The only thing that has been thoroughly established in the ring-around circus that is DH1 vs DH2 so far is that both "systems" are ridiculously similar to the point the differences are minutae. There are next to no mechanical differences in the functionality and methodology of either. The devil here is in the details. Some people see these details as an improvement, others as a detriment.

This is really the core point here. DH1 is really showing its age at this point, and is separated from DH2 by nearly a decade. Yet while other games in the genre have made advancements in mechanical elegance, DH1 and 2 are different only in minor aspects. They're more or less the same game with some of the more glaring math errors patched over.

I can't say I'm surprised! Signoftheserpent has "Hated" everything I've seen him post in since DH1! He has earned at least a couple of reports for personal attacks when you don't agree with his take. This is not news.

I do have a question for Sign and a couple other's in his camp though: You guys "hate" the entire 40k RPG or so I'm led to believe at least. In one case, The poster even derided the Original 40k TT rules as bad and continues to pound on the 40k RPG. If this whole thing is so distasteful to you guys, why do you still play? Why do you bother with us peasants on the forum?

I'm just sayin... I've walked out on games I didn't like before. Why don't you?

I can speak only for myself and the people I play with, but we really, really enjoy the setting and themes in the game. The 40k universe is well known to us and I haven't found another game that has, as part of its core conceit, the futility of trying to do good baked in to the degree Dark Heresy does. One mission may go well, but at the end of the day there are endless horrors still left in the universe and eventually your luck will run out and if you're lucky it will be a bullet in the head. If you're unlucky you will become one of the monsters you hunt and not even realize it. I really like that.

That said, the rules for most of the game are garbage.

Also if you could link to serpent's personal attack posts that'd be swell, because the only times I've seen the personal attack rule invoked is in cases of someone posting something stupid and getting called stupid for it.

First off, I predicate this by saying I'm not really a fan of the system either. I hate 'bonus hunting' both as a player and needing to do so for PCs as a GM. I've been burned a lot playing this system too. That said, I don't hate it.

But really, different people have different tastes. OSR games are a perfect example. I LOATHE the D&D system in all incarnations enough I actually won't play it. and think the original D&D was terrible. Sure it got me into gaming, but... I could never go back!

But some people love it, so I don't think saying something has 10 years more experience precisely means much. Even if there are some definite schools of games in various decades.

Are we discussing the relative merits of the system as a whole now? In that case I'll toss in my two cents and say I generally like the system. I like where it resides on the scale of speed and complexity. I like how it's balanced. I like how easily I can get across my ideas of the setting. Whether it's nacro gangers duking it out with mutants, guardsmen fighting orks, Rogue Traders fighting Inquisitors, or Chapter Masters fighting Greater Daemons. The way the game is balanced, I can both intuitively stat out the NPCs and set up the encounter, and the combats that come out of it are mostly what I imagine out of the setting. Gritty painful short lives for nobodies, with some heroic(if not good) individuals standing out of the pack who continually squeak by with the Emperor's Blessing and a lot of skill, and then above them characters who are effectively demigods. I don't really have a single major complaint about the system, except there's no gamelines aimed at non Imperium of Man factions. Which is a more general issue I have with the representation of the setting as a whole.

I totally get why people think the system is poorly done. Either those who straight up don't like the mechanics, or think they're wrong for the gameline. From those that think the system is not deadly enough, to those who think it places entirely too much focus on combat. Or whatever else. But I'm a big fan. I don't think DH2 is a bad thing, I just wish that it was a supplement of OW, or that OW was a supplement of DH/ I don't think we needed two entirely new corebooks plus supplements for this. But as someone who occasionally gets tired importing rules from later gamelines into earlier ones, I understand why many are super happy with it. Since I almost always default to the later rules myself, and I mostly play RT and DW.

I do have a question for Sign and a couple other's in his camp though: You guys "hate" the entire 40k RPG or so I'm led to believe at least. In one case, The poster even derided the Original 40k TT rules as bad and continues to pound on the 40k RPG. If this whole thing is so distasteful to you guys, why do you still play? Why do you bother with us peasants on the forum?

