criticism is not to preference everything with "in my opinion" or "subjectively stating..." Read some literary, film, or art criticism. Critics don't bother to mention that things are there opinion. Read some professional rebuttals to those criticisms. You know what they don't have? People saying "well that's just like your opinion man." People feel condescended to because I made a joke about people embracing bad mechanics due to familiarity? Well, I feel condescended to when people address my critiques with nothing more than "that's just your opinion." I've given plenty of reasons FOR my opinion. Please address those rather than stating the obvious that these are subjective in nature. Hell, I've even given objective guidelines for evaluating things, and rather than refuting those guidelines it just goes back to the "well this is all subjective so I don't have to engage in it anymore than stating the obvious and pretending like I'm being "fair" to everyone. I respect people's opinions enough to argue with them. When you say that my opinions are just that an not worth arguing with, you are not actually respecting them. Which is fine. You have a right to do that. But don't pretend you're doing otherwise.

As for the "theme is in the eye of the beholder" argument, why bother having any themes at all if it's up to players to make them up? I've said multiple times that the rules as written for encumbrance could do a better job at any of the possible DH themes, including having to backpack in the wilderness. I've given multiple examples of better ways. No on has bothered to address any of those examples in their rush to be te first to say that reality is subjective, especially when it comes to opinions they disagree with.

- like FATAL.

Now that's a game where you might actually get Stockholme Syndrome if forced to sit through it with a GM...

So people are basically saying that criticism of the system comes entirely from my "opinion" and that "everything is subjective." Yeah, okay, no ****. Of course everything is subjective. But the point of criticism is not to preference everything with "in my opinion" or "subjectively stating..."

Mostly an incorrect conclusion. The point of many of the rebuttals towards your thoughts in the later pages of this thread have been mostly a counter to your assertion that certain rules are objectively flawed or bad, based on your personal preferences and views on thematic appropriateness. Many have also taken a reaction towards the occasional condescending toned jokes and points you've made.

Your criticisms are fair enough as an opinion and equally valid among any others. When you throw around statements like 'objectively bad', however, you are more or less taking a stance that you believe yourself an authority on the matter and that your view is inherently correct or superior to others. That is where the reactions are being generated from really.

=/

Read some literary, film, or art criticism. Critics don't bother to mention that things are there opinion. Read some professional rebuttals to those criticisms. You know what they don't have? People saying "well that's just like your opinion man." People feel condescended to because I made a joke about people embracing bad mechanics due to familiarity?

Profesionnal critics use strong language, but they aren't true authorities on the material they review, and they their views aren't held as a universal objective truth.

I've given plenty of reasons FOR my opinion. Please address those rather than stating the obvious that these are subjective in nature. Hell, I've even given objective guidelines for evaluating things, and rather than refuting those guidelines it just goes back to the "well this is all subjective so I don't have to engage in it anymore than stating the obvious and pretending like I'm being "fair" to everyone.

Could you repost these 'objective guidelines' for evaluating things? I genuinelly missed that somewhere in this thread and am interested in seeing those.

No on has bothered to address any of those examples in their rush to be te first to say that reality is subjective, especially when it comes to opinions they disagree with.

I did ask for you to elaborate more on your beliefs in my last post, because so far I've either missed your points, or disagreed with them (i disagree the roots with DnD is in anyway an inherently negative thing). I am interested in hearing your examples that make the Encumberence a bad mechanic in your point of view.

So people are basically saying that criticism of the system comes entirely from my "opinion" and that "everything is subjective." Yeah, okay, no ****. Of course everything is subjective. But the point of criticism is not to preference everything with "in my opinion" or "subjectively stating..."

Mostly an incorrect conclusion. The point of many of the rebuttals towards your thoughts in the later pages of this thread have been mostly a counter to your assertion that certain rules are objectively flawed or bad, based on your personal preferences and views on thematic appropriateness. Many have also taken a reaction towards the occasional condescending toned jokes and points you've made.

