My group has already exprimented with taking the current DH classes and "tweeking" them to play as chaos cultists. With a very successful few sessions. We used fatepoints in a different way however. We were gifted them by our Patron Daemon and insted of rolling on them from our homeworld the GM rolled a d5 and thats how many we got. The downside to useing these were we invoked a psychic phenomina every time we spent one, and had to burn 2 to stay alive insted of one. Mutations were gifed, not plagued on us by corruption. All and all it was really a test drive, but it preformed well.

@Hellebore

Yes. I was flabergasted to discover that the PCs could get abilities in 4th ed that forced the DM to reroll dice rolls and other similar things. I couldn't believe the game actually gave the ability for PCs to mess with the DM in the normal rules

And to think they even had something called Armour Class which would turn attacks of the NPCs which normally would have hit into misses... truly, the game has gone to hell...
No, seriously, what's the matter? If a GM wants something to happen, he doesn't have to roll for it. If he does, that means it's a matter of probability and both the event occurring and the event not occuring are acceptable to the story. It's actually quite likely the PCs are already influencing the odds of the roll by way of armour class, saving throws, spell resistance or whatever the system calls it. What makes telling the GM "You don't hit me unless you roll higher than my Armour Class" different from "You don't hit me unless you roll again to confirm that hit"?

@topic

My primary problem with the system as proposed has already been explained by CardinalSin and others. DM fiat works perfectly well in a comparably "simple" system like WoD. If a character has practiced a skill, he gets it. If he hasn't, he doesn't. In case of supernatural abilities, if he has a teacher/has practiced the ability (if his kind learns through practice), he gets it. If he hasn't, guess what. In DH, due to the multitude of talents, things are a little different. You've been in combat regularly for two sessions. Your guardsman has equally regularly practiced his favorite maneuver: Charge into combat, then hack at stuff until the stuff stays down. So, does he qualify for Berserk Charge? Does he qualify for Swift attack? Or maybe Hard Target? Does the adept who did the same but had far less combat training prior to these two sessions qualify for them? Does the other guardsman with half the total XP qualify?

Things would probably be somewhat simpler if there were "proper" feat trees instead of bushes with at most one tier of prereqs. Right now, those prerequisites are replaced by the level of general competence, aka rank. It's assumed that anyone who has spent three thousand XP and his prior life as a guardsman will be able to learn Hard Target. If you drop that rank and make the advance wholly dependent on DM fiat, it's going to be arbitrary - because talents mostly are arbitrary. They say "You do X so well that you even get a bonus for it". How do you decide when that's the case when there are almost no benchmarks to decide whether it's appropriate or realistic that your guardsman now manages three effective swings in the span of 6 seconds?

Eh, I read the Rank system as mainly concerned with balance between broadly-defined roles based on the sort of people within the setting who might be useful to an inquisitor. Mostly, each rank conveys the sort of training and experience that someone might recieve in the course of their normal duties at that rank. So, for example, a Savant starts to recieve more options to train social skills as he reaches officer ranks.

(Incidentally, I find the balance very good in the Psyker paths: the Scholar path offers roughly twice as many Powers and access to perks like Favoured by the Warp earlier, whereas Savant/Templar offers far more weapons training and technique in exchange for gaining less Powers at a slower rate).

There are some glitches. I can't fathom why Scum don't get Scrutiny a few ranks earlier and then quickly reach +20 and Talented, for example. Instead, if I remember correctly, the highest they get is +10 on one path. So you end up with a gang leader or con man who isn't terribly good at figuring out when he's being lied to

The system generally assumes that you return to either your normal career or related activities (merc work instead of formal military, for example). It also gives somewhat more detailed guidelines for incorporating experiences gained during actual adventures than Lucius credits it for. On page 43, for example, they outline that to request an Elite Advance, you need

a) a logical, in character justification for gaining the advance,

b) an in-character explanation for how you gained the advance,

c) an idea of how much you'd be willing to pay (usually in xp) for the advance. Elsewhere, a suggestion of 200xp as a baseline is given, and in the IH it is suggested that Elite Advances taken from ranks due to alternate ranks cost the original cost of the advance +50. The IH also reiterates these rules and suggests that the further outside of a character's normal skill base, the more the advance should cost. This is roughly how advances are priced in the normal classes (scholars get Literacy upgrades for 100xp, guardsmen have to pay 300 to learn to read at all, for example).

As well, the rules suggest that the GM might require you to pass a relevant test to see if you gain the advance. The example is convincing a tribeswoman to reach you her language with a Charm test.

The IH further adds the possibility of whole advance packages, complete with small upgrade trees and stat modifications, based on experiences during a campaign. There's a great example of one of these in Tattered Fates.