I'm just sayin... I've walked out on games I didn't like before. Why don't you?

This is what I keep wondering as well.

But really, different people have different tastes.

This! A thousand times this! I never mind at all when someone says "I don't like thing and here's why". It's a reasonable statement and a potentially good starting point for a productive conversation.

What annoys me is when people instead say "Thing is objectively bad and anyone who disagrees with me is either an old grognard who hates new things or just isn't as smart as I am." It's combative, it's childish, and it serves no purpose other than making like-minded people feel better about the thing not being the way they think it should be. Thankfully, though, I've been seeing less of this around here lately.

What about "thing is objectively bad and here's a bunch of math showing why it's bad"?

Because there's been lots of that too but it I guess you didn't read those?

To be fair, lots of people LIKE objectively bad things. I like playing those stupid idle clicker games even though they're objectively bad games whose only game design principles have to do with making a good Skinner Box. Even then, creating a good reinforcement schedule is actually an important part of game design. You know that argument some people make about "earning your fun" and "entitled players?" That does actually have a basis in the fact that if you get too much of a good thing at once, the good thing loses its effectiveness. It's called "satiation" in behavior psychology. Ironically, the old class and equipment system in dark heresy was actually probably a bit better at creating a reinforcement schedule than the new one.

Anyway, the point of this is that some people like stuff that isn't very good. McDonald's cheeseburgers, cheesy movies, crappy pop music, by-the-numbers genre literature, etc. There are a lot of high-minded forms of media that just plain take an extra amount of work by the viewer to appreciate, and this includes RPGs. There are also forms of media that bridge the gap between both sides and can be enjoyed by casual fans AND more discerning people. The problem is that Dark Heresy is really one of those McDonalds of game design games. Sure, it's got some nods to betree game design (just like McDonald's has some "gourmet" menu choices), but at its core it's still running on a decades old system filled with problems that have been fixed by other systems in the intervening decades. Hell, I like Dark Heresy well enough. I like the basic cheeseburger at McDonald's. Problem is that I like other systems and other food options a lot better, and dark heresy doesn't have McDonald's excuse of being cheap and ubiquitous.

So yeah, it's great that you like something and think it's fun, but that doesn't preclude it from being criticized, or even being seen as having objective flaws. Transformers 2 is a movie. It has pictures and sound and a plot that can be followed. That doesn't stop it from being bad. That doesn't stop someone with an understanding of film and how it's constructed to point out problems with it. Its already been said in this forum that RPGs are different from other forms of media when it comes to criticism. That is true, because RPGs change in play. The issue is that some things that look okay on paper fall apart in play. The other is that people are free to ignore or gloss over problems of the game. I think the latter is what most people don't realize when a game is criticized.

There's also been "It doesn't perform as advertised", "it isn't what was advertised", "it's a reprint of a prior system and thus overpriced", etc. This is all "hating" or "insulting the devs" or a million other reasons that basically amount to "you're trashing what I like". I don't get it. If I got annoyed everytime someone took the piss out of something I like, I'd probably have a heart attack when watching something from woods of trees instead of laughing loud and hard.

There's also the matter that once you charge for something, you raise certain expectations, according to your price and what exactly it is you are selling. When I criticise the current edition of DH2e, it is because they are in the price range where the competition is, I'm sorry to say, genuinely objectively better, if objective is "performing as, and being able to do, what is advertised". If you price it like the big boys, you get graded like the big boys. Furthermore, if other d100 systems are faster, and cheaper, and do what you want to do better, you have a problem, too. Then, on that objective scale your product is worse than the competition's. Then you get grognards like me, who have the gall to look at the price and compare it to FASA, Schmidt and other companies we know instead of an easy competitor to put by the wayside like Hasbro. The scale and expectations once more shift considerably. And the best thing is? They're still using the same objective comparisons, even if the subjective frame of reference/experience has shifted.

