A common complaint I see about DH2 is that people don't like the aptitude system.

What do they do to improve DH2 over each advancement having the same XP cost for every character ?

My first thought is that they might be there to attempt to encourage each character to spend their XP in different ways. But my experience with other classless systems tells me that players will pick out different paths for their character on their own, without needing any mechanical encouragement. Because no two of my players ever tried to build the same character as another.

So would I lose anything if I decided to run a house rule of all character advances will have the XP cost of the character having a single matching aptitude, regardless of how many matching aptitudes the character actually has ?

What I'd gain is that players, especially those who are new to DH2, wouldn't be able to permanently screw their characters up by picking the wrong aptitudes. Meaning more freedom of choice because aptitudes wouldn't get in the way. For an example of them possibly getting in the way, look to the Best Role/Home World for Adepta Sororitas? thread.

I almost want to nominate the Penitent as well, as the special ability is quite fitting for members of the Sisterhood, but the Aptitudes seem rather sub-optimal, given how they include neither WS or BS.

A role that sounds rather fitting lore-wise, but is being recommended against because an important aptitude isn't present.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't simplify DH2 by removing aptitudes ?

Go right ahead. Most of the arguments against what you're doing pretty clearly show a lack of experience with open progression systems.

Well, in my opinion it's kind of "what are you want".

I want lore-based characters, so I want aptitudes. If you want maxed utility - aptitudes are bad.

In my opinion, aptitudes serve a background (what is your characters natural inclination?) function, too, but first and foremost they ensure that characters are more likely to become specialists complementing one another.

Sometimes, there are sacrifices to make (for example, I believe that any proper Sororitas character ought to be Trained in the Lore of the Imperial Creed, the Adeptus Ministorum and the Adepta Sororitas, but not having the Intelligence aptitude makes acquiring these a bit pricey), but I believe that all in all it is still a superior system to essentially making every character perfectly equal in how fast they can pick up specific new things. Plus, these sacrifices are usually the result of not the Aptitudes system itself, but rather a minor detail in its execution (which Aptitude to go with which Skill/Talent), or even just an entirely different section of chargen (what Skills/Talents does your character start with for free).

A role that sounds rather fitting lore-wise, but is being recommended against because an important aptitude isn't present.

To be fair, even DH2 RAW allows double Aptitudes to be switched for something of the player's choosing, so assuming you gain an Aptitude twice based on your choice of homeworld and role, you could still gain BS/WS this way.

Also, if you consider houseruling anything, you could just as well simply houserule the Aptitudes you gain from certain chargen modules, or give the Penitent's perk to another role.

Still, ultimately I think it comes down to personal preferences. Some people like Aptitudes, others don't. There is nothing wrong with changing it if you believe it makes for a subjectively better game for you and your entire group!

There's a lot to gain by eliminating Aptitudes and not a lot to lose, so go for it.

I personally think the arguments that Aptitudes are somehow required to make your character 'realistic' or 'lore-based' or whatever hold no water whatsoever. The only thing they do is determine XP costs - they have no narrative impact at all.

There's a lot to gain by eliminating Aptitudes and not a lot to lose, so go for it.

I personally think the arguments that Aptitudes are somehow required to make your character 'realistic' or 'lore-based' or whatever hold no water whatsoever. The only thing they do is determine XP costs - they have no narrative impact at all.

SImple.

Determined XP cost => players expected to take aptitude-based skills, characteristics, talents => chars became more aptitude based. Aptitudes character have based on lore => aptitude-based characters are based on lore.

So it's not something requred, of course, but it helps. It's better first DH class system was, because class systems are inherently bad (well, my opinion).

because class systems are inherently bad (well, my opinion).

Aptitudes are a class system. They greatly punish coloring outside the lines drawn at chargen.

edit: There's nothing inherently wrong with class systems (in my opinion), but DH2 disguises a class system as an open progression system. Worst of both worlds.

Class system is a system directly forbidding you taking something outside your class. Aptitudes don't.

What do you mean by "punishing", BTW?

A common complaint I see about DH2 is that people don't like the aptitude system.

Can't help you here sorry, we use Aptitudes in both groups and everyone is happy.