However, I would have to agree that, when it comes to the xp cost for advance packages, there should be a clearer set of guidelines for the xp cost of the package vs the net other bonuses and penalties it imposes. I can sort of work out how they are priced based on the background packages in the IH, but that's another post.

I suspect that they didn't do this precisely so players wouldn't be able to bug GMs with min-maxed elite advance packages based on the guidelines, though. Really, I don't think one needs guidelines too terribly more precise than "if the PCs spend a whole adventure doing X, they should be able to spend XP on skills relating to X. The details of cost and availability should be modified by the GM's assesment of their general experience in similar activities and the effect of giving a particular skill or talent on game balance."

So, if they spend two sessions in a cave being hunted by a heavily wounded and terribly hungry Lictor, you might offer them a package to reflect this. It might cost 300 xp and grant the Paranoid and Light Sleeper talents. As well, it could make a set of advances such as Silent Move, Awareness, Lightning Reflexes (and similar skills and talents related to stealth and alertness) available at reasonable prices (I'd say 200, 100, and 300 respectively). But if the experience affected them profoundly enough to gain these characteristics and open these lines of training, it reflects a gain of 1d10 Insanity points as well.

That's not terribly hard, now is it?

Hodgepodge said:

Cifer said:

As I see it, this is only a "problem" if the GM and the players are already in an antagonistic relationship and the game is predicated on who has the biggest, nastiest power. This system is not appropriate for a game like that. However, since I won't touch a game like that with a ten meter cattle prod, that's not a problem for me.

Its unusual that some RPG's are made around a GM vs Player scenario these days, rather than what I've always worked for creating a story with the PC's adding what they can to make the game fun. As said, I ain't touching that!

So I'll bend the rules if something isnt fair or will ruin the story, its as much theirs as it is mine.

As I see it, this is only a "problem" if the GM and the players are already in an antagonistic relationship and the game is predicated on who has the biggest, nastiest power. This system is not appropriate for a game like that.

I fail to see what that's got to do with it. A relationship like that would certainly aggravate the problem, but it's not a prerequisite for its existence. Tell me: After how many sessions of heavy combat (say, one major and two minor combats per session) can the guardsman learn Lightning Attack? And after how many sessions can the adept learn it? Also tell me how you arrive at that number. And is Hard Target easier or harder to learn than that? When would you grant approval for those talents and when would you deny it?

Why is a hard and fast number necessary, or even desirable? Why would it be easier or harder for someone who was once a guardsman than for someone who was once a clerk, assuming they both meet the prerequisites in both skills and actions? Hard Target is no easier or harder, except in that it has different prerequisites.

Lightning Attack requires first that you have Swift Attack which, in turn, requires that you have WS 35. I see no fundamental reason why a character couldn't start with Lightning Attack, or get it within.. say three sessions (one to buy WS from 30 to 35, one to buy Swift Attack and one to but Lightning Attack). OK, they are deadly in melee combat, assuming they are able to take advantage of the Talent (which is to say they are in melee, can take a Full Action and have an opponent or opponents worth making three attacks against). That comes at the price of not having bought other skills or talents, of not being able to do other things. It may make your character powerful, or it may be a waste of experience points if you don't spend a lot of time in melee combat.

LuciusT said:

You realize that what I described takes about as long as stating out an NPC, right?

It does take a little familiarity with the game, but the default classes work just fine for new players and GMs.

Why is a hard and fast number necessary, or even desirable?

Because, as I have explained in the prior posts, Dark Heresy's talent system is not a system that lends itself well to gut feeling.

The talents are specific enough that they can't just be easily handwaved like if the game system consistsed only of the nine abilities - in that case, you'd simply look at whether the character engaged in the activities associated with the ability and go with that.
On the other hand, the talents mostly (excepting Mechanicus implant talents) aren't special and specific enough that they'd be the direct result of a character's actions. In Werewolf, for example, if you want a new Gift, you bargain for it with a spirit or find another Garou to teach it to you. If you did that, you get the gift.

In Dark Heresy, you have talents with very specific effects (you attack three times in a round) but unspecific causes (you get it because... you've been in combat a lot? How is that different from your last dozen scraps?). Handing out a talent should follow a rule, whether that rule is "Everyone gets everything he wants for free" or "Compose a three stanza poem on why your character would get the talent". How do you create such a rule when the system doesn't give you a guideline about how much a given talent is "worth" in terms of effort to get it (or you throw out that)? Unless you conduct a few (as in "a few dozen") playtests or settle for the "everything for everyone for free" method, it's going to be arbitrary - because at least in my opinion, there's no simple way to find a 'fair' amount of effort that has to be spent on being able to make three swings per six seconds.

