Greetings,

I have completed a first draft of my In-Play Character Creation Module for Dark Heresy 2. I will be conducting a first play-test later today (hopefully) with an experienced GM who is new to WH40KRP. I have also already received a bit a help from another member of the boards here. I intend to use this with all of the players in my upcoming campaign, and I hope that it will serve as a useful tool for me in the future as well.

Please read through it if you have a few minutes, and give me any feedback you might have. Anything I've overlooked or over-thought, mechanical problems or contradictions, layout suggestions and typos; I want it all!

My Players and I want our characters to have existence independent from us. While this isn't literally possible, we can simulate/emulate/approach that ideal with a more narratively-based chargen process. We are going to play a game that emphasizes player-built organizations using indirect and subtle means to achieve the PC's goals. Combat is not the primary focus. These preferences have heavily influenced the design of the module. So, if you disagree with those preferences, please don't make suggestions for change based just on this disagreement. I am hoping for advice on how to make this module service our preferences the best that it can.

The module is in a single, multi-page pdf file hosted on Google Drive. It can be viewed on this page and downloaded there as well.

Please be gentle, this is my first attempt at something like this.

edit : Link for a version with white backgrounds for easier screen reading

First things first you need to change the font and background color. As it is I can barely read it (by which I mean I'm not going to strain my eyes for 13 pages). The background is way too dark for black text. The gothic script font you've chosen is nice for titles, but isn't the most readable paragraph font, and bolding just muddles it further.

Sorry, about that. Here is a link to a version with no background images that might be a bit easier on the eyes.

Looks pretty nice. But I'm confused about your usage of DoS/DoF. How can there be Degrees if there is no value to roll against? Isn't it just a roll on a table with results based on that table? DoS/DoF are a clearly defined part of the rules and (as far as I understand your document) you use it differently than that. I'd prefer if you just call it a roll on a table and not DoS/DoF.

And I'm a little concerned that players might sabotage it. Not out of malice, but out of good roleplaying. What if the character absolutely doesn't want to fight the cultist and tries to reason with him? What if he runs back into the first room and hides? These actions don't say anything about WS (in this example) but are valid solutions for the situation. Maybe a player doesn't want to use Agility to dodge the tranquilizer dart but tries to parry it (unarmed). That would be more of a WS than a Ag thing.

The problem that might arise (depends totally on your players) is that the reality at the table doesn't fit into your scenarios.

Thanks for the feedback. I can see your point about the DoS/F. I should either rename my mechanic, or at least give a more thorough explanation. I am trying to keep as close to the RAW mechanics as possible, so that I create as little confusion later on for the Players. This definitely needs a second look.

As to the second point, I agree that this is a potential point of difficulty. Without a complete redesign to make the entire testing sequence not a sequence (turning the currently very linear module into a mini-sandbox) I think that I have to rely on the GM's discretion.

I just had my first Playtest (which was unfortunately interrupted partway through), and it was far more successful than I was prepared for. The PC avoided confrontation with the 1st Ragged Cultist, just as in your example, but it wasn't too much of a problem as the I had the Cultist press the issue. As the PC has no skills or talents during these scenes, I think the GM can relate the PC action to the relevant characteristic without too much difficulty. As long as we get that first roll, determining the characteristic, the rest of the test can be altered/discarded as needed.

For the Playtest, I ran a friend who is an experienced Pathfinder and D&D DM through. He is relatively unfamiliar with 40K, and completely unfamiliar with the DH2 system. I started with a brief fluff intro - enough to have an idea of the universe's flavor, and some of the relevant history and organizations. We then ran through RAW character creation to provide a baseline. Finally, we started my character creation module and got through the first two assessments (Physical and Martial) before other obligations reared their head, forcing us to stop. This was my first experience as GM, so I had plenty of questions and learned a lot that wasn't directly relevant to the module. The main mechanical issue that was raised is about Fate Points. I can save myself some headaches by just moving the Fate Point Threshold roll to after the assessments. There were a few other suggestions that came out, but were pretty minor.