People have every right to buy it anyway, and enjoy it, of course. It's their money, after all! They do need to realise that other consumers very much have the right to be quite vocal about a product that they believe performs poorly, though, or does not do what it is advertised to. I feel in the rather hefty price range DH2e operates in, I should have some expectations, and shop smart and compare. If you don't want to, or if you have different criterea for what you "like", that is perfectly fine, too. I've done my own share of impulse buys and fanboy completionism as well (Blind Guardian, Elvis and Johnny Cash, complete discographies, right over there a few meters to my right). When you really like something, that's what you tend to do!

What about "thing is objectively bad and here's a bunch of math showing why it's bad"?

Because there's been lots of that too but it I guess you didn't read those?

Because It ain't a math class?

I mastered games without rules, it went well. DH2 offers me a support that is cleaner that DH1. What I don't like, I change. If the game doesen't suits my needs, I quit.

I do not give FFG credits for what they should have done because I can do It myself, I understand the responsability they have as game producers, but an Role Playing Game consist of a Role Playing Game. If it is there, the game is alright. The rest is to see if your need of pre-made material is satiated or not.

Mine is. I played a sh*t-load of other systems. DH is my favorite. I see the merit and what is best in other systems, but DH is what I like. It ain't objectively worse than anything else, it's subjectively what some people want, and what some people doesn't.

Yeah but, simply stating that "different people have different opinions" wasn't enough in those long threads before. It was perceived as shutting one side up, which led to both sides duking it out to get the last word out of the whole "discussion" or whatever. Even one of the writers joined this discussion at some point, and then left after a week or so because he perceived it was pointless to get anything through in a reasonable manner.

DH2 sucks!

No it doesn't!

DH2 sucks!

No it doesn't!

If you're trying to tell us that you perceive DH2 as being bad, I think we've got that by now. Others will respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you're trying to tell us that its mechanics are bad compared to similar systems, that's also just your opinion.

What games ultimately do is create an experience through a medium, which is in this case the rulebook and the 40k setting. These are just guidelines. For me, these guidelines work just fine to create the experience I want.

You can point to a different game, but you'll also have a bunch of people saying its mechanics are bad just because it doesn't fit their personal expectations.

I'm not having trouble in a mechanical sense, only in the fact that the new psyker ryules completely and pointlessly change the abilities of the psyker character.

That and the fact the game's rules are rubbish.

I wouldn't call it pointless, nor facts.

If you can't come up with actual instances of the issues you're having then there is not much room for discussion, other than that you groundlessly hate 2e.

The only thing that has been thoroughly established in the ring-around circus that is DH1 vs DH2 so far is that both "systems" are ridiculously similar to the point the differences are minutae. There are next to no mechanical differences in the functionality and methodology of either. The devil here is in the details. Some people see these details as an improvement, others as a detriment.

Additionally, the chargen has been changed to a different kind of class-based system. This is not functioning as advertised, but apparently well enough for some people. For others, less so. BP vs. class based vs. narrative is essentially a matter of taste, really.

That is pretty much all that "has been established" and as fair a summary as I can manage.

Charge creation note includes the aptitude system which further complicates things add players now have to cross reference up to2 different aptitudes out of 9 every time the want to spend xp. Every single improvement or purchase had to be thusly considered. Hotter on earth is that not a massive headache - particularly for new players.

If that is the best answer to a rigid class system then this game needs better devs.

That quote didn't come from me FYI.

I'm not having trouble in a mechanical sense, only in the fact that the new psyker ryules completely and pointlessly change the abilities of the psyker character.

That and the fact the game's rules are rubbish.

I wouldn't call it pointless, nor facts.

If you can't come up with actual instances of the issues you're having then there is not much room for discussion, other than that you groundlessly hate 2e.

I just have you an instance: the psyker rules being completable different and the powers not being the same. This means the player had to create a fundamentally different character for no good reason.