Why would it be easier or harder for someone who was once a guardsman than for someone who was once a clerk, assuming they both meet the prerequisites in both skills and actions?

Because the ex-soldier should have an easier time picking up combat-related stuff - he's been doing that for years now. Between a judo black-belt and an average pen-pusher, who would learn, say, Karate faster?

And because many talents and skills don't have the prerequisites ruleswise they'd need to have to maintain party diversity, especially when many specialisations have only comparably small accompanying XP expenditures (any character can do 50% of a techpriest's job with Tech-Use and Trade Technomat - which is why both skills are located somewhere far down the XP trees of other classes, with upgrades usually non-available). Maintaining diversity in the party has nothing to do with an antagonistic playstyle, but wouldn't you feel bad if your character's main shtick was suddenly overtaken by someone else without him really trying? Of course, you can sort out that stuff by group consensus - but at that point, why bother with rules as complex as those of DH at all?

Hodgepodge said:

You're just basing it on your gut, no different from what I'm suggesting only I'm suggesting it as a blanket system without forcing the characters into premade packages.

Because the ex-soldier should have an easier time picking up combat-related stuff - he's been doing that for years now. Between a judo black-belt and an average pen-pusher, who would learn, say, Karate faster?

I submit that your "average pen-pusher" would not have WS35 or Swift Attack. You're pen-pusher who does have WS35 and Swift Attack is just as a much a judo black-belt as your soldier with the same stats.

Maintaining diversity in the party has nothing to do with an antagonistic playstyle, but wouldn't you feel bad if your character's main shtick was suddenly overtaken by someone else without him really trying? Of course, you can sort out that stuff by group consensus - but at that point, why bother with rules as complex as those of DH at all?

If another player is "stealing my shtick" how is that not an antagonistic playstyle? You're talking about using game mechanics to force roleplaying. I'm talking about using roleplaying to inform game mechanics. IMO, a good group should sort this stuff out by group consensus and I see nothing in DH that makes it too "complex" to do so.

LuciusT said:

It doesn't require an "antagonistic" play style to make game balance, each player character having unique skills and a unique niche, and systematic rules to guarantee fairness, good ideas.

By your logic, in a non-antagonistic game you might as well abandon combat rules - just let people describe their actions and have the GM decide whether they are successful without bothering to roll the dice (or decide on the spot what dice should be rolled). This is a perfectly feasible way of doing things, but you don't appear to be advocating it, presumably because you recognise that combat is complex and requires a decent set of rules to adjudicate. GM fiat remains, but is used only when it is needed. I submit that character generation and development is equally complex and best handled through rules, with occasional GM fiat, rather than constantly requiring GM intervention - especially if you're using the rest of the highly complex DH rules system.

Or in other words, I agree with Cifer.

LuciusT said:

That, and my experience with the system and its general rules for pricing. However, that is the idea. The classes (along with origins and background packages, etc) exist to define certain roles and backgrounds in a setting in which social an economic roles are generally rigid and inflexible, and knowledge is, as a whole, heavily controlled. In this setting, they define the set of training and experience which a person in a given social role would have access to by default, both before joining the Inquisition and when they return to their normal roles between assignments. So, while a Guardsman (except those from Noble families or the Schola Progenitum, etc) has to go way out of the way to learn to read, and even then does it in the brief moments of peace in the Trenches, a Psyker is routinely taught things that a Guardsman would be shot for knowing. In a few cases, the classes also balance out access to abilities which require natural talent or extensive training which is only available under highly specific circumstances or as the result of the sum of the entire career until that point (ie, Psyker Powers, Faith Talents, the Adept Unnatural Strength characteristic).

However, if circumstances during a game session provide an opportunity for a character to learn something outside of this progression, then there are loose guidelines for allowing characters to take advances based on these circumstances. Obviously, flexibility is needed. If the team spends a whole mission sorting through books, the Guardsman may well ask the GM to allow the Adept to tutour him. The GM may agree that this would reduce the xp cost of Literacy, but may allow the Adept to charge some further cost. Perhaps the Adept would agree in exchange for weapons training. The GM might agree, but note that this is outside the Adept's experience and will therefore take more time and effort than normal, and thus want the Adept to pay 300 xp. But then the Adept might point out that they actually have the Arms Master talent, reflecting extensive practice with Laser and SP weapons, but that they merely lack access to someone who knows how to use Flamers. Seeing that this is the case, the GM might rule that the Guardsman could teach the Adept Basic Weapon Training (Flame) for 200 or even 100xp.