Your criticisms are fair enough as an opinion and equally valid among any others. When you throw around statements like 'objectively bad', however, you are more or less taking a stance that you believe yourself an authority on the matter and that your view is inherently correct or superior to others. That is where the reactions are being generated from really

I haven't asserted that some rules are objectively bad. I went back an checked and the only thing I said was objectively bad were some games I've played and enjoyed in the past (I was thinking more of some video games I've played). I have presented my opinions on things as truth, because they're true to me. And as I said, criticism is less about something being an opinion and more about backing up that opinion. And I'll be honest, until people bother giving some support to their opinions beyond "well it's an opinion and everyone can have one" I'm going to consider my opinion at least more well-reasoned than theirs. I'd imagine that the frustration by people seeing this as condescending is equal to my own frustration at the lack of actual discussion of points I've made beyond "well that's just an opinion." You might as well say "well those are just words you wrote."

Read some literary, film, or art criticism. Critics don't bother to mention that things are there opinion. Read some professional rebuttals to those criticisms. You know what they don't have? People saying "well that's just like your opinion man." People feel condescended to because I made a joke about people embracing bad mechanics due to familiarity?

Profesionnal critics use strong language, but they aren't true authorities on the material they review, and they their views aren't held as a universal objective truth.

And yet we as a culture have chosen to support having professional critics and to take their opinions as important. I'm not a professional rpg critic, but I've noticed too many people interested in nerdy media take exception to having actual criticism leveled at it. At least in video games people can call it unintuitive and unfun and not be told that the game just isn't meant for everyone.

I'm on a phone and quoting is a pain, so I'll just summarize your two other points.

"Repost my objective guidelines"

I'm mostly referring to guidelines as being "supports a specific theme of the game, and listed out the themes of the game that are most obvious for the game. People can argue that dark heresy can totally support a theme of being a squad forced to trek out somewhere with limited equipment, but that really fits much more with Only War or Rogue Trader. The game has a subtlety system, a section on investigation, and has sample adventures all about investigation. Backpacking doesn't come up. Here's an objective guideline: Does it fit the tone of the game as presented? The current encumbrance system does not.

If you want to argue about how I can't really say what the time of the game will be for every player, but at that point you might as well say that Halloween can't technically be called a horror movie with a scary tone, because some people might see it differently.

"My beliefs on encumbrance/d&d"

First, I'm not saying that taking from D&D is inherently bad. I'm saying that the original D&D was one of the most rigorously designed and tested RPGs ever, and that the rules in it all exist for specific reasons. Too many games copy these rules without considering WHY they exist, or incorrectly conclude that their only reason for existence is "verisimilitude." I would say that the original D&D is probably a better designed game than any of the 40K line, in terms of cohesiveness and accomplishing what it sets out to do. The problem is that an rpg has to have a more specific goal than "simulate a setting," otherwise it ends up being a mishmash.

And my problems with encumbrance, summed up.

1) it is unintuitive to have to add and subtract weights in kg. People don't decide something is too heavy because it is "20 kg past what I can carry"

2) the rules advise players to ignore encumbrance unless it becomes relevant, which implies that players are suddenly looking up and and adding weights when it "becomes relevant," or that players must actually always be tracking encumbrance so they don't have to halt an entire session for 10 minutes of referencing and arithmetic.

3) the encumbrance rules aren't even fully implemented for most equipment beyond combat-related items. Some combat items also appear to be balanced by their weight, again contradicting point 2).

4) the encumbrance rules seem to more about preventing from doing things than facilitating roleplay or improving immersion. Keep in mind that this is restricting players without actually ADDING anything to the game (including balance, as per point 3)

Those are the points I can immediately think of to write out. What do I think would be better?

1) every character has X number of "slots," an every item takes up a number of slots based on its size. When carrying an item, it's location on your person is written in the slots it takes up. Some talents/abilities/equipment allow extra slots.

2) every item has a subtlety rating based on size/power. Players have some sort of restriction on what items to carry (possibly slots, maybe number of items, etc). Carrying around heavy ordinance affects aubtlety. This would require a rewrite of the crap subtlety system.

3)players are EXTREMELY limited in what they can carry (one "main weapon", one side weapon, one special item, armor, and some miscellaneous. Items are very prone to wear and tear based on their level of technology and require regular ministrations by a tech priest. Or even just combine it with the slot system.

