Players attacking a doorman for refusing them entry = immature players! No excuse accepted! (To be followed by TPK in my game!). How players managed to take on half a PLATOON of PDF in straight up combat is beyond me! They should have been dead right there! If the kill team managed to capture them after a stunt like that? Again, TPK in the form of public execution. Get out of jail card from Inquisitor? Only if it's to execute them himself in the most creatively painful way he can think of!

In short: Any group of players stupid enough to pull a stunt like this arguably do not belong playing a game like DH! As Deathbygrots has mentioned, This sounds like a group of teenage kids railing against the world. I've played with groups of kids but even they weren't like this! (Actually, They were one of my BETTER groups in recent memory! )

Altough in hindsight I probably shouldn't stick so much to rules. The moment they've started this toomfoolery of theirs, is the moment they get insta-gibbed. Oh well, shame on me I guess... :/

Many players will get severely annoyed by 'rocks fall, everybody dies' scenario (and cutscenes in general). Their characters are the only thing they control in the game world. Not letting them play out the outcome of their own action (even if monumentally stupid) is taking their only bit of control away from them, turning them into simple spectators, which I doubt is what most people come to a game session for.

I wasn't referring to a "Rocks fall, everybody dies type scenario." Waxing the doorman, who is undoubtedly simply a low level mook, should be almost instantaneous. If they set off alarms and roused the local garrison, they're pretty much done! From a player's perspective, the number of PDF available is literally endless! As an example of escalation consider this:

First wave, Two teams of (5) enforcers. second wave; 1 Arbites tactical team (3 Standard Arbites, 1 Arbites w/ hvy stubber and 1 cyber mastiff) supported by two more teams of (5) enforcers. 3rd, wave; Armored fist platoon of PDF (3 chimera APC's each carrying a full squad of local PDF. Special weapon; 1 Sniper rifle, Heavy weapon; 1 Heavy stubber, Main weapon, Autogun.). 4th Wave; Leman Russ MBT supported by full platoon of Imperial guard! Rinse and repeat as necessary!

Waves would be separated by intervals of 1-5 minutes narrative time. Enough time to reload (Until they're out!) but certainly not enough to heal or rearm! (Other than First aid or FP!). The idea is that players would realise that they will certainly run out of ammo long before I run out of bad guys! Their remaining options would be to find some way to disengage and escape (Thus becoming fugitives from the very government they're supposed to be working for!) or surrender! (And be executed in all likelihood!)

If the party had a member of the Arbites or a Guardsman with them, I might even tell them that this would be a fairly standard response to their actions before they engaged anybody! (If I was feeling charitable and they hadn't been acting like asshats up until this point! )

To be clear: I'm not trying to be a jerk here! Players need to understand that roleplaying is part of the game! Waxing the doorman of any government official will not endear you to anyone! It's simply the player having a temper tantrum because they're not getting everything their way! < End of rant! >

This is why you have special rules for your roles. Maybe the Face is just as good at shooting than the Gunman, but the Gunman has a special rule that allows him to, say, bend bullets around corners or whatever. The Gunman still has his edge, and the Face is not a free frag in combat. Everybody wins.

I don't see the effective difference in special rules that make a character better at something, as opposed to a higher (cheaper) skill making them better at something. Except that a special rule is more restrictive because magically it will be unobtainable by anyone except for who picks it at chargen.

Not saying I dislike the concept of special rules in general as they can be quite flavourful, but if I had to pick between them and an open progression system, I'd pick the latter. I just like sandbox too much, or rather I've seen too many of my character concepts getting railroaded into a direction I found difficult to reconcile with the concept.

Your criticism towards poor XP gain or characters with starting values having issues at combat may have more merit (I have yet to actually play a single game of DH2, so I have zero practical familiarity with its feel), but arguably these things have little to do with the concept behind the aptitudes system, but are instead different, independent mechanics.

Also, you're making a false distinction between RPer and min-maxer based on (not) making the best choices. What if somebody's RP concept actually support said best choices? For example I have a desperado for an upcoming campaign that needs the grand total of one skill for which he doesn't have both aptitudes.

Then I'd simply wait until they do run into a situation where they do have to choose. I intentionally worded this as a promise rather than an immediate effect - sooner or later the player may stumble across a skill or talent that seems suitable. even must-have for their background, but which the player perceives as useless baggage. This is when the question pops up.

