It's great that you have fun playing these things, but I think it's important to clarify that they're not really the best way to go for most people.

Who are you to say what's best for most people?

There's no difference between a power gamer giving the max in strength and weapon skill versus a random roll giving the max in both of those, save that the random roll can also max out everything else. The fact that you don't control that means that you can literally power game by accident by rolling a character that is just better than everyone else's.

There is, in one case the player actively chose those stats. The other the character happens to be that good. A player can just as easily accidentally power game with point buy by not knowing the system.

If some characters aren't meant to be equal, then you should assign some of the players to play as NPCs who don't interact with the story at all unless the other players show up and then get killed off randomly while they're not playing. Do you see how silly that is? It's also much more thematic to Warhammer. This is a roleplaying game in which the players play as protagonists. Their mechanical stats have far more to do with their ability to interact with the game than they do with what kind of character they're playing. You're not making unequal characters, you're making unequal players. Basically saying that they're all going to run a relay together but some of them get to wear running shoes, some of them are barefoot, and some of them have to wear weighted clothing.

You're not actually portraying the setting through roleplaying, you're just playing a game that's unfair.

Nim you can't seriously tell me an adept is equivalent to a tech priest. So all adepts should be npcs? No player should choose adepts because adepts can't generally surpass tech priests unless they build just right? Do you see how silly that is?

Dark Heresy, warhammer gaming for that matter save Black Crusade, you are not the protagonists, you are a space nazi actively hunting people deemed dangerous or actively suppressing information the government says is bad actively propping up a dying system of bureaucratic nonsense that can manage to lose entire planets due to a misfiled paper. You're just keeping the clock going a little longer.

Basically what I'm saying is that in the end it shouldn't come down to characteristics, they should help you understand your character as a person, but in the end there are plenty of ways of playing to get around skill tests that are "unfair" for some and "brokenly easy" for others.

I personally hate point buy as a GM, but we also don't generate stats with totally random rolls.

I make my players roll up 10 stats, then they can assign the rolls as they see fit. There's also one free reroll, which must be accepted, better or worse.

And with DH2 having the + and - stats, I let them assign stats, and then roll the 3rd die to modify it.

So a Feral World player could roll 2 and 8, assign it to Strength, and then roll a 3rd die, and if it's higher then the 2 it replaces it.

There is, in one case the player actively chose those stats. The other the character happens to be that good. A player can just as easily accidentally power game with point buy by not knowing the system.

That difference is meaningless for the outcome, however. Unless your definition of power gaming is that it has to be intentional (which you've already contradicted by saying it can be accidental), there is no difference between the resulting character stats. And yes, you can accidentally power game with point buy, but that's only really going to happen if the player is effectively choosing things at random. That and you still end up with more balanced characters than you would from the current random rolling system. I already suggested a random rolling system that would end up with balanced characters, but I haven't seen anyone jumping for that, so I'm going to have to assume it's because people prefer to end up with mechanically unfair characters.

Nim you can't seriously tell me an adept is equivalent to a tech priest. So all adepts should be npcs? No player should choose adepts because adepts can't generally surpass tech priests unless they build just right? Do you see how silly that is?

First off, the old dark heresy had a big problem with some of the classes sucking in comparison to others, as well as being able to completely take over the "niches" that each one was supposed to have. Not knowing what you're saying they should be equivalent at, I can't answer your question. That said, Tech Priests have long had a problem of having a niche that is far too wide-reaching in utility (the tech-use skill, the best user of technology in a system filled with technology, AND being an absolute monster in combat). So yeah, if it's a question of "would I like to be able to do a lot in the game and be a badass," the tech priest is mechanically a better choice than the adept. If the adept class has nothing interesting going for it, then it probably should either not be available to players, or should be matched in effectiveness by the other ones.

(As a note, I don't think the tech priest and adept should both be equally good at tech, but I have a feeling that's not what you're asking)

Keep in mind, this is a game designed to be played with a group. Everyone in the group should be able to get a roughly equal amount of spotlight time, badassery, and so on, without the GM having to stretch the narrative or contrive weird situations to make these things happen. Differences in ability to affect the narrative between classes become more obvious because the players are able to see them in action. Faulty class balance should not be something that the GM is expected to fix by changing around the game and story to accommodate.