The classes are quite important default arrangements, because (aside from some balance concerns) the setting limits who has access to what skills and knowledge. Exceptions are allowed for, but are left up to negotiation between GMs and players both to limit munchkins (but it says that I can take Psy Rating 1 for 400xp right here!!!) and allow for the underlying circumstances which justify the player taking the Advance.

Getting to the heart of the matter here, why are you using the game's mechanics to define what kind of character your player has? That would be like taking the titles given in the Advance charts and litterally applying them to that person's character and having them act and think in that particular direction (i.e. an Assasin that favors up-front and brutal melee as their method of killing all of a sudden has to sneak around in disguise and kill by stealth when they advance to Freeblade).

So as for your Guardsman who finds religion, why doesn't his character become a lay preacher of sorts? He's still a Guardsman only now he carries a copy of the Imperial Creed along with his Primer and, if he's a particularly faithful sort and meets the requirements, give him the chance to earn faith based skills and become a saint? I don't believe that the core system of the game has to be broken to give the level of flexibility you seem to want, but then again for me I like the idea of diversity within the confines of uniformity. So, at heart, that guardsman is still a guardsman but you could also tip him to being a scum of sorts by swapping the characteristic advance so it'll be easier to gain fellowship as opposed to WS or something of that sort.

But then again, in the end as with everything is in DH and any other game for that matter, it's all up to you.

Cardinalsin said:

Game balance is a fiction. Each character having unique skills and a unique niche does not mean they are balanced with each other. No rules can guarantee fairness.

Players and GM working together promotes fairness, everyone having a character who can shine and ultimately everyone having a good experience with the game. The rules don't do that. The people do that.

The classes (along with origins and background packages, etc) exist to define certain roles and backgrounds in a setting in which social an economic roles are generally rigid and inflexible, and knowledge is, as a whole, heavily controlled. In this setting, they define the set of training and experience which a person in a given social role would have access to by default, both before joining the Inquisition and when they return to their normal roles between assignments.

I disagree. Firstly, the position that the classes are representative of a strictly controlled society is, IMO, an apologist argument developed by trying to justify the system as written. Second, that same position assumes that such a society exists and, given the diversity of worlds in the Imperium, while that is certainly true on some worlds it is equal false on others. Finally, it assumes that the characters return to their normal roles between assignments... which may be true in some campaigns but false in others.

Fundamentally, my objection to the entire career system is that the game is dictating to my players how to build their characters and dictating to me certain things about how I will run my game. Am I free to ignore that? Of course I am. That's the whole point of this thread and indeed, this entire sub-forum.

That, and my experience with the system and its general rules for pricing. [...] if circumstances during a game session provide an opportunity for a character to learn something outside of this progression, then there are loose guidelines for allowing characters to take advances based on these circumstances.

My objection to this, the elite advance system, is that the guidelines are, IMO, far too loose and fundamentally based on the GMs "experience with the system and its general rules for pricing." Frankly, I haven't been able to figure the systems "general rules for pricing." We have some advances available at rank 1 for one careers but rank 7 for another. Why? Dark Soul is a rank 7 advance for psykers but you can get it as a Background advance at character creation. Why? Adepts and Assassins make the best civilian craft pilots. Why? The only characters who can learn to fly a space ship, despite the entire character origin of Void Born, are rank 5 tech priests or rank 8 psykers! Why?!

What I would have liked to see (oddly given my general attitude about these things) are more clear cut guidelines for elite advances. Rather than trawling through pages of advance charts to try to figure out the cost and rank of the advances, I would have liked to see some suggested elite advance costs and prerequisites for them.

What I would like to see is a system where the players can design the characters they want to play, with some guidence to make sure those characters fit into the setting, and develop those characters in play in a manner which is "organic" and related to the events of the game.

LuciusT said:

I broadly agree with the last statement, though taken as a whole the above quote reads a bit like "no system of law can guarantee that crimes won't be committed, therefore the rule of law is a fiction". Clearly, you do what you can with the rules and then GM fiat, player discretion and (hopefully) a good group dynamic covers everything else.

LuciusT said:

It's easier for players and GM to work together to promote fairness with a good set of rules.

Your response to Hodgepodge suggests you are actually quite keen on having a decent set of rules, so I won't press the point too hard here. Personally I feel that, even if the class system isn't ideal, there's plenty to salvage from it rather than just throwing the whole structure out altogether. I'd like to think that a cooperative group such as you have described could use the class system as a framework to create customised characters.

Still, I've played in games that were nearly or entirely systemless. Sometimes they work fine.

