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."

Well it's really just common sense. I have seen a lot of your complaints with the system, and while I agree with some of them, constantly griping about them and then insulting the developers and those who disagree with you won't get anything changed, nor will it really ingratiate yourself with those you are trying to persuade.

We all get that you don't like the system. Really, we do - there are examples of you saying so in many threads. Continuing to remind everyone how horrible and broken you think WH40k RPGs are is just beating a dead horse.

Well it's really just common sense. I have seen a lot of your complaints with the system, and while I agree with some of them, constantly griping about them and then insulting the developers and those who disagree with you won't get anything changed, nor will it really ingratiate yourself with those you are trying to persuade.

I gave up trying to persuade the devs of anything long ago when it became clear they weren't going to make any daring departures from OW.

I am going to have to take issue with your characterization of what I've said on these forums. I don't think I've been unfair to anyone. I don't think I've ever insulted the devs beyond calling them lazy (and only then when somebody points out a copy/pasted reference to a rule from OW that they took out in DH2). Anyone else I've mocked has been because they posted something dumb or ridiculous - not because I've disagreed with them - and even then I usually mock what they said rather than insult them personally. Finally, not all of my posts here are about how the game is bad.

At the end of the day this is just another variation of, "Stop saying negative things" and my answer is the same: "No."

But they did make a daring departure from OW, and the overwhelming response was "No thanks! None'a dat!" , so the Beta was changed.

BYE

I am going to be that guy but What are some of the issues people have? I have only seen, in the times I do check the forums, brief and vague comments about things they don't like but very rarely do I stumble on to their actual complaints. I am not blaming anyone about this just saying, I don't frequent the forums that often mainly looking for either news on things coming out.

Well it's really just common sense. I have seen a lot of your complaints with the system, and while I agree with some of them, constantly griping about them and then insulting the developers and those who disagree with you won't get anything changed, nor will it really ingratiate yourself with those you are trying to persuade.

I gave up trying to persuade the devs of anything long ago when it became clear they weren't going to make any daring departures from OW.

So then why keep harping on the same faults of the system? A perfect RPG is truly impossible, as the definition of perfect changes from person to person. If you aren't trying to persuade the developers, who are you trying to persuade?

It is worth noting that they did try to make a departure from OW with the DH2 Beta. It was quite daring, and quite disliked - so it made sense for them to stick with what they knew over what they didn't. I share many of your criticisms of the WH40k line, and disagree with some of your others. While there is a place for constructive criticism, I don't think hopping into random threads and disrupting them is really the place.

I am going to have to take issue with your characterization of what I've said on these forums. I don't think I've been unfair to anyone. I don't think I've ever insulted the devs beyond calling them lazy (and only then when somebody points out a copy/pasted reference to a rule from OW that they took out in DH2). Anyone else I've mocked has been because they posted something dumb or ridiculous - not because I've disagreed with them - and even then I usually mock what they said rather than insult them personally. Finally, not all of my posts here are about how the game is bad.

Regardless of how you may view your own actions, there seems to be a disconnect. It seems very much so that you are often voicing your opinions on everything wrong with the game, regardless of whether or not that was the discussion. I would make a point that hijacking threads is unfair, as is mocking people for their ignorance. There may be dumb or ridiculous things posted on the forums, but making fun of people for it isn't the way to foster community, or correct mistakes.

At the end of the day this is just another variation of, "Stop saying negative things" and my answer is the same: "No."

I guess the main question everyone is asking is this: What does your negativity bring to the table?

I am going to be that guy but What are some of the issues people have?

The complaints are many and varied, but I'll try to briefly cover a few of the more common ones...

1) Players who really get into the mathematical analysis of game systems aren't too crazy about the linear distribution resulting from the game's fundamental D% system and would have probably preferred something with a bell-curve distribution system or a complete departure from pure numbers in favor of something more on the ilk of the new Star Wars lines (speaking of which; given how hugely popular those lines have been and the fact that they're also made by FFG, I think some people were really hoping that DH2 would follow more along those lines and are disappointed that it didn't).

2) Though a lot of people like the new character generation / advancement system (at least in comparison to those of DH1), a lot of people don't. Complaints range from too much page-flipping to assertions that it doesn't really offer any more freedom of development than the old career / rank system did (which, if you're the kind of player who only purchases advances that you have both aptitudes for, is actually true). One thing that most everyone agrees is a problem is that some aptitudes are substantially less valuable than others (I'm looking at you, Leadership; with your one skill and two or three talents).