Take the justice league. Batman is a member of the league, and he has no powers. So how do most writers make him carry his weight? Deus ex machinas, having more knowledge than everyone else, and other things that have nothing to do with batman himself and everything to do with the story being shifted to make things about batman. None of those things are supported by most rpg mechanics, and would all require the GM making stuff up for the player. At that point, you're left wondering what the point of having the system is.

Dark Heresy, warhammer gaming for that matter save Black Crusade, you are not the protagonists, you are a space nazi actively hunting people deemed dangerous or actively suppressing information the government says is bad actively propping up a dying system of bureaucratic nonsense that can manage to lose entire planets due to a misfiled paper. You're just keeping the clock going a little longer.

You're confusing "protagonists" for heroes. Protagonists are the lead characters in a story. That's what the players are. They are the most important people in the story being told, not because of what they do in the context of the setting, but because they're the people that the story is being told about, and they're the people the players are engaging with the story through. I will repeat this. The people being played by your players are the most important people in the game because without them there the story stops existing. This doesn't mean they should be immortal, but you'll notice that in most good stories the protagonist/s don't die until the end or only at suitably dramatic moments. Romeo doesn't get killed in a fight with a gang of Capulets because one of them rolled a critical hit.

The protagonists of warhammer 40K novels (I started a new paragraph so it wouldn't be in the same one as Shakespeare) are not getting arbitrarily killed by bad luck. It all happens at dramatic moments, at least in the well-written novels. 40K is about the faceless billions of humanity being ground to dust on a thousand fronts. But your players in any 40K game aren't faceless. They're the protagonists, they're the stars, they're the ones who are doing something interesting or important.

Basically what I'm saying is that in the end it shouldn't come down to characteristics, they should help you understand your character as a person, but in the end there are plenty of ways of playing to get around skill tests that are "unfair" for some and "brokenly easy" for others.

If it doesn't come down to characteristics, then why would you have a preference about how they're generated? You can't have it both ways by saying that I shouldn't care about characteristics but that one way of doing them is better.

Nim as of right now I'm wiping my hands of this topic.

We've rammed the thing in the ground, and I've no reason to keep explaining my position. Especially to someone who has such an opposite view as myself to the point where it's not enlightening, it's frustratingly annoying.

Believe what you will, assume as you please, have any opinion you wish. I wish you well in your vast assumptions of what you think the roleplaying industry should turn to and how game should be. Period. Stop.

Consider this victory if you will, I frankly can't be asked to bother anymore.

If only you had rolled a 45 for your Willpower score rather than a 27 we could have kept going!

A little mediation here: On one hand it is fair to be worried about powergamers (the arsehole kind) and people who throw roleplay or gaming alike to the wind because they only care about their own intentions. On the other hand, it is rude and abusive of your friends to deny them the right to make their character as they imagine it. We all have to endure or enjoy our characters stats, so why not let people make whatever they want to make as long as they aren't imposing some kind of boloney on the rest of the group?

People should read about the three RPG perspectives: The interactionalist who likes to see rules and setting and the way it all works together, the roleplayer who wants to indulge in a story, and the gamer who wants to play and adventure. RPG's are a co-operative hobby, yet it is the only hobby I have ever seen where players number one concern is to enforce their personal desires on the rest of their friends.

A little mediation here: On one hand it is fair to be worried about powergamers (the arsehole kind) and people who throw roleplay or gaming alike to the wind because they only care about their own intentions. On the other hand, it is rude and abusive of your friends to deny them the right to make their character as they imagine it. We all have to endure or enjoy our characters stats, so why not let people make whatever they want to make as long as they aren't imposing some kind of boloney on the rest of the group?

People should read about the three RPG perspectives: The interactionalist who likes to see rules and setting and the way it all works together, the roleplayer who wants to indulge in a story, and the gamer who wants to play and adventure. RPG's are a co-operative hobby, yet it is the only hobby I have ever seen where players number one concern is to enforce their personal desires on the rest of their friends.

This!

I generally feel that a "point buy" character should be accompanied by a backstory to justify their nature. I also assume any character not rolled in my presence is (Effectively) point bought and will audit their numbers accordingly. If I catch an obvious "Dump stat" without a backstory reason to support it, I will typically ask the player to explain or refigure.