All of those would do more to encourage theme, provide strategic decisions for players, and so on.

Actually Nimsim, take a look at f.ex. the Elite: Dangerous forums, and you will see plenty of "Well, if you want tutorials you're a ninny who isn't meant to play a real game!" and "We didn't have that stuff in the 1983 original Elite and we sure don't need it here!". And then there's the whole gamergate debacle, because apparently feminist criticism of video games is just unimaginable and bad and I don't know what else.

So I think most nerdy subcultures aren't really equipped to deal with criticism very well, for one reason or another.

Actually Nimsim, take a look at f.ex. the Elite: Dangerous forums, and you will see plenty of "Well, if you want tutorials you're a ninny who isn't meant to play a real game!" and "We didn't have that stuff in the 1983 original Elite and we sure don't need it here!". And then there's the whole gamergate debacle, because apparently feminist criticism of video games is just unimaginable and bad and I don't know what else.

So I think most nerdy subcultures aren't really equipped to deal with criticism very well, for one reason or another.

Like I said, at leat video games are to the point where it's mainstream to criticize gameplay and so on, even in story-heavy games. Even I'm not willing to open the can of worms that getting into actual social criticism of dark heresy and other RPGs would entail. I suppose I could talk about the game's weird philosophy of embracing frequent failure and the gritty aesthetic while also teasing players with the prospect of so much better available to them. It's almost schizophrenic how the game goes back and forth between the players playing as peons a second away from gruesome death or being the emperors and Inquisitions chosen people. If I were going to pinpoint an ideology behind it, it's like this libertarian line of thinking in which players are expected to bootstrap their characters, even though luck has far more to do with success than anything else, or players cheat and get the bonuses early, while still feeling gratified because they earned them from playing the "grim and gritty" game.

But then I think that kind of criticism would be even more ill-received than criticism of gameplay elements.

Further, Dark Heresy is not exclusively or absolutely a game of espionage, infiltration, and intrigue. The premise of Dark Heresy supports those themes, yes, but it's a 40k RPG. The Warhammer 40,000 universe comes with inherent expectations of blowing things up with bolters and ripping them apart with chainswords. Militaristic overtones are a fundamental part of the setting. More than that, the possibility of trekking through the wilderness with only limited supplies (a situation for which encumbrance rules are valuable, as it imposes decisions about carrying supplies) is no less an element of Dark Heresy's particular slice of 40k than crime scenes and interrogations are.

Well, the encumbrance rules are pretty useless during Exploration Missions, because it is very situational that the Acolytes need to calculate carrying capacity (they will either have transportation or don't have enough stuff to carry around to begin with). It is almost like rules for a 180° quick-scope jumping attack in combat.

Though, I must add, I think the carrying/lifting/pushing rules are roughly fine as they are, they only need a note that they are intended for special situations and not for general use.

For the love of the gods, for the umpteenth time, they do!

Further, Dark Heresy is not exclusively or absolutely a game of espionage, infiltration, and intrigue. The premise of Dark Heresy supports those themes, yes, but it's a 40k RPG. The Warhammer 40,000 universe comes with inherent expectations of blowing things up with bolters and ripping them apart with chainswords. Militaristic overtones are a fundamental part of the setting. More than that, the possibility of trekking through the wilderness with only limited supplies (a situation for which encumbrance rules are valuable, as it imposes decisions about carrying supplies) is no less an element of Dark Heresy's particular slice of 40k than crime scenes and interrogations are.

Well, the encumbrance rules are pretty useless during Exploration Missions, because it is very situational that the Acolytes need to calculate carrying capacity (they will either have transportation or don't have enough stuff to carry around to begin with). It is almost like rules for a 180° quick-scope jumping attack in combat.

Though, I must add, I think the carrying/lifting/pushing rules are roughly fine as they are, they only need a note that they are intended for special situations and not for general use.

For the love of the gods, for the umpteenth time, they do!

