A simple question really. Those of us who've been games masters since we cut our teeth on games who're old enough for the term to have not been coined have known the benefit of fudging rolls during character creation for almost the same duration. So why remove the option to randomize? Why in Rogue Trader did you do away with much of the random generation in 'Origins'? If we wanted to create our characters by choosing their origins we'd do so anyway.

I realise that some GMs would prefer to stick to the ruleset without compromise, but that's easily dealt with. A short sentence stating that random generation is optional would do for that and allow the players to pick and choose.

In my case this has simply slowed down my NPC generation for RT meaning that I have to pause and actually think about what I'm doing. While on the face of it this might seem a good thing I have to tell you that it's quite destructive. Random character origins are useful in generating a plot for me and while I commend your system for connecting the members of a party in an innovative way (no 'you meet in an inn' nonsense) it has certainly left me with a bit of a pain in the proverbials when it comes to campain writing. I figure I'll just have to write my own tables now and will even post them here for those who might like them. Nice system for campains too, but I prefer to take the more organic approach and actually think of a plot letting player action direct it (in a 'living universe' as my buddy calls it) rather than simply tear one out of a sourcebook and repurpose it for my players. Can't fault you there of course as it's a tool designed to make the life of a GM easier (even if it is a little 'Spy Craft' for my tastes).

Please don't think I'm having a go at the game though. It's a fantastic piece of work. For once I'm actually relieved at an abstracted currency system! A little concerned at the bump-up to 25 in characteristic generation, but I guess I'll just go back and bump all the DH characters stats up by five. Agents of the blessed and most holy order of His Inquiry should after-all be just as tough as Rogue Traders and their retinues. Personally I take this as good news, both for me and for my players. Love the touch of including plenty of specific pattern weapons in the Armoury section too. It really helps to have named item types in a background as established as 40K and there's precious little resources out there to reference (not going to post links as I'm not sure it'd be okay to do so) due to GW's nice copywrite policies. It'd certainly be hell to trawl through all the novels and tabletop books to find examples and I just don't like coming up with them too much off the cuff as my main campain in DH is set in the Calixis Sector (still thrilled that Dan Abnett had a hand in that).

Well I could go on with the praise, but I expect you get the idea. I'll leave it for now with a request. Please make provision for smaller warp-capable craft as it'd be very helpful for DH and early RT groups and there's certainly a fair few atmosphere capable warp vessels in the background. An example can be quickly found in the novel 'Eye of Terror'.

Acolyte-Plath said:

One thing to note is the difference in starting experience - a Rogue Trader character starts at 5,000xp, compared to a Dark Heresy character's 400xp, and a significant part of that difference is the +5 to every characteristic (that's an average of somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500xp worth of advances). A direct 1:1 comparison of starting characters doesn't really work, because a starting Rogue Trader character is equivalent to a Dark Heresy character in the middle of rank 4 (with RT characters tending towards slightly higher characteristics, but slightly fewer skills and talents and less skill mastery, than their DH equivalents).

As for the matter of NPCs... you actually generate them using the same system as for the PCs? Why? It's far easier, far more effective and allows for a far greater range of potential characters by simply generating them in an ad-hoc manner, particularly as the standard PC Career Paths only cover a very narrow selection of the possible kinds of character that could exist in the 40k universe. Certainly, none of the NPCs in either rulebook were created using the character creation rules...

Acolyte-Plath said:

That argument can easily be flipped to: "If we wanted to create characters purely by random rolls we'd do so anyway."

Also, there's nothing stopping you from doing the Origin Path at random either. Notice that all aspects on the Origin Path have six choices on each row? Why not break out the ol trusty d6 and simply roll which Homeworld or which Motivation your character has (depending on if you want to do it from top to bottom or bottom to top), and then simply roll a d3 or d2 for each of the subsequent choices depending on where you land in the Origin Path, or roll a d6 for each aspect if you don't like to having to follow a set path.

If you don't have any problem fudging results and choosing aspects at character creation in games where randomization is the rule, then what's stopping you from randomozing results in a game that is based on player choice more than randomization?

I just don't see the problem here. That said, I see plenty of problems with games whose RAW stick way too much to random rolls, because the results can end up pretty stupid in the end. Both Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader have these inherent flaws, where the rules state that normally you are supposed to roll each characteristic separate from the other, and you may only change ONE result by re-rolling it and you have to accept the subsequent result.