Again, they rebalanced that system so mismatches to create the exact same character are to be expected.

- Rolling for Psychic Phenomena is still the same (although instead of rolling a 9 to trigger it, you roll doubles, same thing in the end).

- Determining Psychic Strength dynamically won't affect the creation of that Psyker character.

So yes, the Powers themselves got changed, adding prerequisites and not always plain Willpower or the Focus Power test not always being Willpower. I generally consider this a good change so a Psyker isn't all about maxing out his Willpower. Certain powers aren't available anymore or changed, probably for balancing reasons as well.

It's a new edition so try to adapt.

Also, what stops you from just using the DH1 Psyker system if you're not willing to adapt?

The only thing that has been thoroughly established in the ring-around circus that is DH1 vs DH2 so far is that both "systems" are ridiculously similar to the point the differences are minutae. There are next to no mechanical differences in the functionality and methodology of either. The devil here is in the details. Some people see these details as an improvement, others as a detriment.

Additionally, the chargen has been changed to a different kind of class-based system. This is not functioning as advertised, but apparently well enough for some people. For others, less so. BP vs. class based vs. narrative is essentially a matter of taste, really.

That is pretty much all that "has been established" and as fair a summary as I can manage.

Charge creation note includes the aptitude system which further complicates things add players now have to cross reference up to2 different aptitudes out of 9 every time the want to spend xp. Every single improvement or purchase had to be thusly considered. Hotter on earth is that not a massive headache - particularly for new players.

If that is the best answer to a rigid class system then this game needs better devs.

This I consider valid criticism, if you really want to create a powerful/optimized character, you have to think far ahead from the start and newbies don't have that knowledge right away. In case of DH1, you picked a class and that determined the path that you were going to walk later.

The book does include suggestions on what to take and then leaves it up to the player what to do. Some people just want to go in a certain direction and don't care if their character will be the most famous swashbuckler of the whole Askellon Sector or not, others want every bit of control of their character in terms of development.

It can be hard for the latter, but I perceive it as part of the fun of trying to make things work. I can see it as a point of frustration for others though.

In case of newbies, let them go with the suggested combinaties. Go with more iconic characters of the 40k setting, like Forge World - Adeptus Mechanicus - Sage. Of course, in case of you Serpent, you're trying to fit existing characters from a previous system into a new system. Again, mismatches are to be expected.

To make life easier, I suggest using this tool:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/122894-dark-heresy-2nded-character-generator-skill-picker/

I hope its creator will come around to add the supplement things as well at some point.

Maybe I'll create something myself in the near future.

Charge creation note includes the aptitude system which further complicates things add players now have to cross reference up to2 different aptitudes out of 9 every time the want to spend xp. Every single improvement or purchase had to be thusly considered. Hotter on earth is that not a massive headache - particularly for new players.

If that is the best answer to a rigid class system then this game needs better devs.

In 1E you had to look at the tables every time you wanted to purchase something. It is a little less work, but way more rigid. The 2E char gen and advancement system is by no means perfect (I've seen better, but I've also seen soo much worse), but it works better than the 1E.

What about "thing is objectively bad and here's a bunch of math showing why it's bad"?

Because there's been lots of that too but it I guess you didn't read those?

Because the math doesn't always have to be good for a system to be fun. Fading Suns' system? I love it. Mathematically it's supposed to be terrible. But I love the system. It's simple, and does enough for me.

The point is I could care less about the mathematical reasons. The same is true for a lot of people. Heck, my reasons for disliking something MIGHT at a fundamental level be because of the math, but that's not something I am consciously noticing. If the system is fun, it's fun, even if there's "Mathematical problems that make it objectively terrible!" (OMG! Gasp!)

It is slightly better, but nowhere near good enough. The problem with complex rules is that there's more chance for bad design.

Dude, the rules aren't complex. They're fairly simple but displayed in an unnecessarily overcomplicated manner (shadowrun has the same problem of late; it's like no one has an editor anymore).

