Both of you seriously need to chill the warp out and shut the fak up. Take it to personal messages already you're killing a Dark Heresy thread with D&D discussions.

Guess what Dark Heresy doesn't have a set mechanic to award XP, it just says award around this much for a session, a little more or less depending on what they did and how well they did it.

Maybe this is why some certain sorts of people continue to say that D&D4E somehow "failed" - because there are people like DBG who don't understand that D&D is fundamentally a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Maybe this is why some certain sorts of people continue to say that D&D4E somehow "failed" - because there are people like DBG who don't understand that D&D is fundamentally a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

4E went with market research saying that most people were using D&D rules for combat and just narrating everything else. So, they went ahead and based pretty much everything for classes on how they're used in combat with a sprinkle of a skill system added on.

My favorite theory is that fourth edition's clear technical language exposed D&D for what it is, a combat simulator, and people were upset that they couldn't pretend it was something else. Basically, medusa looked into a mirror and didn't like what she saw.

And again, it's a great irony that even though original D&D came from a wargame, it had very loose rules for actual combat, and incentivized players to avoid that in lieu of getting more treasure.

It's not complex, really. The terrible thing about it is that it takes several pages in the rules to say what you really could in a short, succinct summary of only a few crisp and clear sentences. That's where, I think, FFG's supposed complexity comes from. It's a very, very simple system, but it's formulated in a needlessly complicated manner that makes it a bit of a chore to puzzle out.

My problems with 40k, hm, let's see:

- The guns perform worse than RL guns in the 42nd millennium

- The hit location table is nonsense. If you're going to make a zone hit table, you need a different one for ranged combat and melee, because the chance to hit is different for each form of combat.

- I can readily identify friend and foe who poke their head out in a zone in a split second (overwatch), but I can't simultaniously move and pull the trigger; I need a talent for that (haha, yeah, I know, aiming won't work, but suppressive fire should).

-Your posture as a shooter does not matter at all. -> If your posture as a shooter (kneeling/prone/standing) is immaterial, why is it impossible to run and shoot without a talent?

- Legion Weapons rules

- The horde system is terrible for mass combat. It pretty much assumes an entire group of 30+ people can see, and shoot you or attack you in melee, at the same time.Worse: Once you use horde rules, combat master no longer does anything.

- Weapon damage values are funky as hell for explosives.

-Unarmed combat is a joke

-They're deeply afraid to give players free attacks where it makes sense (s. integrated weapons).

-Flamers and other similar weapons should be treated as an AoE; if your Ag isn't high enough to get you out of the spray cone, you don't avoid being set on fire. Last I checked, though, it's impossible to set anything with decent Ag on fire.

As you can see, these largely aren't problems with the core system itself. I've repeatedly said that the very core of the d100 system is perfectly fine, simple and straightforward. These are problems with the many, many details surrounding it.

Oh, is the system not terribly well edited? Oh, yeah, no, I can accept that. Neither GW or FFG are good at editing. One start is the fact that 96+ being an automatic miss in combat (pre-Black Crusade, where it changed to 100) can only be inferred from Jamming rules. It isn't stated anywhere else, but the rules for jamming imply it. The constant copy paste jobs for Two Weapon Wielding (which they had to errata again each time as they had copied the non-errated version from the previous rules).

Guns perform worse in 40k than in real life? How can you tell? The system is not a true simulationist one, it is a representational one. An assault rifle (which is what an autogun is) is represented by an 100m Range, Full-Auto Burst capable weapon with damage of 1d10+3. That is an assault rifle in 40k rpg world. How should it be represented? Ok, yes, an unarmoured person can often take 2-3 hits before they start suffering serious repercussions (ie Critical Damage), but that is just a matter of the way the system works.

Different hit tables for ranged and melee? Ok, "realistically" I think you may be correct, but I really feel that would be an element of too much extra added detail for little extra return. The way the table is is also partly due to balancing mechanics. You are most likely to hit the Body, which tends to be the most heavily armoured.

You can move and shoot. Half move, and attack. They will often likely be happening simultaneously across the 5 seconds of a round, not the distinct actions they appear on the table top. Hipshot (or whatever it is called) represents the ability to shoot with a decent chance while moving more rapidly. Ok, yes, there is no option to just pull the trigger while having your arms flailing wildly when running without it, but I am going to admit I don't think this is a terrible loss to the system.