Class system is a system directly forbidding you taking something outside your class. Aptitudes don't.

What do you mean by "punishing", BTW?

Run the numbers on taking any option you have 0 matches for. Players are heavy disincentivized for taking things they don't have at least 1 match for, so much so that few ever will.

Or, to look at it another way, a truly open character advancement system would allow any character to take any option and characters at equal XP totals would be roughly equally effective (if in different areas). Under the Aptitude system, a character who took exclusively 2-match advances would be far more effective at far more things (because they're spending less XP on each advance so can afford to buy more things) than a character that took exclusively 0-match options. A character taking whatever they want of 0, 1, and 2 match options would still be less effective than a focused 2-match character.

It's not as open as you think it is.

Yup. As I said before, " I want lore-based characters, so I want aptitudes. If you want maxed utility - aptitudes are bad."

People in lore-based system supposed to have abilities associated with their lore, so system encouraging players taking lore-based abilities have exactly this narrative impact - characters are lore-oriented. That's good.

Bad is a system with hard lock "you can't have it, because your class forbid it". It's clearly mechanical system (usually) that impact gameplay.

For example some Imperial psyker from first DH (RAW one). Let's say he is, by chance, happens to have many shooting with pistols. So it's logical to him to try and take talent for two-handed shooting. Should it be simple for him, or just as simple as it's for some outcast who practiced it for his life? I believe not. Should this kind of training be forbbiden for him? I believe not too.

That should not be totaly opened, if we're going to create fluff-based characters, but it shouldn't be hard-closed too.

"Class" situation:

- Master, I want to spend my exp for a skill to fly a shuttle - we had our pilot killed last mission, and it harmed us a lot, so my character want to have it.

- HARAM.

- But why?

- Your class can't learn it. No narrative explanation.

(somewhere here Elite Advances come into play, because it's obvious problem)

"Aptitude" situation:

- Master, I want to spend my exp for a skill to fly a shuttle - we had our pilot killed last mission, and it harmed us a lot, so my character want to have it.

You're ignoring the third path where a character's background (or lore, as you call it) is completely divorced from the mechanics of character advancement. Which is what the OP is suggesting. A character having a background doesn't necessitate it having an impact on that character's efficacy.

In my experience in real life it is (or you can say it's opening opportunities - let's say basic cost is the cost with no aptitudes, why not?). But, as I said, if you're going for efficiency, not for lore-wise or background-wise, you should rid off aptitudes.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't simplify DH2 by removing aptitudes ?

If all your players are aboard with the idea, no reason not to do it. You could also consider keeping the aptitudes a free choice, although if you have min/max-players it might turn into a headache with all the options available.

Aptitudes are a class system. They greatly punish coloring outside the lines drawn at chargen.

To some it's a bug, to others it's a feature.

What's important to me is the increased influence you have on said lines (by DH2 allowing you to mix 'n match backgrounds and roles), and that it's still possible to colour outside them if you consider it important for the character concept. Freedom of choice with an incentive to stay true to a specific image.

The only issue is that RAW makes some combinations a bit problematic, but that is very easily houseruled and no fault of the Aptitudes system per se.

I personally found a simple compromise is to let everyone just pick 1 additional aptitude of their choice. This additional aptitude represents a personal variance in life experience or physicality that should be reflected in their background.

For me, it's often used to grant my players a thematic Talent to help fulfill a personal character vision, or round out a weak link in the Party as a whole. It shifts your potential talent tree slightly without breaking the character's focus all together.

-Maybe a highborn Administratum was previously sent to observe and record events with a Desparado who told him he would need to learn to draw more than his text if he was to work with him on a Feral World ( granting him some aptitude in Ballistics ).

-Perhaps a Astra Telepathica Seeker spent his early years investigating mundane crimes undercover in a particularity dark underhive granting him some aptitude in fieldcraft ( so he may take the Blind Fighting or Sprint talent more readily ) or Weapon skill ( As he may of had to take part in several brawls to keep his identity secret).

That said, all examples may or may not fit the Lore entirely, but I am always willing to nudge the universe to accommodate a interesting PC creation.