Example: To this day, none of my Sororitas characters ever made use of the "Perform (Singing)" skill. Yet it still seems like something a character like that should have, simply for a sense of completion.

But that's exactly what I was getting at - the other characters will end up with notably more powerful weaponry than the ones who have formed an attachment, and this will show accordingly in combat. Exactly like different skill ranks in a test.

This is why you have special rules for your roles. Maybe the Face is just as good at shooting than the Gunman, but the Gunman has a special rule that allows him to, say, bend bullets around corners or whatever. The Gunman still has his edge, and the Face is not a free frag in combat. Everybody wins.

I don't see the effective difference in special rules that make a character better at something, as opposed to a higher (cheaper) skill making them better at something. Except that a special rule is more restrictive because magically it will be unobtainable by anyone except for who picks it at chargen.

Not better, just different. Going with the example, the Face might be actually better with shooting because of his high BS, yet the Gunman will still retain his Gunman-y flavor because no matter how good the Face is with his uber-high BS, he still can't bend bullets around corners.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but the current system has these special rules too, they are just not very dominant. This is prime reason why I think the Aptitudes are kinda' redundant: you already have your character defining speshul stuff, so there is no need for extra restrictions and poorly presented advancement railroading.

So, what are some game systems which don't force/encourage PCs to specialize? I can't think of any off the top of my head...

-And, if there are any, how do those systems prevent characters from being bland cookie cutter clones?

Off the top of my head, both FATE and Edge of Empire allow you to create generalist characters that aren't actively punished by the system. FATE gets around cookie cutter characters with Aspects, which have a mechanical impact independent of a character's effectiveness. At high-XP levels, EotE characters can look similar in terms of their skill pools, they are very different in terms of their Obligations and Talents.

Both of these games reward specialists (probably every game does), but you don't lose anything making a character who is passable at a lot of things.

Then I'd simply wait until they do run into a situation where they do have to choose. I intentionally worded this as a promise rather than an immediate effect - sooner or later the player may stumble across a skill or talent that seems suitable. even must-have for their background, but which the player perceives as useless baggage. This is when the question pops up.

Umm...no. The player writes the background. The player is (hopefully) aware of all the skills and talents at character creation and as such decides which fit his character and which don't. Therefore the player can't really 'stumble' upon something unless he didn't read all the rules first time.

Example: To this day, none of my Sororitas characters ever made use of the "Perform (Singing)" skill. Yet it still seems like something a character like that should have, simply for a sense of completion.

And this is a system problem. If I make 'my character likes to sing' or 'my character likes to cook' part of my background it's expected to have perform (singing) or trade (cook), which actively makes the character worse at taking part in the game, since those little background quirks share a common resource (xp) with stuff that actually affects the game. If my background quirk however is 'my character collects model trains' or 'my character reads romance novels', then no problem.

But that's exactly what I was getting at - the other characters will end up with notably more powerful weaponry than the ones who have formed an attachment, and this will show accordingly in combat. Exactly like different skill ranks in a test.

Except they're not doing it just to gain a mechanical advantage. They're simply playing their character (which doesn't care much for a particular weapon). Hence a RP concept provides a quite big mechanical advantage over another (equally valid) RP concept.

The problem with having specialized characters in a game system is that tey either end up not participating/passing off responsibility to the person with the best skill rating (because players are PLAYING the game in addition to telling a story), try to finagle skill checks to just use their best skill, even if something else is more applicable, or end up being put on the spot and failing, because specialization when played optimally means all or nothing for most skills. This is compounded by how poorly the DH system handles actual failure. Is it bad to be bad at something? Yes it is if you're a player having to roll for it, because the failing outcome isn't fun. Dark Heresy's skill system is more about increasing te chance of success than it is gaining special abilities or becoming better at how something is done. As such, investment is not just required to be really good at something, it's also required to be even barely competent. This, specialization in dark heresy creates characters who are useless and unfun to play in situations other than what they're skilled in. So yeah, if yor argument against equal xp costs is that characters don't specialize, my response is that this would actually improve the gameplay of the system.

And as a note, a good GM can make failure more fun to play, but the DH system isn't helping him do this at all, and this RAW failure is not fun to play through.

The only conclusion I can reach from your posts is that you and/or your group fails to have fun with DH2.0. This could be partially because of your expectations of the game, but the game itself is only partially the source of potential fun if you know what I mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, it would be nice to hear something positive about DH2.0 from you.

