Edit: Sorry to harp on the system, but I noticed in the thread on the 40K app that the programmer was unsure about being able to make a program that could verify character creation due to all the rules exceptions. This system has so much stuff bolted onto it that a computer would have trouble keeping track of it, or at least would be too much work to program. That should be a red flag about how complicated this system is, and that's with only a core book and a source book out.

Helo Nimsim,

As a developer, I understand your opinion but completely disagree.

Implementing rules (or financial rules in a company for instance) is always a challenge, expect for those who do not have any exceptions or "complex" mechanics. Like bingo, or dominos ...

A computer, by default, knows nothing. Developers have to implement everything. So it can take time, and be difficult even for apparently simple things.

Keep in mind that the app has been developed with "The user can do whatever he wants to", i.e. adding skills for free ... So, with that in mind, is it so simple tu calculate "negative" experience ? (it is a rhetoric question btw).

Edit: Sorry to harp on the system, but I noticed in the thread on the 40K app that the programmer was unsure about being able to make a program that could verify character creation due to all the rules exceptions. This system has so much stuff bolted onto it that a computer would have trouble keeping track of it, or at least would be too much work to program. That should be a red flag about how complicated this system is, and that's with only a core book and a source book out.

Helo Nimsim,

As a developer, I understand your opinion but completely disagree.

Implementing rules (or financial rules in a company for instance) is always a challenge, expect for those who do not have any exceptions or "complex" mechanics. Like bingo, or dominos ...

A computer, by default, knows nothing. Developers have to implement everything. So it can take time, and be difficult even for apparently simple things.

Keep in mind that the app has been developed with "The user can do whatever he wants to", i.e. adding skills for free ... So, with that in mind, is it so simple tu calculate "negative" experience ? (it is a rhetoric question btw).

I know that a program like this has to be done from scratch. I am in no way saying anything negative about the programmer's skills. They seem to have done a great job. I realize it's not an easy thing to program. What Im saying is that this is an obviously very capable programmer indicating that the ruleset is too complicated to program, which to me would say thatnits also probably too complicated to be easily held in mind and applied as useful rules.

I think I didn't expressed myself clearly enough then, and sorry for that.

What I meant: something complex to program does not always imply that the rules are complex. especially when you deal with computer processing vs brain processing.

We are capable of very complex stuff where a computer would have lots of trouble, and the inverse is true.

So, for me, there is not a 100% correlation between program complexity and ruleset complexity for a human to process.

We are digressing from the topic subject a lot here, all because of CPS ! Thanks man . (joke inside)

I think I didn't expressed myself clearly enough then, and sorry for that.

What I meant: something complex to program does not always imply that the rules are complex. especially when you deal with computer processing vs brain processing.

We are capable of very complex stuff where a computer would have lots of trouble, and the inverse is true.

So, for me, there is not a 100% correlation between program complexity and ruleset complexity for a human to process.

We are digressing from the topic subject a lot here, all because of CPS ! Thanks man . (joke inside)

Fair point that programming complexity does not equal rule complexity, as I can see it being exponentially harder to have the program things to verify rules compatibility rather than just give an option of inputs that lead to outputs. However, it was stated that this is due to the large number of edge cases and exceptions, which again indicates to me an overly complex ruleset. My original point was that a pretty simple core mechanic has had way too much stuff layered on top of it rather than cohesively put together. That's what leads to all of those exceptions and edge cases.

Also, this topic has already pretty much resolved itself, so no real harm in going a bit off topic. I've also made a terrible thread for off topics, too, but it seems like too much extra effort to direct this conversation over there when it only required another reply or two.

I play many other games, but I haven't found a good ruleset to run DH in. Looking forward to Mutant Chronicles 3e when that finally comes out.

Its out now if you are a Backer?

The physical books not looking far off either!

Though in the minority I know, I have no particular problem with the Rules set for 40K

I play many other games, but I haven't found a good ruleset to run DH in. Looking forward to Mutant Chronicles 3e when that finally comes out.

Its out now if you are a Backer?

The physical books not looking far off either!

Though in the minority I know, I have no particular problem with the Rules set for 40K

You're not in the minority. Internet forums are just incredibly negative places.

Though in the minority I know, I have no particular problem with the Rules set for 40K

You're not in the minority. Internet forums are just incredibly negative places.

Yea, not too many people jump on forums like these just to say how much fun they're having. They usually either have questions, problems, or complaints.

I play many other games, but I haven't found a good ruleset to run DH in. Looking forward to Mutant Chronicles 3e when that finally comes out.

Its out now if you are a Backer?

The physical books not looking far off either!

It's only out for backers, and the core rules for mutant chronicles have been significantly fixed up just in the playtest documents for the Infinity and Conan RPGs. Lots of wording has been cleaned up, more playtesting has been taken into account, and those RPGs didn't have to deal with legacy fans wanting the game to be more like a pretty bad simulationist system from the 90s. I'm basing my rules hack on some of the new rules that have come out, as well as some personal preferences of mine regarding gamist versus simulationist stuff.

