Even the most stout roleplayer will avoid taking anything from it like a plague, in my experience.

My players will regularly go ten to twenty sessions or more without spending any of their accumulated XP; so I'm sure they'd have no trouble saving up for a zero-aptitude purchase. That said, I fully understand that they are the exception and not the norm. ; )

But people want choices, even when they play in a setting where your choices are decided for you

That's the thing - I don't really see why, say, living in an Imperial Underhive (perfectly valid backgrounds/lifestyles for Dark Heresy Scum and Assassins) is supposed to be any more oppressive than living on a Chaos-dominated world. Both are places where "might makes right" rules supreme, and both offer multiple ways of finding your place and apply yourself.

That pistol-specced Scum even needed a Gunslinger variant already goes a long way to show the limitations of the system.

Sure, looking solely at Only War and its military regimented background, the "decided for you" is a much more valid argument, but even here you'll invariably get characters who, based on what they did before they were recruited, will simply be better at some things than others, whilst the regimented training is represented by class/archetype aptitudes.

The majority of Skills and Talents are not stuff you need official training for, but just a gradual continuation of something you already had some experience in. The Imperial Guard has no course like "Mighty Shot 101", it simply means you get better with your gun. You can achieve this both with proper training, or .. yeah, all by yourself, just by shooting stuff. And those who have an aptitude for it take less time (=XP) for it.

As for the rest? Well ... just because everyone can, in theory, pick a Skill or Talent doesn't mean you'd have to allow it if it does not make sense, though. But this is a problem we already had with DH1's charts.

Problem is the numbers simply do not add up. For example, take a couple skills most people should have on a very basic level:

The ability to convince someone of something -> Charm. If you don't have this trained, you're rolling at a Fel-20, of a stat where the human average is 25-30. Even with a +60 for optimal conditions, you're playing something less eloquent than an average human being. To be moderately competent, you'd have to invest in +10 or +20 to move your chance of success high enough to not be a liability the moment you open your mouth.

If Charm or, insert literally any other skill that belongs to a basic human being's standard daily interactions, is tier 3 for you, you're paying through the nose to achieve what the rules say may be "excellent training", but when you look at the numbers, basically means you've reached the competence of a 20th century human being only after several thousand XP.

But people want choices, even when they play in a setting where your choices are decided for you

That's the thing - I don't really see why, say, living in an Imperial Underhive (perfectly valid backgrounds/lifestyles for Dark Heresy Scum and Assassins) is supposed to be any more oppressive than living on a Chaos-dominated world. Both are places where "might makes right" rules supreme, and both offer multiple ways of finding your place and apply yourself.

That pistol-specced Scum even needed a Gunslinger variant already goes a long way to show the limitations of the system.

Sure, looking solely at Only War and its military regimented background, the "decided for you" is a much more valid argument, but even here you'll invariably get characters who, based on what they did before they were recruited, will simply be better at some things than others, whilst the regimented training is represented by class/archetype aptitudes.

The majority of Skills and Talents are not stuff you need official training for, but just a gradual continuation of something you already had some experience in. The Imperial Guard has no course like "Mighty Shot 101", it simply means you get better with your gun. You can achieve this both with proper training, or .. yeah, all by yourself, just by shooting stuff. And those who have an aptitude for it take less time (=XP) for it.

As for the rest? Well ... just because everyone can, in theory, pick a Skill or Talent doesn't mean you'd have to allow it if it does not make sense, though. But this is a problem we already had with DH1's charts.

By "decided for you" I meant the oppresive nature of the Imperium, not RPG mechanics. Similar to the argument ..somewhere past (I think 2-3 pages back) where the chat was about players naturally hating any form of autority over them in any game setting, despite having the cloud of autority over your head is part of the 40k setting

Oh yes, the Metalican Gunsligner..had two of those in my campaigns (both played by the same player thought) and they were not that spectacular to me regular scum's better in the long run, gunslginer's strong at first and then sorta stalls, since using anything but pistols brings a penalty reasonable enough.

I saw the OW Regiment not a way to see who did what before, more like the PCs got up to speed on Military Life and they got the quirks and nacks of the Regiment, 'else everyone having the same thing meaning they had the same life experience, makes the Guard bascially like Kitchener's Pal Battaillon concept taking to the extreme.

And as for your previous inquiry, no, the other DH campaign, I don't recall being a loot fest at all; the bodies were mostly searched for clues, I think a few rare times bodies were looted, but that was because they were already dead and you guys had no ammo/armour/weapons...

