@cogniczar

I wasn't implying that only simple rules are best. I said that the game system matters. Even a crunch heavy game system will affect how the game is played. You could have a crunchy system that focuses on different things. Most rpgs tend to focus mostly on combat and breaking that down into discrete units. The same thing could be done for a social encounter, an investigation, or even giving someone surgery. I've told people before who bemoan players always jumping to combat that it's a direct result of the system they're playing; if the game and it's options mostly focus on combat, players are going to want to use those rules as much as possible (in addition, combat is the only time that players can just repeat failed akill rolls over with ease, which negates thelow chance of success).

I will say though that there is obviously going to be differences in people who like prep work or not. Something like dungeon world will just flat out not work with high prep because the rules endorse making stuff up on the fly. I do have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the majority of new players and GMs, and your average person, will prefer a low prep system. You could get away with high prep In the FFG Star Wars game, though. It's also got a fair amount of crunch.

@gridash

Honestly, the biggest difference between EOTE and 40k is that it's dice mechanic requires much less forethought. It makes any kind of skill roll have excitement behind it and encourages players to add things to the game, narratively. It basically has the GM and the players share the job of making up a story, which means prep work can be cut. On the other hand, weapons and NPCs still tend to have complicated stat blocks, but the core book lists off almost every kind of NPC and weapon you'd ever actually use in the game. Also, the core dice mechanic of the game is interesting enough to actually engage players outside of using any of the other game rules. Most people doing low prep games tend to fal back on just rolling the dice for things, and the result is boring gameplay. The EotE dice make basic gameplay more fun and interesting, so the GM has less pressure to create a scenario that actually uses the mechanics. In other words, it's actually fun to roll the EotE dice pool and interpret it, whereas it's pretty boring to just say whether someone succeeds or not. Because it's fun to actually play EotE, the GM has a lot more leeway in entertaining players and less risk of a boring game.

@lynata

You're absolutely right that bubblegum is only made for one shots, but it's not pretending to be anything else. A game designed around long term growth and campaign play would need to take those are things into account. The issue with most rpgs is that they work more like video game rpgs where character growth means killing dudes better or having higher numbers. Honestly, 40k would do well to have every character be good at combat, AND to have a secondary skill niche. Basically have them choose a job background that determines skills and a role that determines what they do in combat. Character growth would have both of these areas increase rather than making players choose (and thus run into the problem of having to deal with unbalanced characters.

So why exactly does it take more for a 40k game to prep than, for example Star Wars EotE?

I'd say it has more to do with the seriousness of the setting, the lore, etc? Not so much the system.

...

All good and well, but when you said "zero-prep" in case of EtoE, I thought you meant actually putting together whatever story you were going to present prior to the session. We ended up in a discussion where we're discussing the amount of work that the GM has to do during a game, ergo the preparation phase has already passed, we're in the "live" phase right now.

I suppose you're ultimately saying that EtoE allows more room for improvisation because some GM work is distributed amongst the players, leading to potential less actual preparation time. What is interesting in the system and what's not is just personal preference at this point.

The dice mechanic is interesting, but it's just the degrees of success/failure visualized. I won't deny that it has the potential to play smoother however. That said, I'm only vaguely familiar with the system, so it's hard for me to form a solid opinion here in terms of comparison, aside from the rough differences. I do actually have the beginners game in my possession, but it's just collecting dust at this point.

I know you're very negative about the 40k system in general, to the point where I wonder how many grains of salt I should add before I can take whatever point/argument you're making seriously so to speak. Criticism is one thing, but past discussions have shown me that this criticism went so far that it isn't believable anymore for me personally.

@gridash

Again, I think that the key thing about edge of the empire is that it's dice resolution includes results that are specifically "make up something good that happens/make up something bad that happens" that help tell interesting stories AND that the dice results can also be used to fuel cool powers and combos during combat (there is a specific list of things you can spend your good results on in combat). The reason why this lends itself to low prep is both having the dice add more to the narrative than just pass/fail AND that the dice actually act as a fun game to play, meaning that there is less pressure on the GM to make up for a boring system. Basically, the system does some of the GMs work for him.