3) The community is likewise sharply divided on the departure from currency in favor of the Influence system. While some deride the old currency system for encouraging murderhobo-style looting, others find the Influence system too abstract to model certain types of transactions in a reasonable way.

4) I've seen a fair amount of flak over the fact that there are more rules for combat than anything else. While this is true of literally every single system that I have run over the past three decades, I do understand that there are systems which depart from this trend.

5) Last but definitely not least; if you ask the right questions and really get down to the heart of the issue, you'll find that a lot of complaints really just stem from the fact that the game is largely simulationist. Narrativists wanted something more narrativist; gamists wanted something more gamist.

Pretty good list, but I would add that DH2 is essentially a reprint of Only War with a different character generation system. As someone who owns DH1 and OW, the DH2 core book is mostly repeated information. The original beta was actually a departure from OW in a lot of ways, and while mechanically flawed (maybe 'flawed' is too generous, some stuff in there was flat out busted) they had a lot of good ideas in it that could have been kept when they decided to scrap it and go back to the OW system, but they tossed it all out and we ended up with what you see today.

Thank you! I knew there was another big one that I was forgetting.

Yes, the copy-pasting from Only War has also been the source of much displeasure; particular with regards to psykers and the fact that they have almost no utility powers.

...

One thing that most everyone agrees is a problem is that some aptitudes are substantially less valuable than others (I'm looking at you, Leadership; with your one skill and two or three talents).

I've noticed that in Only War, those classes normally have 6 Aptitudes, except when they receive Leadership, then they get 1 Characteristic aptitude extra. So that's somewhat the compensation in Only War. Could be an interesting houserule for DH2.

Edit: Exception is the Enginseer though.

I am going to be that guy but What are some of the issues people have?

The complaints are many and varied, but I'll try to briefly cover a few of the more common ones...

1) Players who really get into the mathematical analysis of game systems aren't too crazy about the linear distribution resulting from the game's fundamental D% system and would have probably preferred something with a bell-curve distribution system or a complete departure from pure numbers in favor of something more on the ilk of the new Star Wars lines (speaking of which; given how hugely popular those lines have been and the fact that they're also made by FFG, I think some people were really hoping that DH2 would follow more along those lines and are disappointed that it didn't).

Well, now my mind is whirling with the possiblities of running a DH game with the new FFG Star Wars system...

Could I just refluff the skills/talents and force players to provide sufficient justification if they're working with tech or hacking or whatever?

Would I need to ban psykers or could I just say X disadvantages (threats? I forget what they're called) is a phenomenon? How would their powers work?

Well, now my mind is whirling with the possiblities of running a DH game with the new FFG Star Wars system...

Could I just refluff the skills/talents and force players to provide sufficient justification if they're working with tech or hacking or whatever?

Would I need to ban psykers or could I just say X disadvantages (threats? I forget what they're called) is a phenomenon? How would their powers work?

Believe me, I've considered it. The problem is that the SW setting is a light-hearted adventure romp, and the game was made to fit the setting. It doesn't have any mechanics to support the major themes of 40k/DH - namely corruption, insanity, and fear. The Force is also much less powerful (at least in EotE) than warp magic is in 40k. The resolution mechanic would work great for just about anything, but without support for these things I highly doubt you'd be able to run a game that felt 40k.

I believe Force & Destiny does cover Fear, but insanity & corruption is still a bit lacking.

It's a good ruleset; keeping light and narrative things that don't need to be tracked to the n ^th degree.

Certainly the Force is subtle compared to 40k Psykers, but I'm not sold on powerful psykers as PCs - they're good adversaries, but then you have a lot more leeway to avoid having too much mechanical detail; a 'psychic plasma cannon' is fine for a rival NPC since you don't want to spend forever working out phenomena, corruption, etc.

I guess you'd just need to convert the stats into the dice and keep other things the same.

e.g. a stat at 30 in DH would be equal to 1 in SW, with every 10 points thereafter bieng another...

(honestly, I can't remember the baseline stats for hummies in FFG SW)

and every 2 ranks for a skill is 1 "stat" as well. So, with +10 Dodge and 40 agility you'd roll 2 Greens (that's the best die, right?).

Shrug. Fear 3 would be 3 purples or something vs your WP. (+1 dice for Resistance Fear)

Anyway, cps, if you every get it done, I'll happily playtest it.