I get the implication that you're making here about myself and group, but it's not OUR failing to enjoy the game. The game has failed to provide enjoyment. Full disclosure, I haven't played DH2 since the beta, but the rules have not changed. As a general rule, if I can have an equal amount of fun or more sitting around talking with my friends as I could playing the game, then it is not standing out. I generally have fun when I play RPGs. With DHs system, this fun was entirely from the other players and GM rather than the game itself. If I told you to just play tic tac toe for three hours with friends and blamed you for not enjoying it, you'd call bull, which is what I'm calling on your implication.

And the art in the book is great and it looks very pretty. FFG's biggest strength with this game is the art department.

The problem with having specialized characters in a game system is that tey either end up not participating/passing off responsibility to the person with the best skill rating (because players are PLAYING the game in addition to telling a story), try to finagle skill checks to just use their best skill, even if something else is more applicable, or end up being put on the spot and failing, because specialization when played optimally means all or nothing for most skills. This is compounded by how poorly the DH system handles actual failure. Is it bad to be bad at something? Yes it is if you're a player having to roll for it, because the failing outcome isn't fun. Dark Heresy's skill system is more about increasing te chance of success than it is gaining special abilities or becoming better at how something is done. As such, investment is not just required to be really good at something, it's also required to be even barely competent. This, specialization in dark heresy creates characters who are useless and unfun to play in situations other than what they're skilled in. So yeah, if yor argument against equal xp costs is that characters don't specialize, my response is that this would actually improve the gameplay of the system.

So, what are some game systems which don't force/encourage PCs to specialize? I can't think of any off the top of my head...

-And, if there are any, how do those systems prevent characters from being bland cookie cutter clones?

CPS already mentioned a couple systems, but in general the systems work by making baseline competence have a good chance of success, with specializations allowing either special tricks, better successes, or the ability to take on very powerful opponents/be mostly invulnerable to unspecialixed characters.

As an example of specialization done right, look at something like Apocalypse World which has very specialized classes that can further specialize with really cool thematic abilities rather than just improving chance of success try all also have a pretty decent baseline competence for doing general actions available to everyone.

And Id actually disagree with CPS on Edge of the Empire. I think that the talents available in that system are really boring, so characters do feel a bit bland to me. I really like Warhammer Fantasy Third Edition, though, which has players buying cool thematic actions and getting special career abilities and talents.

What's really, really funny is that the predecessor of Dark Heresy, BRP, doesn't actually force specialisation and is still fairly compatible with the splatbooks. Enough to use it.

I get the implication that you're making here about myself and group, but it's not OUR failing to enjoy the game. The game has failed to provide enjoyment. Full disclosure, I haven't played DH2 since the beta, but the rules have not changed. As a general rule, if I can have an equal amount of fun or more sitting around talking with my friends as I could playing the game, then it is not standing out. I generally have fun when I play RPGs. With DHs system, this fun was entirely from the other players and GM rather than the game itself. If I told you to just play tic tac toe for three hours with friends and blamed you for not enjoying it, you'd call bull, which is what I'm calling on your implication.

And the art in the book is great and it looks very pretty. FFG's biggest strength with this game is the art department.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you can't enjoy the game then.

I just don't get it. If people complain about aptitudes cause they want to be super great at everything why not play cRPG? I honestly don't see a problem with aptitude system. It's really good system. More like a real life since you can't be good at everything. You have to specialise. If you want a skill you can take it and it's not so stiff like DH1 career path.

You can now take skills for fluff reason without seeking some "prestige" dnd style class and two same class characters can be different. And if player want to play fighter and take background and role for face character and then complain then something is wrong with player not the system. Imho there are lots of flaws in the system but aptttudes are good. Yoo have freedom of choice on one hand and on the other you can't make shooter/tank/psyker/etc powerhouse.

Just my 2 thrones.

Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

You should see the "inclusive" ones on the x-wing forum

I get the implication that you're making here about myself and group, but it's not OUR failing to enjoy the game. The game has failed to provide enjoyment. Full disclosure, I haven't played DH2 since the beta, but the rules have not changed. As a general rule, if I can have an equal amount of fun or more sitting around talking with my friends as I could playing the game, then it is not standing out. I generally have fun when I play RPGs. With DHs system, this fun was entirely from the other players and GM rather than the game itself. If I told you to just play tic tac toe for three hours with friends and blamed you for not enjoying it, you'd call bull, which is what I'm calling on your implication.