Look Nimsim and cps, don't get me wrong, I personally wouldn't mind to see an overhaul of the current system, but at the same time I'm not feeling your apparent frustration with it. I believe you want everything to come together, like a big puzzle, a mathematical equation that's just right when it comes to balance and scaling. That's understandable from your point of view.

Nobody is going to deny that the current 40k RPG system has some sharp edges, that it doesn't mathematically add up in every area, but people just want an experience, the 40k experience. Reallife isn't balanced, reallife doesn't scale well, but we are simulating somekind of pseudo reallife here, where we are playing some individuals in it.

The fact that there have been 6 separate 40k RPG lines make me believe that the current system IS doing something right. It certainly isn't perfect and perhaps some day we'll see an actual overhaul of the system. Until then it won't drive me to lurk on some forum, to recurrently gripe against a bunch of unknown people about how the current 40k is so "out of fashion" compared to newer systems.

Look Nimsim and cps, don't get me wrong, I personally wouldn't mind to see an overhaul of the current system, but at the same time I'm not feeling your apparent frustration with it. I believe you want everything to come together, like a big puzzle, a mathematical equation that's just right when it comes to balance and scaling. That's understandable from your point of view.

Nobody is going to deny that the current 40k RPG system has some sharp edges, that it doesn't mathematically add up in every area, but people just want an experience, the 40k experience. Reallife isn't balanced, reallife doesn't scale well, but we are simulating somekind of pseudo reallife here, where we are playing some individuals in it.

The fact that there are have been 6 separate 40k RPG lines make me believe that the current system IS doing something right. It certainly isn't perfect and perhaps some day we'll see an actual overhaul of the system. Until then it won't drive me or lurk on some forum, to recurrently gripe against a bunch of unknown people about how the current 40k is so "out of fashion" compared to newer systems.

Does that sum it up?

Edit:

Or, more succinctly: "I am complacent and other people should be as well"

I could start counter flaming, but it's not worth it.

Was that not an accurate summary of your position? Why is it so problematic for you when we complain about mechanical problems that have persisted for a decade through multiple game lines?

Whenever this comes up all I see is, "yeah the game is kinda busted but I'm familiar with all the dents and dings so they're fine and pointing them out is just needlessly rocking the boat."

I'll keep it clean:

I wouldn't mind one, but I don't absolutely need one.

Absolutely not, in fact I tend to agree with most of your criticism. The difference is that, despite its drawbacks and flaws, I don't think it's a bad system. How much weight do you put in those drawbacks that makes the game bad in the end is the question.

I really doubt the actual developers are reading these forums here.

So, I think it would be better to just say that you feel complacent about the game. You admit there are problems and that it would be nice if they were fixed, but don't like for people to point out those problems. Or rather, you don't like for other people to have the opinion that these problems make the game bad. Like, you're admitting that the game has issues, and that at worst you wouldn't mind for them to be fixed, but you're asking for people to stop pointing them out because they think these problems make the game bad. If my goal is for these problems to be recognized and fixed and you admitted you don't mind if they're fixed, why should it matter to you how I feel about the game otherwise?

Also, several FFG freelancers post here (I've argued with them), and the lead designer occasionally comments on or Likes posts outside of the threads he makes.

It's the same reiteration from the same people that gets to me. Your opinions tend to be structured and like I said, I tend to agree with your criticism, but not with your conclusion. Each to their own I guess.

Maybe I'm just wrongly associating you with certain people, so there's that.

Bile and vinegar just creates bile with a lot of vinegar.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record. I try to keep things fresh but it's not always easy when people keep tripping on the same wrinkle in the carpet I've been pointing at since the beta.

My issue with the complaints is that they're often not structured as constructive criticism, but just declarations of failure. I assume most of the arguments have been made before, so it's not a discussion anymore. It's just coming into a forum and saying "Ugggh, the system sucks guys, right?"

This thread for example: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/143589-a-query-about-the-dh2-system/

is just people crapping on the system without offering anything in terms of useful criticism. Not all of it, of course.

But that's just an example. LOTS of responses in threads are just basically lambasting the system again and again with the same criticisms. Sure, you don't like the character creation, but we've all heard it before and I'm sure the devs are aware of these opinions. They're not going to change the system right now.

Our recent discussion about the Accurate trait was a good example of a GOOD discussion. After some maths we all sort of agreed that it was a bit broken. 3d10 won't kill a tank unless you're super lucky, but it's still pushing it.

Our recent discussion about Inquisitorial Influence vs party influence was NOT a good discussion. Ceaseless bitching about the mechanics was not a productive dissection of them.

In both cases, there are exceptions, but generally, if your post doesn't have a suggestion along with a criticism (other than play DH1), it's probably not actually contributing. Exceptions (again) when someone finds an issue, but isn't certain on how to address it and is asking for feedback.

And that's why most developers tend to avoid forums like this.