Legion Rules/Horde rules... meh, not terribly keen on them, but they are trying to do something that is difficult to do with the system as is, so inevitably they end up kind of clunky and not very good.

Explosives? YOu mean the utter randomness of things like frag grenades? Ok, yeah, not fantastic.

Unarmed Combat is a joke? Not sure what you mean by that. However, unarmed combat isn't a major focus of 40k, so it doesn't bother me much.

Free attacks? Not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I presume you mean because having mechadendrites etc don't give you extra attacks. However, that would throw out the balance of the system (until the BC version of the rules there tended to be a balance between number of reactions and the number of attacks things had).

I feel like fate points are enough of an out to forgive the lethal combat system. Yes you'll be horribly disfigured but it's really hard to actually lose a character given almost everyone starts with at least 2 fate.

Yup. This is why I find it amusing that WFRP had a reputation as a deadly system, while DnD doesn't. DnD a unlucky dice roll can just kill you. WFRP 1, 2 and 40k? Fate Points mean you have to be dumb or really, really unlucky to die quickly.

I'm...actually not sure where it implies your sole avenue of progression is fighting monsters in DnD 3.5. That sort of thing is an artifact from first edition in the playerbase, it's not how the rules are written.

The major focus of all classes is combat. Even the non-combat ones usually have a major combat support role. DnD expected lots of combat. 4th edition admitted that 3.5 was basically a silly unbalanced combat system with some roleplaying tacked on, and tried to develop a system which was more balanced to deal with it. However, it was a bit lacking in flavour and turned off many 3.5 veterans.

The system does not tell you to fight monsters. You tell your character to fight monsters. This is fairly basic. 3.5e has no more monster lists in its core rules than any other RPG, and nowhere does it say you have to engage them.

Erm... most systems I know do not have a whole book devoted to monsters as one of the core purchases. You cannot really play dnd out of the PHP (unless you want a lot of work constructing opponents of an appropriate level for every encounter, and then good luck facing anything except other hero NPCs). Yes, technically you do not have to engage any of the opponents you face, but then most of the system actually doesn't do anything. Most of the blingy abilities players get (3.0 onwards) are combat related. And you have an entire class who is devoted to hitting things while being terrible at sneaking and diplomacy (the fighter).

Unarmed Combat is a joke? Not sure what you mean by that. However, unarmed combat isn't a major focus of 40k, so it doesn't bother me much.

With Unarmed Specialist (I think that's what it's called) you can make a character that can hit harder than a laspistol with SB 4.. Considering that you can potentially have as high as SB 7 in this game with the alternate starting scores, I think unarmed is plenty powerful for those that take the talent.

That, and the GQ Synthmuscle implant

*shudder*

My reason for using my high lethality combat rules has nothing to do with punishing exciting game play mechanics. Its quite simply because it makes the PCs think a lot more carefully about when and with whom they want to get into a fight. Once PCs reach a certain level in almost any system I've played there is usually a mentality where people start to realise they can just push NPCs around, or worse start acting with reckless abandon in situations that don't warrant it because they know the odds are in their favour. An average npc being able to deal serious damage if the PCs go around picking fights with everything usually works to encourage people to avoid the 'the gun is my skill' mentality.

It also fits well in a game like DH. There is no reason the acolytes have to do the grunt work themselves. They can hire street gangs to attack somewhere or break into a house to get them information (as an example). In general it makes the whole 'covert ops' thing come to the fore. Granted with might not be want you want from the game and this style wouldn't fit you, but its certainly more the universe I signed up for.

My reason for using my high lethality combat rules has nothing to do with punishing exciting game play mechanics. Its quite simply because it makes the PCs think a lot more carefully about when and with whom they want to get into a fight. Once PCs reach a certain level in almost any system I've played there is usually a mentality where people start to realise they can just push NPCs around, or worse start acting with reckless abandon in situations that don't warrant it because they know the odds are in their favour. An average npc being able to deal serious damage if the PCs go around picking fights with everything usually works to encourage people to avoid the 'the gun is my skill' mentality.