Hmm, I like the idea of picking a single Aptitude, but personally I'd have it cost one as a sacrifice. A free one-time switch, if you will, as if you had it double.

But that's just gut-feeling based on me thinking that characters having 7 out of 18 characteristics (almost 40%!) as Aptitudes by RAW should be more than enough. It depends on how quickly you want people to progress, though.

It depends on how quickly you want people to progress, though.

This

The only thing XP costs affects is how fast you build the character you want in comparison to a game. My adeptus arbites warrior wants some lore, while my Administratum Savant want to know how to shoot. For both, the costs will be higher but they will go through. The warrior will be good in combat faster that the savant, while the savant will becomebetter in knowledge that the warrior.

In the end, I've never got any problem so far with the new system and characters are what the players want them to be.

Let's see what we have here:

Aptitudes help determine the background:

-by establishing faux classes/assigning varying costs to advancement

-vague and undefined lore reasons that you need to houserule anyway

-They somehow make your characters lore-based?

->Apply Occam's razor to this for a second. Do you really need aptitudes to determine what your character can do according to their background? Or are they an unecessary step?

Is a prior education not something you should have already?

As for the lorebased bit:

Here's what makes your character lorebased:

Reading the lore and applying it to your backstory and character's personality. Or is someone seriously going to try to argue that GURPS 40k, DH1,, Inquisitor and a slew of other systems you can easily run 40k with sans aptitudes aren't "lore based"? In a lore where "everything is canon", no less...

Aptitudes help determine how fast your players progress:

-due to varying costs

->Situational at best, and demonstatibly false in most cases. XP is a determining factor. Cost is only one if you purchase outside of your specialisations. And in such cases, the oh so advanced aptitudes system punishes characters who have gone through the exact same experiences the rest of the party has for having the wrong aptitudes to purchase campaign relevant advances, rather than class relevant ones.

Honestly? Ditch aptitudes. They're a completely unnecessary step. They don't prevent minmaxing, they don't prevent munchkining, they don't do anything beyond waste you and your players' time. My advice would be to give everything the same cost per type, and make things the characters actually do often cheaper. Maybe even keep a checklist, too. Used five times in an adventure? 25% or 50% discount. Oh, and depending on which tier you're using, halve XP, but you're probably already doing that.

->Apply Occam's razor to this for a second. Do you really need aptitudes to determine what your character can do according to their background? Or are they an unecessary step?

If you go at it from that angle, though, you could just ditch XP altogether. Are they not "an unnecessary step to determine what your character can do according to their background" as well? Just give them a suite of Skills and Talents you consider appropriate and call it a day, right?

No. Because we have use for a system that helps govern a character's growth/progression. Experience points can be a part of that, and so can Aptitudes as a reflection of your character's natural affinities and inherent potential. Classes can be, too, except that I personally think they are too rigid and often end up sabotaging a concept's execution.

To me, Aptitudes simply feel like a good compromise between the chaotic "everyone can develop everything equally well" that is being suggested as an alternative here, and the restrictive "your character can only develop like this" in a class-based system with gated Skills and Talents a la DH1. In the end, I still think it's nothing but a matter of personal preferences, but if Aptitudes (and thus, in context the people who like them) are being called out as silly, then I'mma gonna shoot back.

For what it's worth, I actually do believe that a roleplaying game does not absolutely require character growth/progression in terms of characteristics or skills. People don't just magically get twice as strong or handsome within a couple weeks or months in real life as well, after all. I understand that "leveling up" is an ancient psychological trick to keep people addicted to playing a game, but perhaps an XP-less system where there is no progression but in reputation/contacts and gear/finances could be just as interesting? Just a thought.

Of course if you can create lore-based character without aptitudes it's good. Many players can't, especially when they haven't big experience in tabletop rpg. I have my habit to use GURPS, and new players became lost in that hundreds of skills and tables. DH1 gives us classes, and Inquisitor was designed badly. That's about lore.