All that being said, some players (Typically the ones who can out roll the point buy admittedly!) prefer to roll dice. This is fine too! As long as said dice are rolled in my presence, so be it! I agree with Frosty71 that the game should not be about shoehorning the players either way! As a GM your job is to present the story. (I guess that makes me the "Roleplayer" right?) Some players enjoy creating an in depth backstory for their characters. Others want to kick in doors, kill heretics and take their stuff! Questions anyone? What's the problem either way? As a Gm, give both types of players their due and your game will run fine!

As to the Adept outperforming the Tech priest? In what way? In toughness, Probably not. In terms of offensive potential, they're not that different. But in scholastic investigations or social situations I would give it to the Adept every time! And that's really how it should be!

I don't think 'dump stats' in general need that much of a special back story to them. Most point buy systems don't allow you to dump stats that much below average. This is one of my biggest gripes with DH2 point buy.

D&D for example lets you dump your pb stats to 8 on a scale of 3 to 18 so a character who dumped int is just a bit dumber than average. DH2 however lets you go as low as 20 (if you have -) on a scale from 20 to 40. This means that suchba character is literally the dumbest man alive, as dumb as you can be while still beung considered human.

I would like to add, that I find it quite disturbing, that a debatte about a simple game mechanic is conducted in such an aggressive and judgmental way, that it escalates in one party aborting the topic.

It is a simple question what you prefer...the rules offer both ways. It is a game in the end...RPG games are there to have fun and be creative, not push through a certain world view about how they "have" to be played to be good...

In our group we use the point system, so every player starts equally and writes a background story first, then allocating points to support that.

But! It is fun to do it the other way around, too...RPGs have chance added to them for some reason, when you want to use it from the beginning that is fine, not dumb or anything else.

ThenDoctor if you're still reading the thread, I have a question for you.

Do you only randomly roll characteristics? Or do you also randomly roll homeworld, role, and background (or system equivalent)? What about the non-mechanical character traits, like name, height/weight, gender, skin tone, quirk, etc?

What I'm trying to get at is to what degree you believe the dice should determine your character.

I know quite a few people who random-roll literally everything sometimes, myself included. Other times, things such as a character's physical build are extrapolated from the physical stats and how they fit on the low/high average.

I would like to add, that I find it quite disturbing, that a debatte about a simple game mechanic is conducted in such an aggressive and judgmental way, that it escalates in one party aborting the topic.

It is a simple question what you prefer...the rules offer both ways. It is a game in the end...RPG games are there to have fun and be creative, not push through a certain world view about how they "have" to be played to be good...

In our group we use the point system, so every player starts equally and writes a background story first, then allocating points to support that.

But! It is fun to do it the other way around, too...RPGs have chance added to them for some reason, when you want to use it from the beginning that is fine, not dumb or anything else.

If I think someone has a bad opinion about something, I'll tell them, while giving evidence and presenting an alternative viewpoint. If people react so strongly to being told they have a bad idea or are wrong about something, that's on them. I think people are entitled to have whatever opinion they want, just as I can have an opinion that something is not going to be very fun for most people and that there aren't any logical reasons for having it.

That and it's fun arguing with ThenDoctor because he obviously has a strong negative opinion of me.

Nim: You're trolling... I think better of you than that!

There are, however, right and wrong, logical and illogical answers when it comes to questions of game design. Preferring randomly rolling characteristics is an opinion, and if that's what you find fun, don't let anyone stop you.

Do not confuse that with good game design. That's what Nimsim has been saying - that randomly rolling characteristics is a bad design choice. Again, you're not wrong for liking it, but it has some pretty glaring flaws that make it surprising that a new game in 2014 uses that method.

There are, however, right and wrong, logical and illogical answers when it comes to questions of game design. Preferring randomly rolling characteristics is an opinion, and if that's what you find fun, don't let anyone stop you.

Do not confuse that with good game design. That's what Nimsim has been saying - that randomly rolling characteristics is a bad design choice. Again, you're not wrong for liking it, but it has some pretty glaring flaws that make it surprising that a new game in 2014 uses that method.

Do not get me wrong, as I stated before, I prefer the point system, too. However if we talk about game design, than there has to be the question, what is the aim of the game? In the core having fun, simple as that. I for my part think DH2 made it simply right by giving the players the option to choose, what they prefer. So every party can use the one they like most. What is a flaw for you in a system might be exactly what other players are looking for... of course there are things I or you would have made different. I guess that's what rule zero is all about, adjust the system as you need and/or like.