Overall, I consider the Playtest to have been a success. If nothing else, I now know that I can GM and that the module is at least playable - through the Martial Assessment anyways! I should be gathering more feedback over the next week or so as I run my Players through. In the meantime, I hope to learn from the highly experienced GM's here!

Your 'assessments' for each characteristic are a poorly designed mess.

They all boil down to the same formula:

1) Roll randomly to determine efficacy in that stat.

2) Roll until you've rolled well enough to advance.

First of all, rolling randomly for stats is a ******* terrible mechanic that should have been abandoned a decade ago (and has been by games that are designed better than DH2), BUT it is presented as the default method in DH2 RAW so let's just accept that and move on.

The second part is my biggest problem. In each of these chores, the player (or their character) is offered no choice. They must pry the door open, they must dodge the tranq dart (and repeat the scene a la Groundhog Day until they do), must be tortured, etc. You offer no opportunities for the player to choices that might lead to us learning something about their character. It's a railroad. But it's the opening and the intro for your GMNPC, so whatever, railroad away. My bigger problem is how you're doing it. The way you've laid it out, the player must roll well enough to advance, and cannot advance until they've rolled well enough. You're not even rewarding them for rolling well - you're punishing them for rolling poorly. Using your table, to roll the 10 DoS to pry the door open requires a minimum of 4 rolls . Why? What is the point of this? What is learned about the character in forcing you and your player to sit through these dice rolls? Every one of your scenarios boils down to rolling dice and waiting for good results with no interesting choices or consequences.

You also mention metagaming at least twice as a thing to be avoided. And your solution to solving this 'problem' is rolling a bunch of dice and using the results to determine how well the resulting PC is able to perform. You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. Rolling randomly for character efficacy, or players choosing what their characters are good at (by way of characteristic point buy and starting option selection) is not a bad thing . It is the player telling you, the GM, what things they want to see in your game and what areas in which they want to shine. It is your job as the GM to provide interesting situations to both let them feel awesome doing those things and challenge them in the areas they're not good at. By generating characteristics randomly (hello sniper who can't ******* aim) you are actively undermining the point of the game (which I hope we can all agree is to have fun).

(I'm also not shocked that your Pathfinder GM friend thinks this is a good way to do things because Pathfinder is another terribly designed game)

cps, thanks for the feed back.

First off, I want to be clear that I appreciate your opinions and the effort you have expended in reading the module. I don't want to sound defensive or like I can't take criticism. But I think that some of your critique is coming from a fundamentally different perspective than that shared by my table. As such, some of your criticism is hard to use - it isn't aimed at my implementation so much as the approach to RPG's that it embodies.

Railroading vs. Linear Design

Linear Design does not equal railroading. But then, Justin Alexander has recently written about this, far better than I could:

it’s often quite trivial for an experienced GM to safely assume that a specific event or outcome is going to happen. For example, if a typical group of heroic PCs are riding along a road and they see a young boy being chased by goblins it’s probably a pretty safe bet that they’ll take action to rescue the boy. The more likely a particular outcome is, the more secure you are in simply assuming that it will happen. That doesn’t mean your scenario is railroaded, it just means you’re engaging in smart prep.

I think , and this is now backed by at least a partial live playtest, that I've managed to design the module so that railroading isn't necessary. The PC naturally and organically faces the various assessments.

Random Generation

I get that you dislike this. But we do not share your white-hot hatred for random generation at my table. Perhaps instead of generalizing your personal preference and assuming it as a general Law of Gaming, you might explain why you hate it so much. Rather than declaring that by using random generation I am:

actively undermining the point of the game (which I hope we can all agree is to have fun)

(and yes we agree that the point of playing a game is to have fun) you might deign to demonstrate how it undermines fun. I've had a lot of fun playing randomly generated characters with randomly generated stats over the years. I have met others with similar experience. At least for us, random generation does not undermine our ability to have fun. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Excessive Rolling

This is a topic about which I am concerned. I have attempted to prevent excessive rolling in these extended tests by having a narrative cut after failing as many times as the relevant bonus. This places a maximum of 4 failures (and likely less than 4) on each test. In the case of the Strength Assessment in particular, this is probably still excessive. The later assessments have more narrative support for interesting interactions at each step of the way. But not so much with the door, and even the dart. Hopefully I can improve this aspect with more playtesting and further advice here.