1) Players who really get into the mathematical analysis of game systems aren't too crazy about the linear distribution resulting from the game's fundamental D% system and would have probably preferred something with a bell-curve distribution system or a complete departure from pure numbers in favor of something more on the ilk of the new Star Wars lines (speaking of which; given how hugely popular those lines have been and the fact that they're also made by FFG, I think some people were really hoping that DH2 would follow more along those lines and are disappointed that it didn't).

didn't they try that with Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3. ed? And wasn't it universally hatted?

I guess you'd just need to convert the stats into the dice and keep other things the same.

e.g. a stat at 30 in DH would be equal to 1 in SW, with every 10 points thereafter bieng another...

(honestly, I can't remember the baseline stats for hummies in FFG SW)

and every 2 ranks for a skill is 1 "stat" as well. So, with +10 Dodge and 40 agility you'd roll 2 Greens (that's the best die, right?).

Shrug. Fear 3 would be 3 purples or something vs your WP. (+1 dice for Resistance Fear)

Anyway, cps, if you every get it done, I'll happily playtest it.

It's not something I'm working on. I'd also like to say that the kind of stat conversion you're talking about is a bad way to do it. The SW system is balanced against itself and attempting to map stats from one system to another will only lead to weirdness. Build characters RAW in SW and you'll have competent starting characters and leave it at that.

Fear does exist in the game, but there's nothing to support the permanent, corrosive damage of fear, insanity, and corruption, so you'd have to draft something up whole-cloth and tack in onto the system (insert joke about DH2) and that's a lot of work.

And just for the record, green is the good die, yellow is the better die.

1) Players who really get into the mathematical analysis of game systems aren't too crazy about the linear distribution resulting from the game's fundamental D% system and would have probably preferred something with a bell-curve distribution system or a complete departure from pure numbers in favor of something more on the ilk of the new Star Wars lines (speaking of which; given how hugely popular those lines have been and the fact that they're also made by FFG, I think some people were really hoping that DH2 would follow more along those lines and are disappointed that it didn't).

didn't they try that with Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3. ed? And wasn't it universally hatted?

I said it's what I thought some people might have been hoping for; I never said it would have been a good idea.

Seriously, though; I personally think that that kind of system works better for some settings than others. It might be part of the reason that Edge of the Empire has been so huge and WFRP3rd is now dead.

I said it's what I thought some people might have been hoping for; I never said it would have been a good idea.

Seriously, though; I personally think that that kind of system works better for some settings than others. It might be part of the reason that Edge of the Empire has been so huge and WFRP3rd is now dead.

While this is absolutely true, WHFRP3e had a boatload of problems independent of the game's mechanics. It was poorly marketed, the books poorly planned, the cost of entry was way too high (~$100 for the box set), the components too limited, the fact that it had components was a problem for some.

Go search online and figure out what you need to buy in order to play that game. It's a mess.

I said it's what I thought some people might have been hoping for; I never said it would have been a good idea.

Seriously, though; I personally think that that kind of system works better for some settings than others. It might be part of the reason that Edge of the Empire has been so huge and WFRP3rd is now dead.

While this is absolutely true, WHFRP3e had a boatload of problems independent of the game's mechanics. It was poorly marketed, the books poorly planned, the cost of entry was way too high (~$100 for the box set), the components too limited, the fact that it had components was a problem for some.

Go search online and figure out what you need to buy in order to play that game. It's a mess.

I will defend WFRP3 to the death as being one of the most creatively designed games ever, but yeah, it had its share of problems. The game wants you to engage it mechanically quite a bit more than pretty much any other rpg, and requires a different GMing style than any other game. It also was marketed poorly and had a weird second release of the core materials that, rather than all being in one box, was divided up among 3 different boxes of bits and two different hardcover books. Also, it was put out for a setting that's been around for 3 or so decades and is mostly composed of people for whom any kind of change is anathema.

That said, if someone were to translate dark heresy to the Star Wars ruleset, the rules on insanity and corruption could easily be used from wfrp.

So.... community project? Go!

I think the handwaving of the classes from SW would be best. Say the tech guy (book at home sorry) is a tech-priest or somesuch.

Although, I actually DO like the character creation system of DH2. The resolution mechanic would be main interest. Thus the idea about porting the dice/points system over somehow.

Sigh. If only I had all the time in the world...