It also fits well in a game like DH. There is no reason the acolytes have to do the grunt work themselves. They can hire street gangs to attack somewhere or break into a house to get them information (as an example). In general it makes the whole 'covert ops' thing come to the fore. Granted with might not be want you want from the game and this style wouldn't fit you, but its certainly more the universe I signed up for.

Again, if you want players to do something different, you have to reward them doing it. If you make combat ultra lethal and keep the other rules the same, you're hamstringing the players. Do you know why players are do quick to jump to combat as a solution? Because it's the least likely thing to fail. You get as many rolls as you want to succeed, it's easy to get a bunch of positive modifiers, and it only requires training in one thing as opposed to the wide variety of skills needed to succeed at non-combat tasks. It's also typically an opportunity for everyone in the group to participate rather than one player taking over. Also, as has been said, the combat is exciting to play.

Basically, if you're trying to discourage combat, you need to encourage something else by making it preferable. You can't just make combat a worse decision and expect players to jump to other solutions.

It also fits well in a game like DH. There is no reason the acolytes have to do the grunt work themselves. They can hire street gangs to attack somewhere or break into a house to get them information (as an example). In general it makes the whole 'covert ops' thing come to the fore. Granted with might not be want you want from the game and this style wouldn't fit you, but its certainly more the universe I signed up for.

Besides, if they really want to do the fighting anyway, they can always use grunt characters. 'course, that'd require gen rules for grey knights in the very same system and push things more in a "general 40k game" direction anyway; which might not be a bad idea.

I let them play as the guys they hire if they want to, but not everyone likes switching characters, so its a matter of taste.

Again, if you want players to do something different, you have to reward them doing it. If you make combat ultra lethal and keep the other rules the same, you're hamstringing the players.

And I do. Acting in a stealthy manner means that most combat encounters can be avoided, cults don't set up ambushes, and they can infiltrate stuff more easily. The example of hiring the gangers is a good one for this, I had a group hire a gang to assault the front door while they snuck in the back. They still got exciting combat out of it but felt like they had overcome harsh odds by manipulation and playing smart. Its also works to encourage people to take charm, deceive, forgery (when that was a thing). Everyone can be involved in the process of making something like a heist work well. I reward roleplaying, not just how you spent your xp.

While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway.

I'm curious about what system you're using. Pop it over if you like. If not, 's cool, too

It's basically an amalgamation of things I liked from various stages of the games development, and discussions on these boards and with my group. Its still very much a living document but I have the rough guidelines in a word document I can PM you, but you need a copy of WHFRP1s critical hits pdf supplement to use it as intended.

I have a lot more Warhammer Fantasy than 40k material, especially from older editions. Shouldn't be a problem

I let them play as the guys they hire if they want to, but not everyone likes switching characters, so its a matter of taste.

Again, if you want players to do something different, you have to reward them doing it. If you make combat ultra lethal and keep the other rules the same, you're hamstringing the players.

And I do. Acting in a stealthy manner means that most combat encounters can be avoided, cults don't set up ambushes, and they can infiltrate stuff more easily. The example of hiring the gangers is a good one for this, I had a group hire a gang to assault the front door while they snuck in the back. They still got exciting combat out of it but felt like they had overcome harsh odds by manipulation and playing smart. Its also works to encourage people to take charm, deceive, forgery (when that was a thing). Everyone can be involved in the process of making something like a heist work well. I reward roleplaying, not just how you spent your xp.

While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway.

Well, I'm not trying to give YOU GM advice so much as let people know that making combat more lethal is not going to automatically make players want to investigate more. That said, it sounds like your actual end goal was to passively aggressively kick a player out of the game, so good on that, I guess?

No, now you're just making huge assumptions.

Nimsim you cannot make everyone happy and that is a simple fact about life. Not everyone is going to buy Dark Heresy and play it either. Not everyone is going to playing your game no matter how inclusive you make it out. By inclusive I mean playing styles for clarifications sake. Your bound to rub some one the wrong way and they will avoid your game. Like wise some one will rub you the wrong way and you will avoid his game.