This can result in Techpriests with extremely low Intelligence (not appropriate at all), or Clerics with extremely low Willpower (also not very appropriate), and even Guardsmen who barely know how to pull a trigger, or why not an Assassin with piss poor Agility and who couldn't sneak up on a blind and a deaf person without being noticed.

That's why my group (and pretty much every group I've played with) just roll 2d10 nine times and write them down, and then you assign them in the way you want. That way, you keep a sense of randomness to the results and few characters are likely to end up over/under-powered from the start, but still maintain some creative control to which characteristic should have which result.

A game that doesn't support player choices is, in my opinion a lot worse than a game not written with randomization in mind. We're roleplayers after all, we usually have access to all manner of exotic dice, so there's nothing stopping us from doing exactly everything at random in character creation if we wanted to...

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I noted this, however I object to it. There's no justification for it whatsoever. Rogue traders and their retinues are a varied bunch to say the least and it's absurd to make the assumption that they're superior to agents of the Inquisition. They're just as likely to be inaffectual foppish dandys as fantastically competent heros. Warrants of trade are hereditary. Also, Rogue traders are often counted as acolytes of an Inquisitor and never the other way around.

As far as creating NPCs with the PC generation system, I like doing it that way and since most of my NPCs are humans it works fine and allows for a quick and varied cast (especially for a Hereticus campain). I leave the ad-hoc to filthy xenos, demons and beasts. I find the NPCs in the sourcebooks to be rather one-dimentional and prefer more than a stat-line and short description. Trust me, I've been doing this since I was five. I know how to GM.

If you'd bothered to read my whole post you would have noted that I said I was going to. I in fact even offered to post a table for those not savvy enough to work it out for themselves.

Here it is:
All but career D6.

Career D8.

You'd also note that I said I just wanted the choice. I enjoy not having to write exhaustive tables (above rather less than of course) and it's often a little destructive to mood when you have to pause and think about what 'random peasant' looks like. Hell I guess I should just write my own game allong with the background instead of paying £40 for one and expecting it to be worth it.

Acolyte-Plath said:

Be that as it may, it's no excuse for spewing vitriol or getting into a temper because people present a dissenting opinion.

Acolyte-Plath said:

You'd call:

"All but careers D6.

Career D8."

an "exhaustive table"?..

Now I don't want to call you lazy, but having to come up with that doesn't seem very troublesome at all, nor does it change the original game material much.

Acolyte-Plath said:

Seriously, you're actually saying that because the rulebook didn't contain:

"All careers D6.

Career D8"

You don't think all those beautiful illustrations, those exhaustive texts of game background, high quality prints, tons of nifty game mechanics (although maube not perfect every time, they sure are good) and it's actually compatible with a completely different game, it's not worth the money you paid for it?

The book lacked a five word "exhaustive" table, and suddenly it's not worth more than toiletpaper?

Also, once again your sentiment can be completely reversed. What If I just said:

-"Hell I guess I should just write my own game along with the background instead of paying £40 for one and expecting it to be worth it. This piece of garabage is just filled to the brim with rules based all about randomized rolls with no support for player choice at all. Utter garbage!"

The question is, which customer should FFG prefer? The one screaming for randomized rolls or the one wanting more player choice?

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This is vitriol?

Varnias Tybalt said:

By not including randomisation in the book you remove player choice. As far as preffered customers are concerned I'm not even sure you're being serious there.

As far as those beautiful illustrations are concerned I notice John Blanche isn't credited for all the work of his on those pages. I'll be mailing him about this of course.

You seem to be over-reacting which is amusing, as it's what you're accusing me of. I never said it was garbage, but I was reacting to the attitude that I should just shut up and write things for myself. I fail to see how it's unreasonable to expect similar, basic elements to be included in this sequal to the first 40K rpg. Don't try and shout me down please. I'm not actually that angry about this, just thought it was a little thoughtless. If you'd read all my origional post you'd see mainly compliments directed at the game. In fact, RT has joined the ranks of my most treasured posessions.

And they say I'm spitting vitriol.

Acolyte-Plath said:

Actually, pretty much all rulebooks for roleplaying games include some sort of disclaimer telling the reader that all rules and game mechanics are mostly meant to be tools and not laws, and that GM's and players are encouraged to change or ommit particular rules they don't like or that they feel don't fit their needs or prefered playing style, so the choices are still there.

As for my question about prefered customers, the question was very serious. However I'll admit it was a bit of a trick question, meant to evoke a little philosophical thinking on your part.

Acolyte-Plath said:

What made you think im trying to shout you down? As far as I can see, there's only one single exclamation mark in my entire post, so what part of it did you interprate as shouting?