For some groups, this is going to end up being redundant. The One Shot Podcast features a rotating group of improv comedians doing different systems. It's interesting to see that when you they play dungeon world or edge of the empire, they either ignore the system in favor of improv, or the system actually trips them up a bit. However, the GM also tends to get very frustrated with call of Cthulhu due to its low probability of success and binary pass/fail system, as lots of failures tend to stymie even the best players and GMs.

So yeah, if you have a group who is really good at improv and leans toward that, system won't really matter much beyond whether it gets in their way. For most people, myself included, the system is important for helping the game to be played and story to be told.

Most rpgs tend to focus mostly on combat and breaking that down into discrete units. The same thing could be done for a social encounter, an investigation, or even giving someone surgery. I've told people before who bemoan players always jumping to combat that it's a direct result of the system they're playing; if the game and it's options mostly focus on combat, players are going to want to use those rules as much as possible

The issue with most rpgs is that they work more like video game rpgs where character growth means killing dudes better or having higher numbers. Honestly, 40k would do well to have every character be good at combat, AND to have a secondary skill niche. Basically have them choose a job background that determines skills and a role that determines what they do in combat. Character growth would have both of these areas increase rather than making players choose (and thus run into the problem of having to deal with unbalanced characters.

This is an interesting topic in that the question might be whether or not the majority of players actually want a system to focus on any potential aspect of a campaign in equal measure. I've seen the newest edition of Shadowrun being criticised because it has rules for just about anything. And in a way, I agree - it's a cluttered mess where it's a wonder you don't have to roll dice for breathing. But on the other hand, this is what you get when you want the game to cater extensively to so many different things.

Another of the reasons why I'm currently favouring rules-lite systems like Dragon Age, by the way. When you have so few rules for combat, the game does not necessarily get cluttered just because you add some more for non-combat stuff. The worst possible outcome is that all of it gets as complex as, say, Dark Heresy's rules for combat alone.

I've told people before who bemoan players always jumping to combat that it's a direct result of the system they're playing; if the game and it's options mostly focus on combat, players are going to want to use those rules as much as possible.

While I absolutely agree that this is a factor, I think that the mentalities of the players and GM are at least as important. My first system was the old Moldvay Basic D&D (which is about as combat-slanted as you can get) and I've never had this problem. Conversely, the other group that my girlfriend's little sister plays with did an Edge of the Empire campaign that went full murderhobo.

@lynata

I think Shadowrun is not really a good example. It's problem is less about trying to model everythung a player can do and more about trying to model world physics with a bunch of sub systems that are added on with no real relation to each other. That, and Shadowrun has a problem with doing quantity over quality in regards to equipment, character options, and details. The best example is the "chunky salsa" which basically says that the shock wave from a grenade will bounce off walls and return back to the character. Sounds cool, but in practice you are rolling dozens of dice and doing several math problems and oh my god it is basically like filling in an excel spreadsheet.

An example of a really cool system for social combat is in mutant year zero. In that system, which has a theme of decay and resource management in the post apocalyse, characters have 4 main stats that act as wounds/hit points as well. Engaging in a social conflict requires you to have a bargaining position, with a difficulty set by the GM based on a few set modifiers. Succeeding at persuading someone means they do what you want in return for something. Succeeding at intimidate means they either do what you want or Attack you/run away. Extra successes are spent to damage the losers social characteristic and if it is reduced to zero, they do what you want with no strings attached. This system can be used against both pcs and NPCs. It's simple to remember, incorporates the game mechanics, and accurately models most of the social interactions players will roll for. It also ties into the greater theme of the game being about resource management and building ties with others. Honestly, mutant year zero is probably one of the best designed games I've ever read, because it constantly hammers home it's theme to players while also encouraging them to act in certain ways.