And the art in the book is great and it looks very pretty. FFG's biggest strength with this game is the art department.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that you can't enjoy the game then.

I'm sorry that the game disappointed me so much.

The thing is, you're not much more free with the aptitudes than with the advancement charts. The whole thing is a weird hybrid of class-based characters and free-form characters. It leads to a lot of odd interactions and it makes a whole lot of options unviable, because they are too expensive.

Also: Having a system where everything costs the same doesn't lead to cookie-cutter characters, because not only do the characters differ in story and action, they can still specialize.
Look at my GURPS group, for example: Everyone has picked up some skill to fight with, most have picked up two or three, so they are always capable of fighting when necessary. But we've got only one guy with Rifle skill, while the others picked Handguns, and only one of them is training it up to being good - the others just don't suck. Of course, it helps that getting up to a 50% base chance is cheap or in other words: The basic ability to not suck is cheap.
Of course, we also have only one guy with Alchemy training, only one of the group is an anthropologist, only one is a fire mage, so they're hardly all the same.
And that's really how a free character creation should work, and what is really missing in the 40k RPG line. If the whole group needs to sneak, then some characters are penalized. In DH1 they needed GM approval and effort to even be able to learn how to sneak, while now they have official guidelines but they lose out on possibly quite a lot if they actually pick it up. Character A can buy Sneak+0, plus two other skills, or Sneak at higher ranks, while characters B and C can only buy Sneak+0. That means that character A will either be better and/or more broadly capable, because a skill that the entire group needs is that much cheaper for him.
(Also substitute [any skill the group needs] for Sneak.)

I just don't get it. If people complain about aptitudes cause they want to be super great at everything why not play cRPG? I honestly don't see a problem with aptitude system. It's really good system. More like a real life since you can't be good at everything. You have to specialise. If you want a skill you can take it and it's not so stiff like DH1 career path.You can now take skills for fluff reason without seeking some "prestige" dnd style class and two same class characters can be different. And if player want to play fighter and take background and role for face character and then complain then something is wrong with player not the system. Imho there are lots of flaws in the system but aptttudes are good. Yoo have freedom of choice on one hand and on the other you can't make shooter/tank/psyker/etc powerhouse. Just my 2 thrones. Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

And I'm prettybsure you can make a shooter/tank/psyker since you need just a few aptitudes: psyker, wp, offense, defense, bs and toughness. Now whether it really is a powerhouse it's debateable since psychic powers kinda suck in dh2.

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

Yeah, pretty much. And while I wouldn't have problem with this, the setting of Dark Heresy demands jack-of-all-trades characters because it isn't so straightforward with its challenges than OW.

I just don't get it. If people complain about aptitudes cause they want to be super great at everything why not play cRPG? I honestly don't see a problem with aptitude system. It's really good system. More like a real life since you can't be good at everything. You have to specialise. If you want a skill you can take it and it's not so stiff like DH1 career path.You can now take skills for fluff reason without seeking some "prestige" dnd style class and two same class characters can be different. And if player want to play fighter and take background and role for face character and then complain then something is wrong with player not the system. Imho there are lots of flaws in the system but aptttudes are good. Yoo have freedom of choice on one hand and on the other you can't make shooter/tank/psyker/etc powerhouse. Just my 2 thrones. Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

And I'm prettybsure you can make a shooter/tank/psyker since you need just a few aptitudes: psyker, wp, offense, defense, bs and toughness. Now whether it really is a powerhouse it's debateable since psychic powers kinda suck in dh2.

No they don't. They're hilariously broken.

No they don't. They're hilariously broken.

More so that DH1?

I just don't get it. If people complain about aptitudes cause they want to be super great at everything why not play cRPG? I honestly don't see a problem with aptitude system. It's really good system. More like a real life since you can't be good at everything. You have to specialise. If you want a skill you can take it and it's not so stiff like DH1 career path.You can now take skills for fluff reason without seeking some "prestige" dnd style class and two same class characters can be different. And if player want to play fighter and take background and role for face character and then complain then something is wrong with player not the system. Imho there are lots of flaws in the system but aptttudes are good. Yoo have freedom of choice on one hand and on the other you can't make shooter/tank/psyker/etc powerhouse. Just my 2 thrones. Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

And I'm prettybsure you can make a shooter/tank/psyker since you need just a few aptitudes: psyker, wp, offense, defense, bs and toughness. Now whether it really is a powerhouse it's debateable since psychic powers kinda suck in dh2.