This debate has the problem that fun or the way people like to be entertained is like taste...you cannot really argue about it, as there are unlimited different tastes or preferences.

"Good" game design is managing to cover a multitude of preferences and expectations, and that, as a consequence, means a completely modular, but essentially simple, system which you can make as complex, fast, or slow, as you like. The result tends to be a massive amount of sales compared to other systems.

Systems that do not do this, such as FFG's Warhammer 40k line, sell fluff , not crunch. It just happens to be some people like their crunch, too. You can tell in the way the rules are written as well. In essence, a lot of their rules text could take up far, far less space (for example, I managed to sum up DH2 1st beta's rules in about half a page, in a way that needed no further explination and my players could understand.) are so packed with filler, I've seen people overlook plenty of crunch or small changes between games, because they've read 90% of what's there before and their eyelids were drooping.

Now, as far as this applies to the thread, "good" game design would be picking out the gist of it all from all the filler and waste of air, and figuring out how to make abhumans work in the aptitudes system, with both rolled and point buy. I'm just going to call it and say FFG will eventually do that.

The problem with 'giving the players the option to choose' is that it also legitimizes the GM to enfirce one option or the other.

Why I personally think only providing rules for point buy is good game design: point buy doesn't preclude rolling. Nobody in the right mind will stop you from randomly distributing your points by a method of your choosing. The reverse is not true however. You can't point buy in a roll only game.

Sure you can. I tell my players to pick whatever option they prefer and it works just fine.

Sure you can. I tell my players to pick whatever option they prefer and it works just fine.

Yes it does, but I've also seen many GMs interpreting 'roll or pb' as 'GM chooses/players decidr but it's same option for everyone'.

That's really a group dynamic issue and not a game design one. A good game provides options. How you deal with these options is entirely up to you(r group). If you restrict it to only one method, though, you won't appeal to a group of players who prefers the other, and vice versa, and no matter how good (or bad) the rest of your game is, they'll be more inclined to pick up a ruleset where they don't have to houserule things to their preference.

How the group, internally, makes decisions, though, no game system can influence. A DM who is authoritarian will be that way in any ruleset, as will a player who tries to ruleslawyer incessantly or a powergamer who minmaxes the hell out of anything in any system (occassionally, that's me; usually when the concept I make is supposed to be really good at something; I've played plenty of deliberately or randomly bad toons, too, though. I like mixing things up ). A simpler option is simply not to play with people you don't really get along with, especially when you can't find a way to compromise and reach an agreement.

Good game design is not about allowing a bunch of exception-based options that allow everyone under the sun to get their way, though. That would be like designing a card game with a deck of playing cards, uno cards, tarot cards, and magic the gathering cards where you shuffle them all together and try to play bridge. There has to be a cohesive design behind things. Any variants provided should be both tested and have firm descriptions about the ways in which they change the game. In general, it is bad game design to design a game in which some players will just be better than others until they quit and restart (with no guidance on how they should restart) and then a chance to once again be better or worse. It sets a bad example for the entire game to include a rule like this for no reason other than "well it was how they did it in D&D" or nebulous notions of it enhancing the mood of unfairness (which is an after the fact explanation ignoring why it was used in D&D).

I already provided a much better way of randomizing stats, which I'll repeat in slightly modified form. Roll 2d10 for 4 stats. Subtract the result from 20 and use the answers for the other 4 stats. Now every character is randomized, players have more of a choice, and they're all mathematically equivalent.

Also, bringing up group dynamics in regard to game design is trying to put the onus of the game on the players rather than the game itself. Of course, no one can control how the group works. You can't play baseball with an unfair umpire. But, having well defined rules and proper game design mean that it's easy to call out that umpire as unfair. This is one of the nice things about the game design of fourth edition d&d. They ran the math well enough that so long as a DM followed the simple formula for encounter design, he could play monsters as viciously and strategically as he wanted, and players would be able to overcome them (barring extreme outliers in luck). How many other games can boast that without requiring the DM have a thorough understanding of the enemies, the players, and the rules in order to custom tailor a fight?