Anyway, what's the dragon age system like? I heard it was basically just rehashing the d20/d&d3.5 system similar to Numenera.

I've told people before who bemoan players always jumping to combat that it's a direct result of the system they're playing; if the game and it's options mostly focus on combat, players are going to want to use those rules as much as possible.

While I absolutely agree that this is a factor, I think that the mentalities of the players and GM are at least as important. My first system was the old Moldvay Basic D&D (which is about as combat-slanted as you can get) and I've never had this problem. Conversely, the other group that my girlfriend's little sister plays with did an Edge of the Empire campaign that went full murderhobo.

To be fair, Basic D&D kind of actively discourages fighting, since you gain xp from getting treasure and fighting is just likely to wind up killing you. I'd say that even edge of the empire is slanted toward combat, given how much of the book is dedicated to it. It does at least make non-combat options more interesting to run with, though. I mention it above, but mutant year zero both encourages people to loot when possible, but also gives them really limited resources that make them not want to solve everything with fighting. It also has lots of mechanics for building a community that keeps the players from being hobos and giving them connections to NPCs.

All good and well, but when you said "zero-prep" in case of EtoE, I thought you meant actually putting together whatever story you were going to present prior to the session. We ended up in a discussion where we're discussing the amount of work that the GM has to do during a game, ergo the preparation phase has already passed, we're in the "live" phase right now.

If you have the beginners game you should absolutely give it a shot (if only to try to get your money's worth). I ran the adventure out of the rulebook and we just sort of kept going. My group (most of whom only really knew 40k) loved it.

And if I'm very negative about the 40k system it's only because I know it well enough to be familiar with all of its flaws to the point that I'm fed up with dealing with them. Particularly when they get perpetuated in 'new' systems.

edit: also the dice system is not simply degrees of success/failure presented visually. The dice symbols are a little deeper than that.

Let's summarize the core system problems with WH40KRP :

• Lack of depth in the percentile system, which causes Tests to go abruptly from 'rarely succeed' to 'rarely fail', with minimal time in the dramatic 'sweet spot' in between.
• Nearly all of the rules focus on combat, with everything else dispensed with via a boring 'one-and-done' die roll, in spite of the fact that investigation , not combat , is supposed to be the core focus of the game.
• Combat takes forever !
• Psychic powers are depicted as narrowly-defined D&D-style 'spells', rather than broadly malleable effects like they usually are in 40K fiction, resulting in cheese like Pyrokinetic specialists who can incinerate huge numbers of opponents, but can't light a simple camp fire...
• There is no mechanical reward for 'characterful' decisions; the system rewards only pure statistical superiority, resulting in colorless, MinMaxed PowerGaming being the de facto 'right' decision, with characterful choices punished with a dramatically increased chance of character death.
• Rolling random characteristics? Really ? The Eighties were a long time ago...

Did I miss anything?

To be fair, Basic D&D kind of actively discourages fighting,

...

Say what?

To be fair, Basic D&D kind of actively discourages fighting,

...

Say what?

I believe he's referring to the old, old game, where 1 gold = 1 XP. So the players were incentivized to get gold any way they could (rather than to kill all the monsters). So going full murder hobo didn't actually get you very far. What you instead had was parties who'd take everything that wasn't nailed down to sell it (including acid from acid pit traps because apparently acid is worth its weight in gold).

*snip*

Did I miss anything?

Feat taxes, caster supremacy (admittedly less so in DH2), the illusion of choice (aptitudes)... just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of more.

To be fair, Basic D&D kind of actively discourages fighting,

...

Say what?

You get xp from finding treasure, not from fighting monsters. There are multiple ways, such as parleying, sending henchmen ahead, sneaking, and others that are available for players to avoid combat. Non-fighters all tend to be very easily killed and thus want to avoid combat as much as possible. The system was designed with war gaming and tournament play in mind, and the DM is assumed to be trying to kill players rather than take it easy on them. The rules for combat are actually fairly abstract, rather than the mess of rules found in later editions. The actual point of the game was to venture into a dungeon and collect treasure that you'd then take back out. The game focuses just as much on weight management and finding traps as it does on killing monsters. Seriously, basic d&d discouraged getting into combat if other solutions were available. Your quip would be more effective if it had some actual evidence behind it.