No they don't. They're hilariously broken.

In what way? I read through them and I really don't see anything special.

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

Yeah, pretty much. And while I wouldn't have problem with this, the setting of Dark Heresy demands jack-of-all-trades characters because it isn't so straightforward with its challenges than OW.

Oddly enough, Black Crusade starts most characters out with generalist advancement and then switches it up later based upon what you've already bought into.

No they don't. They're hilariously broken.

More so that DH1?

It's less quantifiable and more so in a different way. There's some powers that, when used correctly, can kill literally any boss encounter.

Fiery form, fire shield and any power that grants unnatural toughness is a sick combo, for example.

Gate of Infinity has a range of 1km x psy rating. You can open it anywhere, including under the target's feet, with the exit point several km straight up into the air. Vortex of Doom? Why risk it?

Objuration Mechanicum is an at will haywire field.

Invisibility remains ridiculously effective.

I honestly do not see how it's underpowered to gain unnat. characteristics, instakill abilities and debuffs that can render any encounter a pitiful wreck.

No they don't. They're hilariously broken.

More so that DH1?

It's less quantifiable and more so in a different way. There's some powers that, when used correctly, can kill literally any boss encounter.

Fiery form, fire shield and any power that grants unnatural toughness is a sick combo, for example.

Gate of Infinity has a range of 1km x psy rating. You can open it anywhere, including under the target's feet, with the exit point several km straight up into the air. Vortex of Doom? Why risk it?

Objuration Mechanicum is an at will haywire field.

Invisibility remains ridiculously effective.

I honestly do not see how it's underpowered to gain unnat. characteristics, instakill abilities and debuffs that can render any encounter a pitiful wreck.

You get Fiery Form, Fire Shield, Unnat Toughness, spend a boatload of XP on them and then you can slowly walk up to somebody (can't even run, or attack in the same round you've moved since sustaining Fiery Form is a Half Action) and beat them up in melee. Meanwhile everyone can drop 2d5 Influence on a pair of Storm Bolters, way less XP on the Two-weapon wielder talents and go to town with much better results from range and from rank 1.

Gate of Infinity is a nice trick, but it's a trick that's usable 1/day and requires 3 rounds of hanging around the boss undisturbed until you can pull it off. Strong, but situational.

Nothing prevents you from buffing yourself into a stupidly unkillable psykermonster -and- using a storm bolter.

Gate of Infinity is a nice trick, but it's a trick that's usable 1/day and requires 3 rounds of hanging around the boss undisturbed until you can pull it off. Strong, but situational.

It is also insanely expensive to acquire, as you have to eat through half (the worse half) the Telekinesis tree to get it plus the XP you will need to get Psy Rating 5.

The idea behind the psyker rules makes no sense.

Your skill has no bearing on whether you produce side effects at all. It's down to rolling doubles. That's it.

Pushing is utterly broken.

I just don't get it. If people complain about aptitudes cause they want to be super great at everything why not play cRPG? I honestly don't see a problem with aptitude system. It's really good system. More like a real life since you can't be good at everything. You have to specialise. If you want a skill you can take it and it's not so stiff like DH1 career path.You can now take skills for fluff reason without seeking some "prestige" dnd style class and two same class characters can be different. And if player want to play fighter and take background and role for face character and then complain then something is wrong with player not the system. Imho there are lots of flaws in the system but aptttudes are good. Yoo have freedom of choice on one hand and on the other you can't make shooter/tank/psyker/etc powerhouse. Just my 2 thrones. Btw i get the feeling that's this is troll topic

I think the issue many ppl have with the system is that it doesn't support the 'jack of all trades' concept.

And I'm prettybsure you can make a shooter/tank/psyker since you need just a few aptitudes: psyker, wp, offense, defense, bs and toughness. Now whether it really is a powerhouse it's debateable since psychic powers kinda suck in dh2.

The aptitude system sounds like a good idea, but in practicse character creation is like a price comparison website and it also requires you work backwards in order to make optimum choices, which is stupid. This means players new to the system or unfamiliar with all the choices are penalised. That, imo, is utter fail. You can't beat prospective players over the head with rules if they aren't intuitive.

Or people could just save up/spend XP on stuff that they think is cool and fits their character...