Having played an Assassin in a one-shot session, where I started out with Blademaster and a small xp boost, I can tell you that they are not.

I'm talking about skills.

And that's sort of my point. That's where the largest sides of the discussion are coming from.

There are people that think both ways about the issue. It's not something that can be resolved by showing mathematics formulas or telling anecdotes about GMing. This just legitimately doesn't seem like it can be resolved.

Some people don't mind the aptitude system, they feel it's a good representation of different people in a wide galaxy, and that it's a better fit than the original system presented in DH1. Some don't, some feel it's not sound for a character to have to spend so much, and thats fine too.

The system however actually functions, at least seemingly, as intended. For what is written in the core nothing, at least that I've seen, is functionally broke.

However some feel that it's broken if they feel it's too expensive for them. Which I guess is fine, but in that case it's not a broken system as intended, it's broken in your eyes.

2) According to game theory, not my opinion but actual academic study, the game limits viable choices.

3) It would be more correct to say that it is your opinion that game theory should be ignored when designing a game (or more specifically when designing a cost/reward system in the game). It is my opinion that this is a dumb opinion for you to have.

While the aptitude system might be bad, it's stilk a pretty big step forward from the class/alt rank/elite advance system.

Could you expand as to why it is better? Because I don't it at all.

In a class based system a lot of stuff that might fit your character comes with complete letely inappropriate strings attached. For example in RT if you played an agile Void Master and wanted Step Aside (completely appropriate for the character) you also had to learn how to control servitors with your mind via a Xenos implant, since Colchite Servo Master was the only Void Master alt rank with Step Aside.

Also, but maybe this is a RT specific issue (never got to max rank in DH or DW) but there seems too much xp compared to the available class skills at high ranks. By mid rank 7 you have everything's ng you want and you either have to pick random skills or beg GM for elite advances.

Problem is the numbers simply do not add up. For example, take a couple skills most people should have on a very basic level:

The ability to convince someone of something -> Charm. If you don't have this trained, you're rolling at a Fel-20, of a stat where the human average is 25-30. Even with a +60 for optimal conditions, you're playing something less eloquent than an average human being. To be moderately competent, you'd have to invest in +10 or +20 to move your chance of success high enough to not be a liability the moment you open your mouth.

If Charm or, insert literally any other skill that belongs to a basic human being's standard daily interactions, is tier 3 for you, you're paying through the nose to achieve what the rules say may be "excellent training", but when you look at the numbers, basically means you've reached the competence of a 20th century human being only after several thousand XP.

If the skill was reliable and accessible without any training or talent to any character, I wonder how many players would actually invest in this. That's right, nobody would.

Also in your RL day to day interactions with humans beings, I'd say that you would get a pretty high modifier.

Don't forget, some people are just bad at lying, deceit, and swaying others to do their bidding without them realizing it. Having this skill untrained and having no talents just represent that. Sure, the chances that you'll fail are high, but that's just the balance of the game.

The setting is harsh and violent, hardly anybody trust eachother, let alone strangers.

If you're the big muscled guy that sucks at using kind words/manipulation to get his way, just use intimidation instead.

By "decided for you" I meant the oppresive nature of the Imperium, not RPG mechanics. Similar to the argument ..somewhere past (I think 2-3 pages back) where the chat was about players naturally hating any form of autority over them in any game setting, despite having the cloud of autority over your head is part of the 40k setting

I saw the OW Regiment not a way to see who did what before, more like the PCs got up to speed on Military Life and they got the quirks and nacks of the Regiment, 'else everyone having the same thing meaning they had the same life experience, makes the Guard bascially like Kitchener's Pal Battaillon concept taking to the extreme.

I know you were referring to the oppressive nature of the Imperium, that's why I mentioned the lawless underhive as a place that isn't very different to a lot of BC characters' backgrounds.

But you were trying to use said oppressive nature as an explanation for why characters would have their choice of skills and talents limited, right? Because I remember a similar line from a Black Crusade devblog - and even back then, it didn't convince me. It was a simple change in mechanics, which would not have required any background explanation. Just like BC tries to explain its lasgun charge slider as a heretek modification, and suddenly it's standard issue in OW.

I'm not sure why they even tried to come up with cop-outs for these changes. Maybe it's because they felt they had to uphold this crumbling image of the different books supposedly working with each other, rather than existing in isolation.