• Rolling random characteristics? Really ? The Eighties were a long time ago...

What is it with the random characteristic hate?

You get xp from finding treasure, not from fighting monsters.

Incorrect. You got XP from both. And in every published module that I ever read, the vast majority of the treasure was in the possession of monsters who would be disinclined to hand it over while they were still breathing.

There are multiple ways, such as parleying, sending henchmen ahead, sneaking, and others that are available for players to avoid combat.

Having some other options available is not the same as "actively discouraging combat", which was the remark to which I was responding with such incredulity.

The system was designed with war gaming and tournament play in mind, and the DM is assumed to be trying to kill players rather than take it easy on them.

Not in the Moldvay system, they weren't (which is what I very specifically stated that I was referring to). GM's were heavily encouraged to make fights challenging but NOT to try to kill the PC's.

Your quip would be more effective if it had some actual evidence behind it.

As would the opening statement of your argument (please see above).

• Rolling random characteristics? Really ? The Eighties were a long time ago...

What is it with the random characteristic hate?

Some people like to go into character creation without a concrete idea in mind, see how the dice roll, and then build a concept around the results. Others prefer to go in with a solid concept in mind and want to be able to build their mechanics around that concept. It's just a matter of preference. I prefer the latter approach myself; but since DH2 has an optional point-buy system, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

You get xp from finding treasure, not from fighting monsters.

Incorrect. You got XP from both. And in every published module that I ever read, the vast majority of the treasure was in the possession of monsters who would be disinclined to hand it over while they were still breathing.

You're right, I was wrong on that. However, the xp that monsters provide tends to be very low, AND it is not just granted from fighting but from "monsters killed or overcome by magic, fighting, or wits. " In other words, the game is not requiring monsters to be dead to gain treasure. It provides multiple options for dealing with monsters that don't involve going into combat, such as parleying, sneaking, magic, or other trickery.

There are multiple ways, such as parleying, sending henchmen ahead, sneaking, and others that are available for players to avoid combat.

Having some other options available is not the same as "actively discouraging combat", which was the remark to which I was responding with such incredulity.

The active discouragement occurs through the lethality of combat, and the text itself placing "avoid" and "talk to" ahead of "fight" for how to interact with monsters. It distinguishes between encountering monsters and fighting them "a melee." It also specifically mentions players dying as not being a big deal and that they can just roll up another one. The fact is that a low level monster will not be worth much xp and will pose a very lethal threat to the players. The entire balance of the wizard is obviously predicated on them being very easily killed at low levels. The game includes lots of save or die effects and monsters. It is obviously meant to be very lethal, and combat is presented as an often bad option for players. The game specifically has rules for the players running away from combat, after all. These aren't holdover fleeing rules like you see in modern rpgs that feel the need to ape d&d; these are the original rules for running combats and were put in because characters are expected to try running away. Even the example combat involves not actually killing the the monsters.

So I will go ahead and say that you're right, Moldvay Basic does not actively discourage combat. It DOES actively discourage murdering everything (you can get the same xp by letting an enemy surrender and not risk losing more of yours).

It DOES actively discourage murdering everything (you can get the same xp by letting an enemy surrender and not risk losing more of yours).

Agreed.

Though I always found it a bit dodgy that, in The Keep on the Borderlands, they provided combat stats and treasure for every last shopkeeper and stable-hand in what was supposed to be the PC's safe base of operation. Yes, I know; there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to provide such information, but it always stuck me as though they were expecting the PC's to get bored and massacre the entire place for the heck of it.

• Rolling random characteristics? Really ? The Eighties were a long time ago...

What is it with the random characteristic hate?