Dude, the rules aren't complex. They're fairly simple but displayed in an unnecessarily overcomplicated manner (shadowrun has the same problem of late; it's like no one has an editor anymore).

Hahahaha what? Combat actions take upwards of 5 separate rolls to resolve, are a mix of d10, d100 and d5, and each and every little thing has a myriad of modifiers that can apply all scattered all over the book. Some of the rolls are against a fixed number while others are against another character's roll, while yet more require you to reference tables in the book. Rules for attacking change based on what weapon you're attacking with (or no weapon at all). All of this can vary if you have specific talents or combat statuses applied, which I hope you have memorized.

To say that the rules are not complex is so absurd it is laughable. The rules for 40k RPG are some of the more complex out there today.

And you can condense it all on to one to two pages, where you'll find it's all on the percentile scale, and all in increments of five and ten. You do not need to do any higher math than I would expect from a first grader, namely addition and subtraction. It looks complex, because it's all over the book, but I could play this with an eight year old.

To say that the rules are not complex is so absurd it is laughable. The rules for 40k RPG are some of the more complex out there today.

After running Iron Kingdoms RPG, I actually find the rules refreshingly simple by comparison.

And don't even get me started on Eclipse Phase. : )

What about "thing is objectively bad and here's a bunch of math showing why it's bad"?

Because there's been lots of that too but it I guess you didn't read those?

Because the math doesn't always have to be good for a system to be fun. Fading Suns' system? I love it. Mathematically it's supposed to be terrible. But I love the system. It's simple, and does enough for me.

The point is I could care less about the mathematical reasons. The same is true for a lot of people. Heck, my reasons for disliking something MIGHT at a fundamental level be because of the math, but that's not something I am consciously noticing. If the system is fun, it's fun, even if there's "Mathematical problems that make it objectively terrible!" (OMG! Gasp!)

Not really sure I understand this. Presumably you'd prefer the mechanics to work - in any game.

If you enjoy a game in spite of its rules that's entirely fine, but that doesn't alter the fact of the rules.

For me, the game's rules are a pain. I can ignore them, but then why bother with the ruleboook in the first place?

Dude, the rules aren't complex. They're fairly simple but displayed in an unnecessarily overcomplicated manner (shadowrun has the same problem of late; it's like no one has an editor anymore).

Dude, the rules aren't complex. They're fairly simple but displayed in an unnecessarily overcomplicated manner (shadowrun has the same problem of late; it's like no one has an editor anymore).

The core mechanic is simple: it's a d100 roll.

But the rules over complicate every task they set out to cover. Combat requires weapons track a lot of information, players have to be familiar with the rules for every action as well as how many they can do, when they can do them. Then you have to reference each individual trait for the various weapons and their quality. Not to mention each NPC has a ton of information depending on how powerful they are that the GM has to track. That's just combat.

Is it necessary? Does it have to be this way? Never mind the wonky psychic rules and the horrible aptitude system: i dread having to explain that to players. Having to cross reference 2 from any of 9 different traits each time they want to spend xp including during character creation (thus making the task twice as long depending on how many players are rolling up characters simultaneously). This is the sort of thing that puts people off. Sure if you're a hardocre 40k fan you might give the system more of a free pass, but if you're new to this...

Does it have to be this way? Never mind the wonky psychic rules and the horrible aptitude system: i dread having to explain that to players. Having to cross reference 2 from any of 9 different traits each time they want to spend xp including during character creation (thus making the task twice as long depending on how many players are rolling up characters simultaneously). This is the sort of thing that puts people off. Sure if you're a hardocre 40k fan you might give the system more of a free pass, but if you're new to this...

Before the 'session 0' for my DH campaign, I took a few minutes to type up the three cost tables and print out a copy for each of my players; which alleviated the page-flipping.

As for explaining the aptitude system and how well it was received; 6 of my 7 players had zero previous exposure to 40K and they had no issue with it whatsoever.