LOL, then I suppose my character can load up with 6000 spare bolt rounds, 400 multi-keys and 9000 bottles of recaf, and simply tow this mass after himself no problem because they weight exactly 0 kg according to your "carrying rules for general use" .

I supose it involves common sense. Personally i'm all in favor of keeping the rules light: I don't want to make five rolls to see if i can walk down the street (oh no a banana peel! -10 Dex penalty to avoid slipping!).

Further, Dark Heresy is not exclusively or absolutely a game of espionage, infiltration, and intrigue. The premise of Dark Heresy supports those themes, yes, but it's a 40k RPG. The Warhammer 40,000 universe comes with inherent expectations of blowing things up with bolters and ripping them apart with chainswords. Militaristic overtones are a fundamental part of the setting. More than that, the possibility of trekking through the wilderness with only limited supplies (a situation for which encumbrance rules are valuable, as it imposes decisions about carrying supplies) is no less an element of Dark Heresy's particular slice of 40k than crime scenes and interrogations are.

Well, the encumbrance rules are pretty useless during Exploration Missions, because it is very situational that the Acolytes need to calculate carrying capacity (they will either have transportation or don't have enough stuff to carry around to begin with). It is almost like rules for a 180° quick-scope jumping attack in combat.

Though, I must add, I think the carrying/lifting/pushing rules are roughly fine as they are, they only need a note that they are intended for special situations and not for general use.

For the love of the gods, for the umpteenth time, they do!

LOL, then I suppose my character can load up with 6000 spare bolt rounds, 400 multi-keys and 9000 bottles of recaf, and simply tow this mass after himself no problem because they weight exactly 0 kg according to your "carrying rules for general use" .

I'm sure you're just poking fun, so I'm not aiming at you directly:

The rules are there to help the GM in his job, it doesn't replace the GM nor dictate what a GM should or should not do. I sometimes get the impression that people mistake this RPG for a boardgame in terms of rules.

Common sense is a strong tool to have, common sense is what drives this system.

I'm sure you're just poking fun, so I'm not aiming at you directly:

The rules are there to help the GM in his job, it doesn't replace the GM nor dictate what a GM should or should not do. I sometimes get the impression that people mistake this RPG for a boardgame in terms of rules.

Common sense is a strong tool to have, common sense is what drives this system.

No, I'm just telling that if the carrying rules were intended for general use, then there wouldn't have any items with zero weight. Especially items that are likely to be amassed (ammo). And in some cases, even common sense is useless. For example, I have no idea how much a bolt round weights - consequently, I can't figure it out how much I can carry of it or how much would be too much for my character. Do 4 clips of boltgun ammo have a considerable weight? Or can I carry around a huge backpack filled with boltgun ammo without breaking a sweat?

They probably have zero weight because they are not intended to be hoarded.

If people go with the backpack filled with ammo, I'd just go with the weapon modification "Backpack Ammo Supply" that says to add 15Kg in weight. It's very likely not going to be an exact measurement but do we really care that much about the exact amount of weight in a fictional setting? If it really feels off, then add more weight.

That said, it would have been easy for the developers to add a weight amount for every single clip of ammo of a certain gun so you have a point that the 0 weight number was a lazy thing to do by the developers. Perhaps it's just to ease the amount of weight calculation that has to happen and as a consequence got abstracted away to avoid people counting the weight of every bullet they have? *shrug*

Edit: I was wrong, it is mentioned.

It's very likely not going to be an exact measurement but do we really care that much about the exact amount of weight in a fictional setting? If it really feels off, then add more weight.

...

Perhaps it's just to ease the amount of weight calculation that has to happen and as a consequence got abstracted away to avoid people counting the weight of every bullet they have? *shrug*

And this is exactly why I say that the current carrying rules are not intended for general use. Nine times out of ten, you are going to just make up something anyway, because the rules don't really support an "ongoing" use.

I think we're talking about different things here.

Fgdsfg meant with his "They do" the fact that the rulebook explicitly says the weight system is not meant to be used all the time.

As reference:

To reference the rulebook again on page 248:

I was just pointing out the power of common sense and how it's different compared to the exact rules used in a board game.

I'm not claiming the weight system is meant for general usage, quite the opposite.