As for the regiment, it's probably a mixture. If we go by the "make your own" rules, the homeworld can add aptitudes on top of whatever you receive from the actual regimental doctrines, simply because growing up at place X made you better suited for Y. But that's not what I was getting at; what I meant was more referring to characters being picked for a particular role because they showed pre-existing promise. For example, I suppose most snipers aren't trained from the ground up, but instead they'd take people who show an aptitude for it, and make them better.

And the Gunslinger was just the first example that came to mind, of course. Each supplement introduced so many alternate ranks and specialisations, it's crazy. And each time it was to allow players to play something which was not possible by RAW until then (barring a ton of elite advances and other houserules). To me, this alone shows how much you'd have to miss out on if you don't go with an open system like aptitudes as opposed to railroad charts.

Even if the company would keep churning out variant after variant (which it does not), somewhere, some player will have a perfectly valid idea for a character that wouldn't be supported by the narrow confines of the "pick 4 out of 10" tables of DH1. Specifically because 40k is such a crazy setting that you've got a different culture on each world.

That's what I thought.

I really think for the most part it comes down to the players, but a system can easily push them either way.

Problem is the numbers simply do not add up. For example, take a couple skills most people should have on a very basic level:

The ability to convince someone of something -> Charm. If you don't have this trained, you're rolling at a Fel-20, of a stat where the human average is 25-30. Even with a +60 for optimal conditions, you're playing something less eloquent than an average human being. To be moderately competent, you'd have to invest in +10 or +20 to move your chance of success high enough to not be a liability the moment you open your mouth.

If Charm or, insert literally any other skill that belongs to a basic human being's standard daily interactions, is tier 3 for you, you're paying through the nose to achieve what the rules say may be "excellent training", but when you look at the numbers, basically means you've reached the competence of a 20th century human being only after several thousand XP.

If the skill was reliable and accessible without any training or talent to any character, I wonder how many players would actually invest in this. That's right, nobody would.

Also in your RL day to day interactions with humans beings, I'd say that you would get a pretty high modifier.

Don't forget, some people are just bad at lying, deceit, and swaying others to do their bidding without them realizing it. Having this skill untrained and having no talents just represent that. Sure, the chances that you'll fail are high, but that's just the balance of the game.

The setting is harsh and violent, hardly anybody trust eachother, let alone strangers.

If you're the big muscled guy that sucks at using kind words/manipulation to get his way, just use intimidation instead.

Sounds nice in theory, falls apart in practise, sorry. +60 ideal circumstances modifier is already taken into account, and your success chance with untrained then, in -completely ideal circumstances- is barely 60 percent.

I was referring to the modifier in terms of RL, since you were comparing with RL. I think if you were a total sucker at Charm IRL, having 60% chance to manipulate somebody is still pretty good.

Also remember that investing once in a skill like charm allows you to give assistence to other characters, giving it another +10. So you don't necessary require to have just 1 guy to do all the talking, you can just boost eachother.

That said, let's look at the accessibility of the social skills/aptitudes

A 60% chance, under ideal circumstances, is not good. It's autism.

5 out of 7 backgrounds can give you either Charm/Intimidate/Deceive or the aptitudes to get the skills cheaper.

5 out of 8 roles give you the necessary aptitudes to have at least 1 Rank in a Social skill without having to spend tons of experience.

In fact, only 3 Backgrounds (Administratum, Ministorum, Outcast) and 3 Roles (Desperado, Hierophant, Seeker) give you Fellowship and/or Social.

Anyway, I can't really see why the Aptitude system is even necessary at this point. Why don't just... have only mid-cheap (between cheap and med-costed) advancements, with each character having a few cheap advancements depending on their homeworld/background/role. If you want to take something for the flavor, then you can without people flipping out that it is an "inferior choice". If you don't want to take it even though it is cheap... then don't take it.

5 out of 7 backgrounds can give you either Charm/Intimidate/Deceive or the aptitudes to get the skills cheaper.

5 out of 8 roles give you the necessary aptitudes to have at least 1 Rank in a Social skill without having to spend tons of experience.

In fact, only 3 Backgrounds (Administratum, Ministorum, Outcast) and 3 Roles (Desperado, Hierophant, Seeker) give you Fellowship and/or Social.

Anyway, I can't really see why the Aptitude system is even necessary at this point. Why don't just... have only mid-cheap (between cheap and med-costed) advancements, with each character having a few cheap advancements depending on their homeworld/background/role. If you want to take something for the flavor, then you can without people flipping out that it is an "inferior choice". If you don't want to take it even though it is cheap... then don't take it.