Some people like to go into character creation without a concrete idea in mind, see how the dice roll, and then build a concept around the results. Others prefer to go in with a solid concept in mind and want to be able to build their mechanics around that concept. It's just a matter of preference. I prefer the latter approach myself; but since DH2 has an optional point-buy system, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

I get that. But like you pointed out, the game has both random and point-buy available. XD

I think Shadowrun is not really a good example. It's problem is less about trying to model everythung a player can do and more about trying to model world physics with a bunch of sub systems that are added on with no real relation to each other.

Yeah, I suppose that's true, there is still a difference.

Letting the player experience that joy only when they already know their action will succeed is a huge change, imo. How many of you felt silly in Dark Heresy trying to execute some cool manoeuvre in combat but just couldn't roll the required result, again and again? Even better when your character is supposed to be good at it, such as a close combat Assassin trying to somersault over their opponent. In DH, there's a chance for failure. In DARPG, it's a bonus effect.

Apart from the emotional effect, this also saves a ton of pages because every possible stunt requires a lot less explanation and ruling, instead being part of a single 1-page-table with 1-2 sentences per stunt. And the game offers separate stunts for non-combat rolls as well, called "Exploration Stunts" and "Roleplaying Stunts" where a good roll on the respective Test will add some sort of beneficial outcome, such as a stunt for searching for traps adding a bonus to disarm them (because you've spotted something connected to them), or a stunt for a successful diplomacy roll causing a nearby character to become enamoured with yours (because of your way with words).

Further simplification is the game's use of Focuses, which are basically your character's skills - you simply buy a Focus for the respective topic, which adds a +2 bonus to any rolls connected to it. There's only about two dozen Focuses by RAW (and they are intentionally broad), but the game recommends that players and GMs come up with their own additions if they like. For example, when Dragon Age was played on Wil Wheaton's Tabletop , the guy playing the elf invented a Focus for Smelling .

Let's just say: Dragon Age is the only P&P RPG I have ever played which I'd feel comfortable playing just using the character sheets and the stunt tables, as long as people write everything down. The ~10 pages of rules can be read by anyone in your group during the first half hour before the game, apart from that .. no books needed.

And if 40k and Shadowrun teached me one thing, it's a growing dislike for having to reach for a rulebook again and again, because it slows down a game tremendously.

(also, the ruleset used in the DARPG is so incredibly easy to mod, I already made a Mass Effect and a Battletech(!) conversion for it)

Toughness as Skin Armour. People shouldn't shrug off and ignore any damage that gets through their armour.

Oh, and Unnatural Characteristics. Because Space Marines having to face a higher chance to lose a contest of arm wrestling against a Human than vice versa is hilariously wrong. Either you are that much stronger, or you are not.

Some people like to go into character creation without a concrete idea in mind, see how the dice roll, and then build a concept around the results. Others prefer to go in with a solid concept in mind and want to be able to build their mechanics around that concept.

Having your character concept get torpedoed by bad dice is a mood killer for sure. On the other hand, random rolls often make character stats look more realistic, though, as pointbuy leads itself heavily towards minmaxing.

It's why I prefer the "happy medium" of rolling random results, and then rearranging them to make them fit to the character type I'd want to play.

"Having your character concept get torpedoed by bad dice is a mood killer for sure. On the other hand, random rolls often make character stats look more realistic, though, as pointbuy leads itself heavily towards minmaxing."

Sorry to pick on you, but I see this come up a lot and it makes me wonder where this idea of having more "random" looking numbers being realistic comes from. What does realistic even mean in this sense? It certainly isn't about hewing closer to reality, because we're talking about heavily abstracted numbers that mostly deal with system interactions. Even in DH, the only part of yor characteristic score that really matters is the 10s digit. If we want to talk realism in people's physical and mental abilities being random, that isn't true, either; people's mental and physical ability tends to be related.