If you're writing a ruleset, you'll have people who absolutely love it and people who absolutely hate it.

It's easier to listen to the people who absolutely love it, naturally, but that makes you blind towards valid criticism and flaws that needs to be fixed.

Forums like this tend to be avoided by the developers (with exceptions of people such as H.B.M.C) just because it tends to be a cesspool of negativity. I'm not saying criticism shouldn't be voiced, but if it isn't constructive criticism, especially when dropping just one-liners about how the system supposedly sucks/is bad/is a failure/... and nothing else, you're just annoying people (through the reiteration of the same negative opinion) on this forum and absolutely accomplishing nothing else.

I would add that if anyone here truly wants to get the attention of the developers, be taken seriously by them, and maybe see the changes that you desire to see actually get implemented; you really ought to curb the vitriol. I get that you're disappointed that the system didn't turn out like you wanted, but this is basic persuasive writing 101: if you want someone to change their mind about something, insulting them is a good way to make sure that they don't . Even if you have a perfectly valid criticism and a perfectly elegant solution backed up by an airtight case of facts, logic, and numbers; if you feel the need to additionally call the developers lazy or tell them that the people who enjoy and appreciate their work are just a bunch of old grognards who hate new things, then you're most likely just going to cause them to completely disregard anything else that you have to say.

Given the number of people who encourage complacency (it's flawed but I still like it and it's not worth complaining about), and the fact that these criticisms have existed since the beta, reasoned criticism quickly turns to frustration. You mention the discussion on the Accurate quality, but that quality has literally been broken/disliked for SIX editions now. All this because of a desire to have snipers be able to one-shot someone. I see discussions like that, and it is clear that this system just isn't really capable of correctly modeling that effect, and if people want it modeled, the system itself needs to be changed. A regular pistol can kill someone in real life with a single shot just as easily as a sniper rifle. This desire to have sniper rifles be one-shot machines comes more from video games than reality. So right there we have a conflict between trying to simulate multiple kinds of reality and having to make rules exceptions because a video game mechanic can't just be directly translated to tabletop. The core system has a bunch of these little inconsistencies and exceptions and weird legacy mechanics that the second edition basically just held onto rather than changed or dropped. It's a case where people end up missing the forest for the trees and it's obvious to myself and others that these mechanics are symptoms of a bigger problem rather than small errors in design.

You know, I tried being constructive during the beta and just got **** on then, too. Being polite and well reasoned didn't seem to help when any criticism of the game was taken as a personal insult to the people who enjoy the game.

If you really don't want to read what I write just put me on ignore. I have zero patience for this tone policing bs.

I personally couldn't care less what you say or how you say it. I've never once told you or any of the other naysayers that you should stop complaining. I'm only saying that, if you're sincerely hoping to motivate change, then you're probably not going about it in an effective manner.

You know, I tried being constructive during the beta and just got **** on then, too. Being polite and well reasoned didn't seem to help when any criticism of the game was taken as a personal insult to the people who enjoy the game.

If you really don't want to read what I write just put me on ignore. I have zero patience for this tone policing bs.

You know, I tried being constructive during the beta and just got **** on then, too. Being polite and well reasoned didn't seem to help when any criticism of the game was taken as a personal insult to the people who enjoy the game.

If you really don't want to read what I write just put me on ignore. I have zero patience for this tone policing bs.

Given the intended context/usage for the term "tone policing," it seems kind of inappropriate to use it for arguments about elf games.

It seems clear to me, given that FFG scrapped their entire first idea for DH2, that they were listening to criticism. However, couching your complaint in the fact that Accurate has been broken for 6 editions doesn't validate your complaint. It really does the opposite in my mind. It's clear that you and the devs have a different idea of how they want the trait to work and what they want it to represent. Just because your opinion differs, doesn't mean the system is broken or horrible or anything, because if that were the case, there are just as many people who like it and their opinion doesn't mean the system is good either.

I'm not encouraging complacency, I'm only requesting that people be less vitriolic in their comments and more constructive in their criticism, because it betters our community and repulses less potential players.

As for Accurate, the discussion was productive, even if we weren't all in agreement at the end. Average damage on 3d10 is 16.5, add in some mods and lets say 20 average. That pierces the rear armor of a Chimera, for 4 damage. With MAX damage, you're looking at 15 damage after armor, which is a lot, but still not enough to take out the chimera in less than 3 max damage hits. 30 dmg on 3d10 comes with a sweet chance of 1 in 1000. So, that's unlikely.

And if you hit the front the likelihood actually dealing damage is tiny.

Now, I don't actually want to discuss Accurate any more, but I wanted to use that as an example. The discussion got me thinking about Accurate, looking at the numbers, and considering alternatives, if I find myself disatisfied. And all that without even insulting the developers once.

Given the intended context/usage for the term "tone policing," it seems kind of inappropriate to use it for arguments about elf games.

Fair enough, but I'm not really sure what other term to use for literally being told "we'd listen to you more if you weren't such a negative nancy."