I wouldn't consider Intimidate as a social skill. It is more like a combat skill that allows you to defeat opponents without wasting ammo on them .

I wouldn't consider Intimidate as a social skill. It is more like a combat skill that allows you to defeat opponents without wasting ammo on them .

Well, I bet if you play your cards right your GM will allow Intimidate to be used in more social situations.

Not meaning much but it has as Aptitudes: Strength AND Social

The description says:

While the aptitude system might be bad, it's stilk a pretty big step forward from the class/alt rank/elite advance system.

Could you expand as to why it is better? Because I don't it at all.

Try creating a Guardsman character who was a Scout rather than a front-line trooper in DH1 . No stealthy skills are available to a Guardsman before- I think- Rank 6 or 7.

That's why Aptitudes are better than the old system- it provides a mechanism for customizing PCs, while keeping the 'flavor' of their specialties.

And before you point out that Elite Advances allow you to do the same thing in DH1 : the only real guideline about using Elite Advances is that they were supposed to be more expensive than standard advances from the Career Tables- which is exactly what you are complaining about with Aptitudes!

I'm gone for almost a week and we're still discussing Aptitudes?

Here's the thing: the Aptitudes system is still very much about class-based advancement, just like the professions in pre-BC games were. The differences are:

1. You get a limited say in how your "profession" looks like by picking from a set of options that contribute to your final list of Aptitudes.

2. Your "profession" isn't presented to you in a set of charts, instead you get a formula to calculate the costs of anything you may want to buy.

3. In previous systems, your character was stuck with a rigid leveling scheme, whereas now you can theoretically buy anything in the game at any time, but the system encourages/enforces sticking to your "profession" by pricing different advancements differently for different "professions".

Now, the whole argument boils down to whether one likes class-based systems or not. It's fine to like them, and it's equally fine to not like them. But I'd really like everyone to acknowledge that it's completely subjective whether you like the system or not.

I'm gone for almost a week and we're still discussing Aptitudes?

yeah nothing much happened.

All the action was in the x-wing part of the forum

Actually, the problem is people insisting the aptitudes system isn't classbased, and entirely freeform. I don't care if you like it, but I'll argue against that bollocks nonstop.

But I'd really like everyone to acknowledge that it's completely subjective whether you like the system or not.

I think most arguments of this nature are really rooted in differences in playstyle.

All the action was in the x-wing part of the forum

That's the second time someone's mentioned that. What are they fighting about over there? Or is it actually an amicable discussion?

Actually, the problem is people insisting the aptitudes system isn't classbased, and entirely freeform. I don't care if you like it, but I'll argue against that bollocks nonstop.

I missed that. Who made that argument?

Actually, the problem is people insisting the aptitudes system isn't classbased, and entirely freeform. I don't care if you like it, but I'll argue against that bollocks nonstop.

I missed that. Who made that argument?

I think it was implied when I kept stating over an over that the new system isn't really much more free form than the old system as objectively proven by a theory of game design and people were jumping all over themselves to argue against that.

Actually, the problem is people insisting the aptitudes system isn't classbased, and entirely freeform. I don't care if you like it, but I'll argue against that bollocks nonstop.

I really don't recall anyone phrasing it that particular way. Mind you, the system does actually offer a lot of freedom when it comes to advancement... for a class-based system, that is. Thus, people may say the system offers them freedom without claiming it's entirely freeform.

But I'd really like everyone to acknowledge that it's completely subjective whether you like the system or not.

I think most arguments of this nature are really rooted in differences in playstyle.

You would be correct. As a rule of thumb, whenever someone says "X doesn't work" when discussing RPGs, they actually mean "I don't like how X works". Rare are rules so bad, they really, genuinely don't work.

Actually, the problem is people insisting the aptitudes system isn't classbased, and entirely freeform. I don't care if you like it, but I'll argue against that bollocks nonstop.

I missed that. Who made that argument?

I think it was implied when I kept stating over an over that the new system isn't really much more free form than the old system as objectively proven by a theory of game design and people were jumping all over themselves to argue against that.

I might have missed that, but with what you said right after reading what Morangias wrote, it sure makes alot of sense to me.

Real freeform I think would be like Shadowrun; everything costs the same for everyone, it's just a matter of getting karma to buy whatever you want.