Second, I think it's unreasonable that one would actually find something wrong with that the book didn't happen to contain a table consisting of only five words. Especially when it is so easy to just implement that specific change yourself, and not that hard to come up with on your own.

Acolyte-Plath said:

Well, your responses to everyone else who has posted on this thread have read as ceaselessly irate, almost as if you are unwilling to listen to any other opinion. Your tone has been apparently very sharp and harsh, and frankly you come off as more than a little self-righteous. I posted a single comment, one that didn't attempt to disagree or rebuff your initial post but rather add a little context (because, veteran gamer or not, a new game is a new game), and you practically bit my head off with your response.

So yeah, from my perspective, your posts have been more than a little vitriolic.

Acolyte-Plath said:

Don't have much to add to any other part of the conversation except for this part. GW regularly recycles the art it buys and passes it on to those they license to use their IP. There are many more bits of recycled art in DH that didn't receive any credit on the credits page but it might have been a bit difficult for FFG to track down who had originally done a lot of the pieces they used and didn't contract an artist themselves to produce. However, they aren't required to credit the artist in the case of the works they received from GW.

GW, from what I understand, buys the copy right for works produced for them strait out, they don't lease it. As such, they own the work of art free and clear and the right to copy and reproduce it in any manner they see fit. The artist is usually credited with the production of the work wen it first appears but not on subsequent reproductions of it. That's just part of the deal when an artist sells the copy right to their work, at least that's my understanding of how the copy righting of freelance work goes. If it was work for hire (such as in the case of Imaginary Friends Studio -you'll find the studio credited but not the artist of which there are about 12) then the studio will own the copyright strait out of the gate and, in a lot of cases, the artist will never be credited with the work.

All this happens a lot with advertising firms and publishing. The cover artist for a novel will usually be credited with "jacket design" on the hard back, but when the same painting and layout is used for the soft cover edition, there will be no credit for the cover work.

That's interesting. I did wonder if it was something of that nature, but I still think it's strange that they don't credit him. His work has inspired a great deal of the background and I would have thought that his 'stamp' as it were would be a credit to the publication.

You're likely right. I'm a volatile person.

You are of course correct when you say that most games do have such a disclaimer. It is however a fact that eludes many rules-lawyering players and GMs. It doesn't explain why the content which was so apparent in Dark Heresy is absent from Rogue Trader. It doesn't excuse it either.

If you write things to provoke a reaction, expect a reaction. In my case pathos isn't my favorite suit.

Acolyte-Plath said:

So what you're saying is that it is the inexcusable author's fault that these disclaimers elude rules-lawyering players and GM's?

I don't mean to be rude or anything but it seems like you toss around some misplaced blame here. If these disclaimers are overlooked by rules-lawyers, then it is the rules-lawyers' fault for not reading the book thoroughly enough.

Also, rules-lawyering is a true scourge of RPG-gaming and something that anal players and GM's would do much better without. I have yet to see an RPG where the rules aren't explicitly explained as being tools to the game rather than laws of the game. Every book I've cracked open have had more or less the same philosophy regarding the rules, and if he rules-lawyers miss that, then it's their own fault, not the authors.

Acolyte-Plath said:

If you say so. But I stick by what I said, and I did not try to "shout you down" as you claim I did.

Once again, im not trying to be rude here, but you might want to think things through before posting, since you seem to display a pattern of misplaced blame. You critizise the authors because of a mistake frequently made by rules-lawyering gamers, and then you blame me for trying to "shout you down" when I clearly didn't.

All im saying is that sometimes the cause of ones felt outrage might not be located where one think it is. You feel me?

Look I'm not really interested in having an arguement here. The fact is that the option to choose has been left out of this book and not only is it the origin path, but the appearance section, the divinations. To be honest I was actually hoping to have a response from the authors themselves, but I suppose I'll have to try contacting them via email.

If you want to know why I thought (and still do) that you're trying to get me to shut up it's pretty simple. I make a statement, pose a few questions and all of a sudden I'm inundated with people telling me I've no right to complain. Rather than consider the meat of what I said all I get are nit-picking comments on small issues. Well forgive me for not laying down and taking it.

I appreciate some of the replies as some people have actually been kind enough to explain a few things which were helpful... well one, but I'm really not interested in this tedious to-and-fro.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Sorry. I think we're on the same page as a rule. I've no problem with blame here and no desire to address that. I just wanted to know why. I'm used to fighting my corner and as such I can respect that sentiment.