Cail is not in the wrong. He just wants to GM his game in a certain way that rubs certain people the wrong way because it doesn't fit their play style. They don't play his game and he can focus on the players that do fit his play style. This is called full filling a niche for a specific need.

"While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway."

Unless you mean this as a hypothetical situation, it sure sounds like you were attempting to kick someone out of the game by making it unfun for them rather than talking about it. If that's the case, then yeah I feel obligated to call that out because it's bad GMing and is the kind if thing that actively makes the hobby worse.

Even if you do mean it as a hypothetical, it's still a bad mindset to have, because it's advocating in-game punishments for out of game behavior, which is not at all a good way to GM.

I have a general rule that anyone who tries resolving personal conflicts within a game is being a passive aggressive *******. It has yet to be untrue.

"While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway."

Unless you mean this as a hypothetical situation, it sure sounds like you were attempting to kick someone out of the game by making it unfun for them rather than talking about it. If that's the case, then yeah I feel obligated to call that out because it's bad GMing and is the kind if thing that actively makes the hobby worse.

Even if you do mean it as a hypothetical, it's still a bad mindset to have, because it's advocating in-game punishments for out of game behavior, which is not at all a good way to GM.

I have a general rule that anyone who tries resolving personal conflicts within a game rather than through talking it out is being a passive aggressive *******. It has yet to be untrue.

If somebody 'lost his patience with all this in character talk' then maybe there's a problem with said talking in character. Maybe it's mot engaging enough or maybe the player expects something else from the game etc.

Where I come from roleplaying is supposed to be something you enjoy(why play a RPG otherwise) not something you gave to bear just because the GM made the alternatives too punishing.

Some people are power munchkins and some prefer a more immersive in depth experience (I fit in the latter category.). Either is fine so long as everyone is on board. The Gm should be clear on how they intend to tun their game but other than that it's strictly preference!

As to system lethality, there are plenty of simple "Tweaks" you can make to adjust it. For example: The "Hard setting" is to remove toughness soak. The "Insane" setting is to remove toughness soak and roll 1d10 for all RF criticals. My personal thing is that ALL NPC's get righteous fury (Or wrath of khorne or whatever!). This means while most shots that hit the pc's are not instantly fatal, there is a very real chance of being seriously injured any time you are hit! This is generally "realistic" enough for my groups but your mileage may vary.

As a Gm, remember that tactics and environment can drastically alter the lethality of any engagement! An Ambush where a lowly heretic thug catches your character by surprise with a "lowly" hunting rifle can really ruin your day! And that's RAW! Now imagine the same thug firing point blank by surprise with an autopistol! Gonna be icky real fast! (+60 to hit, no evasion and 1 hit per DOS; Got your chargen dice ready?)

What's an RF critical?

Righteous Fury Critical probably.

Righteous Fury Critical probably.

You are correct! Sorry... I thought it was obvious!

In retrospect yes, just didn't connect in the beginning.

"While I respect your opinion on this is different from mine, I am actually not looking for GM advice. The system I've used has worked to great effect and was developed with feedback from my players. Combat being lethal doesn't stop combats from happening, it discourages needless combat because the power gamer lost his patience with all this 'talking in character' stuff. If that means that kind of player don't want in on my games, all the better, because frankly they're nothing but a headache anyway."

Unless you mean this as a hypothetical situation, it sure sounds like you were attempting to kick someone out of the game by making it unfun for them rather than talking about it. If that's the case, then yeah I feel obligated to call that out because it's bad GMing and is the kind if thing that actively makes the hobby worse.

Even if you do mean it as a hypothetical, it's still a bad mindset to have, because it's advocating in-game punishments for out of game behavior, which is not at all a good way to GM.

I have a general rule that anyone who tries resolving personal conflicts within a game is being a passive aggressive *******. It has yet to be untrue.

No, the problem is that your assuming I'm making these changes to discourage a kind of behaviour instead of to try and create a particular kind of game or mood, as if you can't conceive as to why I would add lethality if it wasn't to reign in behaviour. Your then extrapolating it into a passive aggressive personal attack. You have no idea what circumstances I am alluding to, and your rash conclusions are ignorant and offensive. As it happens I am not referencing one incident or player, just a general...boredom that I now feel towards that kind of gaming after something like 17 years of Gming.

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

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