Well, since I am defending the system as it is written, my argument is by definition apologist. The default system represents the most commonly found examples of the most widespread careers and origins likely to be found in the setting and of use to the inquisitor. Background Packages, Elite Advance packages, and Alternate Ranks all exist to represent specific variations within these broad roles, and grant lattitude for the definition of new exceptional or specific variations.

However, strict regimentation of social roles is still the default setting of the 40k universe, even if there are a multitude of poential exceptions. A class based system is likely to remain the "default setting" in order to reflect this.

I wouldn't mind seeing some more detailed guidelines for exceptional situations either, especially if these are presented as primarily a GM tool (to hamstring the munchkins). After all, GMs are encouraged to develop their own ranks, advance packages, etc, so more detailed guidelines are a logical extension of the current system. However, you are quite possibility worrying about the details too much. The elite advance system seems intended to be highly situational. I suppose you're simply caught between the desire for less structure on the one hand and more on the other.

Void Born can pilot spaceships as a Basic Skill, by the way. Psykers and Tech Priests can most likely learn because they represent the classes whose careers are likely to put them in contact with the rather rare knowledge of how to actually pilot a spacecraft (Astropaths being important to stellar travel on the one hand and via the Mechanus representing the faction that actually builds spaceships on the other). Adepts can also learn via the Calaxian Xeno-Arcanist alternate rank (Adepts already have access to significant expertise in stellar navigation and related scholarly lore, and the Xeno-Arcanist class requires constant independently-funded space travel). Also, keep in mind that the Pilot and Driver skills relate to difficult or unusual situations. You can get from point a to b without the skill as long as you don't have to do anything fancy.

Cardinalsin said:

I'd take it more like "No sysyem of law can guarantee that crime's wont be committed, therefore the total elimination of crime is a fiction. That's redundant obtiously, but I think what he meant by game balance isn't "attempting to balance a game" so much as "a totally balanced game" (ie the total elimination of imbalance)

From reading the discussion up to this point, it seems like the OP/the OP's camp is looking more for a classless system than a system without levels/ranks. Since there are some things which obviously need to be restricted by more than their prerequisites and available experience, namely Psychics, the only possible fix is to provide an additional spent xp requirement as a buffer. Which, in Dark Heresy, is really all that the level system does. obviously, you could talk with your GM about it, but that kinda defeats the point of the whole thing, at least partially.

The reason I would like a classless/levelless Dark Heresy is due to the sheer crap that most of the classes advances are. For example I was looking at the Lord Marshall one night and found that even though he was centered around commanding his troops, he lacked Talent(Command). I look at the Magistrate and instead find it there. Only that path doesn't even have Command as an advance. Sure I could easily, easily fix this, but in my view the system is already to far gone.

I'd rather instead find the approximate value of each skill and talent, letting my players decide how their characters evolve. Sure they may not fit into the archetypes of 40k but when did any person exactly fit into their role? This new system would instead allow the organic growth of the acolytes, as they experience new things, both terrible and great. Sure some players may take the fast track, and overspecialize in anyone area, but is that any different from what happens with the current system? Indeed all players will find a way to play out their character concepts, no matter the constraints. The only thing a classless system would change is making it easier.

While I have stated why I believe the class system is inferior, I think we can still use it as a guideline for the general price of abilities and the requirements. So in the end, the product would be the sum of all classes averaged out so all their abilities are accessible. What would also be nice are rules for players and GM's to generate their own homeworlds. I was thinking about one where you could +/- attributes and exchange base skills for other talents and skill of equal value.

LordMunchkin said:

Er, yes it does. Command is in Magistrate and Talented (Command) is in Justicar.

They actually do that fairly often with paths that dirverge near the end of a class' career path: one will have skill +10-20, the other the same skill and talented instead of the bonuses. I suppose this makes expanding the game by giving a few extra ranks from the other career easier, if nothing else.

Hodgepodge said:

My mistake, but I'd rather have a single class where people can diversify all they want, than rather being shoehorned into a class. I concede however for what people use and play is there own business, not mine.

As mentioned on another thread, a halfway house that I've thought of is to allow "secondary skills". At every career rank, you may take one skill or talent that sits outside your normal skill tree (but with normal prerequisites).

There would probably need to be a list of skills and talents to which this doesn't apply, to avoid everyone and their donkey taking them (swift and lightning attack immediately spring to mind). Justification to the GM could also be required.

Possibly not radical enough for LuciusT's purposes, but thought I'd mention it for general interest.

I would heavily restrict combat, psyker, faith, and stealth talents. Forbidden Lore and Scholarly Lore would be expensive. The rest are fine.

Although it's possible to do a hell of a lot with just the alternate ranks in the IH.