Dark Heresy's problem is that it partially suffers from kitchen-sink game design (let's include this as an option so everyone can be validated by the rulebook!) and heavily suffers from legacy mechanics that have long since shown their age and lack of utility. The latter problem is exacerbated by a player base (and designers EDIT: this is meant to be a general statement about the rpg community, not DH specifically) who are strongly opinionated about not having the game mechanics themselves improve as opposed to just getting more content for the game they've been running. This is why you see so many rpg designers leaving to do video games,because te community reacts with vitriol to innovation of anything but game story (and even then you can see people on this forum who get very defensive about that!).

I keep saying this is a niche industry because in the end the community keeps pushing it toward being the same thing. Dark Heresy, as it stands, is not really that different of a game system than D&D 3.5 or 5th edition. You have this big combat system with a bunch of options and few choices, a spell caster, feats, skill system, bestiary, and then other superfluous rules that feel sort of tacked on. The rules are not really doing a lot to provide a different game experience from D&D and rely on the setting to instead do that. Again, this is bad game design.

Whew, sorry for the morning (for me) rant.

I do understand some points you make and your example is correct...for card games

RPGs are not like usual games. You have no definite goal, where the game ends when you reach it and RPGs give you any number of possibilities to run them...you can run a map supported, tabletop like combat game, you can run an investigation game and so on. If you are a RPG-player who wants to concentrate on real roleplaying you can do that, too...and reduce the frequency of skill tests. Nothing of it is wrong...you buy a rule book for the core mechanics of the game and for the setting. The amount of mechanics you use or change is up to you and your preferences.

About the equailty of players from the beginning...again this is no game like monopoly where everyone has to start equal. RPG try to create a alternative world. Not everyone starts equal in the real world either. Players who want that to be transported in their game, might want to roll from the beginning...just like the "stats" of every human are rolled for them

. About the equailty of players from the beginning...again this is no game like monopoly where everyone has to start equal. RPG try to create a alternative world. Not everyone starts equal in the real world either. Players who want that to be transported in their game, might want to roll from the beginning...just like the "stats" of every human are rolled for them

I really have a hard time somebody actually wants to be the guy that contributes less and doesn't really pull his weight. Playing the underdog from a story perspective may be compelling, playing the underdog from a mechanical perspective somewhat less so IMO.

I do understand some points you make and your example is correct...for card games

RPGs are not like usual games. You have no definite goal, where the game ends when you reach it and RPGs give you any number of possibilities to run them...you can run a map supported, tabletop like combat game, you can run an investigation game and so on. If you are a RPG-player who wants to concentrate on real roleplaying you can do that, too...and reduce the frequency of skill tests. Nothing of it is wrong...you buy a rule book for the core mechanics of the game and for the setting. The amount of mechanics you use or change is up to you and your preferences.

About the equailty of players from the beginning...again this is no game like monopoly where everyone has to start equal. RPG try to create a alternative world. Not everyone starts equal in the real world either. Players who want that to be transported in their game, might want to roll from the beginning...just like the "stats" of every human are rolled for them

The problem with this is that you're basically implying that the mechanics of a game shouldn't be held to task of working properly because players and GM are free to ignore them. The game mechanics are not independent of the story being told. They directly affect how it is told, and it's outcome. If players want to ignore it, that's fine, but that doesn't change core issues with the rules themselves and the kind of game they lead to. You're also implying that there's some dichotomy between "real roleplaying" and engaging in the mechanics of the game. Again, these things are not separate. Mechanics inform story and vice-versa. In addition, if players want a "real roleplaying" experience, there are better options than a roleplaying GAME to do it with. You can't just ignore the game part of the game. There are a couple hundred pages of rules telling me that this is a game I'm playing. Just because some people like to ignore the rules and some people like to heavily engage in them is not an excuse for the rules to not be well-done.

And as for the "people are unequal in real life" argument, you're right, but this isn't real life. It's a game where you play as the main characters and in order to do things in the game that you want, RAW, you need to have good stats. There's no good reason for one player to be 15% less likely to do what he wants than another player because of unlucky and lucky rolls. This isn't a game like monopoly (which is also poorly designed for similar reasons, hello random rolling for movement), but it is still a game. The way you "win" this game is by telling a fun story for your character. That typically means succeeding at your rolls (please I hope no one argues that only power gamers want to succeed at their rolls), which in turn allow you to dictate a part of the story. The more a player fails at rolls, the less of the story he is able to affect. Randomly determining the ability to do this is counter to the point of the game, which is to allow people to tell a story together.