PC Choice

This obviously relates back to the railroading. But I want to directly address something you wrote:

In each of these chores, the player (or their character) is offered no choice. They must pry the door open, they must dodge the tranq dart (and repeat the scene a la Groundhog Day until they do), must be tortured, etc. You offer no opportunities for the player to choices that might lead to us learning something about their character.

You are right that the PC cannot choose other tests and tasks. The are in a tightly constrained environment. But there is massive room for choice with cascading effects built into this module. I often point out such possibilities although I didn't attempt to write a comprehensive flow-chart for every possible action any PC might take. Further, each test is designed (though admittedly the Physical Assessments are less effective in this regard) to let us learn about them. Especially from the Resistance Assessment onwards, this is explicitly addressed in both commentary and mechanics!

Again, thanks for your time and thought. But it seems that most of your critique is once again simply an attack against a playstyle different than your own. I don't know if you routinely attack different playstyles or if there is something about me in particular that grinds your gears. In any case, I know that there is a lot that I could learn from you, and I hope that you will continue to provide feedback. If you are interested in helping , then I challenge you to think about how I can improve the module while retaining my table's gaming preferences!

edit: spacing

cps, thanks for the feed back.

First off, I want to be clear that I appreciate your opinions and the effort you have expended in reading the module. I don't want to sound defensive or like I can't take criticism. But I think that some of your critique is coming from a fundamentally different perspective than that shared by my table. As such, some of your criticism is hard to use - it isn't aimed at my implementation so much as the approach to RPG's that it embodies.

Well I did basically take a big steaming **** all over something you've obviously put a lot of time and energy into so kudos for taking harsh criticism like an adult.

I get that your playstyle differs from mine. I think what really grinds my gears is that you're introducing people who have never played roleplaying games into this way of doing things that I think should have died out by now and they're going to assume this is just how it is and won't be interested in playing games with better design in the same genre, or even know that better games exist. But if you're all proto-grognards and love playing games with antiquated mechanics, whatever, have fun. (It's like watching someone getting together a group of people who have never played board games to play Yahtzee and ignoring all advice that better games exist. They'll see that Yahtzee is a terrible game that will sour their taste for all of the better board games that exist. That's what this is like for me.)

Anyway, here's some feedback you can use if you insist on doing things this way so I won't be accused of thread-sh*tting (again).

1) Roll once. For each task, just roll once and use that result to determine the outcome. Roll poorly to open the door, you get it open but are exhausted. Same result as rolling infinity times in much less time. You can do this for every vignette. Or...

2) Don't roll at all. Roll for characteristics, since that's your thing, but the rolls after that? What purpose do they serve? The whole point of this exercise is to see what kind of person the PC is, so what does the outcome matter? All you really need to know is how they approached the situation. (If you've ever played an Elder Scrolls game, this is exactly how they do it)

3) The agility thing is the weakest. Instead of rolling until you win, present a choice. Obstacle course, path with hostile servo-skull, or something else. Actually, present approach choices like this for each task and use the character's choice to color their character. Did they take the easy path? Or did they take a risk that looked like it held a greater reward.

4) Your fellowship trial is really contrived. So these cultists work for the Inquisitor but he wants to fire them and you, the PC, need to tell them they're fired?.. A better task would be to convince someone of something that isn't true (deception), convince someone to do something (charm), intimidate someone into doing something they don't want to do (intimidate)... etc. That and "remove them from my service" heavily implies putting a bullet in their heads, which isn't exactly a social task.

5) Perception is... not actually a task. What are you rolling for here? Just to get up to 10? I really don't understand this one at all.

6) Your torture thing (which I have recommended against strongly in another thread) is really vague. I don't really see the point of the repeated "Answer the question!" with nothing at stake. Why is the PC being tortured and why would they not just tell the torturer the answer? You haven't established any stakes or risks, so this feels like a torture scene for its own sake.