It seems like "realism" in this case is closer to meaning "not planned for." I think there's also a bit of a gamblers fallacy going on where people will choose random lottery numbers like 67529 even though 12345 is equally as likely to win. Still, the fact remains that randomly rolled stats are not actually any more realistic than point buy. The idea is, after all, that the player is playing one of billions of humans in the solar system. So wouldn't it make sense for that one person chosen to have specifically chosen stats? Pointing to realism as a reason for stat rolling seems to me to be based in a desire to have things look messy within the game mechanics. The problem with this is that the game mechanics are meant to simulate a game, not simulate messiness. When you combine the two, you end up displeasing people from both sides.

Tldr; why is having a characteristic at 27 more realistic than having one at 30? Why is there a Threshhold where too many characteristics can be at 30 or 35 and why is this less realistic than if the same thing were randomly rolled for?

It seems like "realism" in this case is closer to meaning "not planned for."

Yes, exactly - and whilst I can follow your reasoning, that doesn't change how I feel about it. Call it illogical, but characters who have all their stats and in 0s and 5s just appear to me like clones specifically bred to be the best at their job, which is not how I perceive the setting to work.

Characteristics ending in other numbers just appear more "natural" to me, not just because of how people were born but also how they continue to develop. Even if a character is supposed to be "the best at their job" (which I do not necessarily agree with, especially at the start of a character's career when they have barely reached half their potential), 0s and 5s just look more like caps rather than stats-in-motion.

That the "gaps" in a character's evolving experience are fairly wide is of course another issue, but I can at least justify the +5 as an abstracted version of accumulated expertise. I should probably point out that, as part of a hypothesised "how about this instead of Unnatural Stats" houserule, I have in the past suggested to lower the steps of advancements to +2 and +3, which would eliminate the unnatural appearance of some characteristics sooner or later.

This visual appearance is just one half of the issue, though. The other being that pointbuy leads to "dump stats" - and I'm sorry, but I just cannot combine that idea with the concept of a well-rounded character. Just like I'd have to disagree about the implied connection between natural-looking stats and messy game mechanics.

Ironically, even FFG seems to agree with me here given how the official NPC profiles are written.

tl;dr: It boils down to a simple matter of perception, but the characters we play are still human beings with unique, individual strengths, weaknesses and experiences - not robots built and programmed to exacting factory specifications, and in a d100-based stat system their profiles should reflect that.

If people dislike the ones numbers in characteristics so much, that seems to be more of an argument for a d10-based ruleset, rather than a counterpoint to my argument?

Sorry to pick on you, but I see this come up a lot and it makes me wonder where this idea of having more "random" looking numbers being realistic comes from. What does realistic even mean in this sense?

Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition, sidebar about low characteristics and how flaws make characters more human and realistic than a set of high scores. That's where this idea comes from. =D

All good and well, but when you said "zero-prep" in case of EtoE, I thought you meant actually putting together whatever story you were going to present prior to the session. We ended up in a discussion where we're discussing the amount of work that the GM has to do during a game, ergo the preparation phase has already passed, we're in the "live" phase right now.

I suppose I didn't answer your question clearly. In my experience, I have, as GM, rolled up to a session with absolutely nothing done in preparation and run a good session. No story drafted up beforehand, nothing planned to happen, just "Okay guys, here's what happened last session, what do you want to do?" and just rolled with that. Contrast that to my experience with 40k, where the quality of any given session roughly correlated to how much work I put into preparing for it.

...

Since you've stated before that you and your group are not really into Star Wars that much and your group are possibly hardcore fans of the 40k setting, perhaps your session standards (and the work you put into those sessions beforehand) are influenced by this degree of fanatism. I can see your group wanting to see something interesting/out of the ordinary. Perhaps your session standards for Star Wars just don't need to be that high, in contrast with your 40k sessions? I mean, it's all upto to the GM/group how much work goes into a session, your group might just be a bit demanding.