Class system, exp and other abstractions (hp, for example), such as system at all were created not just to keep players addicted. You need them to keep playing smooth, not to be distracted by "hey I did shot I need to write it" or with "hey I've looked at my notes I should had my shooting better in last fight (where I was killed)". It's good for computer game where your progress checked automatically. I tried to use system where each critical roll could level your skill though, it wasn't bad but it was something completely different from DH. Yes it's not so hard to include such system to DH but you will throw away full 3rd chapter of rulebook.

And about education... It's not something you just have. It set your background. I have my culturological education, I was raised in academic family. It was simple for me to catch sociology. But when I tried to learn to fight... I felt I haven't aptitude I need on my own skin. Literally.

Honestly? Ditch aptitudes. They're a completely unnecessary step. They don't prevent minmaxing, they don't prevent munchkining, they don't do anything beyond waste you and your players' time. My advice would be to give everything the same cost per type, and make things the characters actually do often cheaper. Maybe even keep a checklist, too. Used five times in an adventure? 25% or 50% discount. Oh, and depending on which tier you're using, halve XP, but you're probably already doing that.

Aptitudes differentiate players. Sure there are other ways of differentiating, but this is a rather strong differentiation as it affect xp costs throughout all game sessions. Players like to be different and this is in black and white on your character sheet not to be argued with.

The problem with aptitudes is that they are balanced so badly that players gravitate towards taking the same aptitudes, hence defeating the purpose of them.

The problem with aptitudes is that they are balanced so badly that players gravitate towards taking the same aptitudes, hence defeating the purpose of them.

I agree this is an issue. The distribution of aptitude types vs. Available talents (good or bad) is skewed. I actually addressed this in my personal house rules by building several additional talents for lesser picks like fieldcraft ad fellowship.

It's also one of the reasons I offer the 7th aptitude (though switching is just as good) as it eases the pressure for players to metagame their stats while still maintaining an advancement structure (and I always try to reward flawed/fun character play over optimised ones). Also we only play once every other week so a small growth in relative aptitude matching is fine (if they get to good I can always make the enemies tougher )

I agree this is an issue. The distribution of aptitude types vs. Available talents (good or bad) is skewed. I actually addressed this in my personal house rules by building several additional talents for lesser picks like fieldcraft ad fellowship.

So do I.

But, just in case, Fellowship is definitly social aptitude, so everybody who want to be social (and it's investigation game) should have one. And Fieldcraft is skill aptitude - 6 skills, 1st place with Knowledge.

But I (and my players) don't want balance, to be honest.

->Apply Occam's razor to this for a second. Do you really need aptitudes to determine what your character can do according to their background? Or are they an unecessary step?

If you go at it from that angle, though, you could just ditch XP altogether. Are they not "an unnecessary step to determine what your character can do according to their background" as well? Just give them a suite of Skills and Talents you consider appropriate and call it a day, right?

....

For what it's worth, I actually do believe that a roleplaying game does not absolutely require character growth/progression in terms of characteristics or skills. People don't just magically get twice as strong or handsome within a couple weeks or months in real life as well, after all. I understand that "leveling up" is an ancient psychological trick to keep people addicted to playing a game, but perhaps an XP-less system where there is no progression but in reputation/contacts and gear/finances could be just as interesting? Just a thought.

XPless progression is exactly what Call of Cthulu has been doing for a long, long time. It works brilliantly in the game, and I see no reason why it shouldn't work just as well for CoC In Space. CoC does make things easier on players by offering example profession packets for players in the beginning, but once your character is created, the only thing that determines is what kind of job he does in his off time(and who he knows/regularily interacts with). Skills you use (actively and passively, through time spent training) are rolled upon post-session to increase, so you can progress organically.

The real problem with specifically applying it to the 40kline are the slew of combat feats and psyker powers 40k has. You'd have to quantify them somehow.

I really don't see a reason to use the extra step in aptitudes, though. You could play the entire game without them, if planets said something like "Gain 1 of these skills, 1 of these and 1 of these" and jobs provided skill packets as well. Then you progress with a simple system of fixed XP cost for Skill/attribute. One step completely eliminated, everything is exactly where you need to apply it to use it in the book and voila, people save a lot of time (sometimes hours...christ almighty...) they would have spent sifting through and constantly looking up aptitudes.