Great concrete suggestions! Thanks for them and for the explanation of why you dislike random generation.

I need to ponder for a bit and digest your suggestions. I'll edit this into a proper response later on.

As far as taking the criticism, its not too hard to do. It is clear that you are passionate about rolepalying games, and that you therefore have strong opinions. It seems like (from your posts that I have encountered) you have a wealth of experience and knowledge, so those strong opinions are probably based on something solid. And I'm the new guy, and I pointed out my near total lack of experience, and I'm doing something new with the game without a solid base of experience with the RAW. It also seems like you've probably hashed these exact issues to death many times. So I can see that you were only trying to save me from myself and getting frustrated with the noob who is asking for your advice and then ignoring it. So, no hurt feelings here, and thanks for the specific actionable suggestions.

edit : I've taken a lot of your critique onboard and am working on a first revision. I should have something to show here in a few days.

I just had an idea how you could change the railroading (it feels to me a bit like it as well, but I'm not totally against railroading if it is used sparingly). Just play your vignettes not as vignettes to determine single attributes, but as a whole little adventure. Take notes on how the PC solves the problems presented to them and at the end of the adventure add or subtract points from there attribute scores accordingly.

That would make the whole thing more organic and might surprise you and the player with what they come up with. It would also go along (a little) with what cps said about the randomly generated characteristics (which could be bad if you REALLY wanted to play a certain character and can't because you didn't roll the right attributes. For example, if you wanted to play a techpriest and rolled pisspoor Int, that sucks). It would allow players bigger control about how their attributes come out in the end. If they wanted to play an agile character, the statistic is not just generated by one test, but can be influenced throughout the session.

So he could get a good Ag score if he wants, but loses out on some possible bonus points for other attributes.

The Basic Mechanic:

I would drop the DoF/DoS terminology, as it's not applied correctly in this context and just adds a level of confusion. Leave the table as is otherwise.

Fellowship Trial:

Instead of 'Getting rid of them', I would opt for a 'Get one to rat the other out and confess their crimes' scenario instead. They are not the type to get intimidated in this scenario - they are already on trial by the inquisition, and will be perished unless the character can charm or otherwise persuade them.

Influence Trial - I'm not sure about this one. Seems like a good core concept, but needs some refinement. Why would these npcs just be here and be valuable assets later? I think a mock trial where the Inquisitors most trusted Throne Agents are posing as alter egos playing 'the bait', so to say, would be a better scenario, with a critical success on their influence assignment gaining them future favor with the senior acolyte, or their scorn/displeasure for a failure (due to deeming the Acolyte a failure or some other bias).

Railroading or not to Railroad:

These are new players. They don't need the luxury of Agency at this point.

I am in the process of rewriting the module to incorporate much of the given feedback. Fixes include:

1. Terminology Shift: Assessment -> Trial
2. Revamping the 'mechanics' to eliminate rolls other than for Characteristics and Combat.
3. Revisiting the Physical, Social, and Mental Trials.
   1. I think the Physical Assessment is the weakest and needs a serious overhaul.
   2. The Fellowship Trial needs work. This will look different when I am done with it.
   3. I like Cognizar's idea about the mock trial. I might incorporate this into a later revision. (This might also absorb the interrogation scene as aggressive questioning!)
   4. cps is right that the mental assessment is contrived and barely there. I will get this into better shape.

I am having my first actual playthrough of the module this evening. I want to get as much of the above list in at least working order for tonight's session. Is there anything I've overlooked that needs immediate attention? Is there anything on the list that I should save for later? Help me get this module ready for tonight!

Update: So the first actual run through the module is complete! It was a heck of a learning experience, both in terms of the module and more generally as a GM. A lot of things went really well (one or two things went phenomenally well - at least it seems that way to me) and perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of things didn't go so well. I'll type up a thorough review and evaluation of the session soon - probably later in the week as I am about to get slammed with work.

Thanks for all of the help and suggestions and advice so far!

Feedback: Change the font for the love of the God-Emperor.