I can see the narrative dice of Star Wars helping GMs improvise, so that's a point there. Although what prevents people from doing something similar in case of the 40k system here. Why not add something like a narrative die (six sided? or 2 four-sided dice representing positive and negative modifiers) to your rolls that will explicitly add a potential narrative side effect, without influencing anything else. The game still works as before, but you add your degrees of success together with the narrative die roll to determine some kind of side effect happening.

Like you try to hack a door, using Security, you get 1 degree of success passing the check, but your narrative die/dice gave you a total result of -2, putting you at -1 when combined with the original +1 degree of success, triggering some kind of narrative improvised effect. Like a goon has noticed the intrusion at the other side of the door and is now prepared to take you on, or you've triggered an alarm if you end up with a -3 narrative roll if it's really bad, despite your success to open the door. This is kinda like the Star Wars dice advantage/threat/triumph despair symbols that are separate from the actual success/failure symbols.

If you were to use degrees of success to determine the amount of shots that hit during semi/full auto, and you end up negative in your narrative die roll, you'll still do your hits, but perhaps a stray shot also caused a giant water pipe to burst for example, or one of your shots went straight through your opponent, hitting a fuse box on the other side of the room, which ends up killing all the lights in the room.

Oh and in case of positive narrative rolls, let your players decide what happens to remove some work from the GM's side of things.

Nobody is denying that Star Wars will do this more elegantly since they build their whole system around this, but I'd say you can still introduce similar effects without modifying the current system that much in 40k.

Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition, sidebar about low characteristics and how flaws make characters more human and realistic than a set of high scores. That's where this idea comes from. =D

And before someone brings it up, dumpstats aren't true flaws. Proper character flaws are weaknesses that actually hamper their efficiency, rather than a "pretend-flaw" where something that is supposed to be bad does not actually affect them in a negative way.

Similar to the Space Wolves' "curse" whose only effect is to make them even cooler in their fans' eyes, with zero repercussions in the actual game or setting.

Though, as mentioned before, the flaws should of course not be so great that they make the chosen character concept seem invalid (example: a sniper with bad BS) - hence my preference for a mixture of random rolls and player-authored assignments.

Why do you even need "narrative dice" for that, rather than just using the fleshy bits inside your own head?

Test failure: door remains closed, security alerted

Normal Test success: door opens, security alerted

Additional Degrees of Success: door opens without anyone noticing

I get how those dice in EotE may make it easier by reminding the GM to insert additional effects, but since you still need to come up with them, all that's truly required is keeping this "mechanic" in the back of your head whilst playing Dark Heresy RAW.

Test failure: door remains closed, security alerted

Normal Test success: door opens, security alerted

Additional Degrees of Success: door opens without anyone noticing

I get how those dice in EotE may make it easier by reminding the GM to insert additional effects, but since you still need to come up with them, all that's truly required is keeping this "mechanic" in the back of your head whilst playing Dark Heresy RAW.

This! Any time my players make a roll, I always have them state their DoS or DoF so that I can inject a little narrative flavor based on how much they succeeded or failed by.

This same mentality can be used for keeping player ability relevant while maintaining the adage that you should never call for a die roll unless both success and failure will be interesting and keep the game moving. To continue the ongoing door example, let's say that the players really need to get that door open in order to keep things moving. If you just hand-wave it and say that they get it open, that's a little unfair to anyone who's invested XP into their Security skill. If you just play it pass / fail, then you're risking the story coming to a halt because they can't get the door open.

What I would do is have them roll; and if they fail, they still get the door open but suffer some kind of complication. If time is of the essence, maybe it takes them awhile to do it. Or maybe they set off an alarm. Or accidentally short out the lighting. Or only manage to get the door open a little bit; forcing everyone to shed their armor before facing what's on the other side.

Just because the system is presented as a binary pass/fail doesn't mean that you have to use it as one.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that the system is perfect. I really think that the rules should encourage this sort of imaginative adjudication and I don't think it's unfair to call it a flaw that they don't. I just happen to find it a flaw that's pretty easy to overcome.