Nope, that's it, I've made my token effort to hammer some sense into you.

Back into your hole, Dezmond, you've had your fun with this forum now. Time to go back into hibernation until the next forum comes along.

Dezmond said:

The penalty of failure must be appropriate to the context and genre of the situation. It's inappropriate for a computer game... but a pen-and-paper RPG is not a computer game, though you seem unable to accept this. What works in one does not necessarily work in the other.

Death being permanent does not inherently preclude combat... it means that combat is risky, but risky is fun - risky means that survival and victory is an accomplishment, rather than a mundane assumption. It is very, very easy to run combat-heavy games in any RPG, even those where death is the end... indeed, the risk of death encourages ingenuity and creativity. If death is a minor inconvenience at best, then nobody will try anything new... they'll just keep grinding the situation until they win. If death is a very real and very final consequence, it encourages thought and the kind of crazy ideas that result in victory against overwhelming odds.

I think that most people (World of Warcraft addicts aside) will agree that dull, repetitive grinding of a situation until success is achieved is boring, while exciting, cinematic creativity and in-depth tactical considerations are more interesting.

Dezmond said:

You seem to have some difficulty with concepts of duration and continuity.

A table-top game of 40k begins and ends with the beginning and ending of the battle. That is the whole game. There is no "respawn", just a new game. The same with most board games. Of course deaths don't carry over. The next game is separate and e discrete, not part of an onging occurance.

If you're playing in a necromunda/mordheim/gorkamorka/Inquisitor campaign then there is a chance (albeit a small one) of permanent death (at least for that campaign) or maiming or other consequences for a given character.

The chance of permanent consequences goes hand in hand with permanent advances. In table top 40k units stats are static and don't change because it's an issue of each game being independant. In the others mentioned above, both advancement and consequences carry from one game to the next.

The majority of RPGs (not video games w/ that label slapped on just b/c you can advance a char. and twiddle w/ stats) follow a more traditional narrative story telling approach.

A one-shot begins and ends in one adventure/mission/story-arc (like a short story, or single episodic tv series such as The Twilight Zone) and there is no connection between one story and the next. This means that after it is over there are neither consequences, nor persistant changes.

A campaign is more like a novel, movie, or TV series, one story arc follows another and events have ongoing outcomes both positive and negative.

For most people, if they read a novel series or watched a movie where the characters "just respawn" the writers better have a damned good narrative explanation or their works get put down or switched off. Even daytime soap operas and comic books have to provide some explanation when they bring someone back from the dead. (Unless they completely restart as some comic ad film franchises have been known to do)

The respawn phenomena is generally a videogame thing. There is also a distinction between respawn and returning to a saved game.

In video games with respawn generally there is nothing significant the player can do to affect the outcome of the pre-set story. (Hell in most video-games, even so called RPGs this is true). A character merely respawns from his death b/c the story progresses with or without it. The character is essentially irrelevant except for whatever discrete function the writers of the story chose for it.

In video games w/ save points you aren't "respawning" you're rewinding to a previous condition. Different concept and limiting in a different way. Again you're locked into a story with limited courses of action and limited outcomes but some such games have several variations (or paths) you can take through the story to reach different results. There are consequences but with a save point you can go back and try something differet. But again your choices are so limited I see little role-playing in such games other than in the old "choose-your-own-adventure" children's books sense.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking video games, I like quite a few of them, but if I want to play a video game a play one. I sit down to play role-playing game to play a role and establish a story (which may well be a combat and carnage filled story, but a story nonetheless) which will have a narritive and in which the actions of my character have the potential to matter one way or the other.

+++++A table-top game of 40k begins and ends with the beginning and ending of the battle. That is the whole game. There is no "respawn", just a new game. The same with most board games. Of course deaths don't carry over. The next game is separate and e discrete, not part of an onging occurance.+++++

Aye, and the argument is to move a roleplaying game to be more akin to a series of games - to make the basic block of the game the 'encounter'. So you can concentrate on making each encounter as fun as possible.

Not fun at some undefined point in the future but fun now.

The rebounding health bar from Halo et al is the defining concept here - it makes each exchange of gunfire discrete. You arn't worrying about getting through this fight with enough health to get through the next one. You arn't constantly hoarding health packs or ammo rather than having fun expending them.

Combat in video games is just infinitly more entertaining than in most roleplaying games, and it isn't fully because of the differences in medium - there are similar reasons why short, fun board games like Settlers get a lot of play.

+++++In video games with respawn generally there is nothing significant the player can do to affect the outcome of the pre-set story. (Hell in most video-games, even so called RPGs this is true).+++++

That is a limitation of computer games though - on a tabletop it is easy to see what the results of the encounter were (did the bad guys massacre the kittens, or did the PCs stop him) and modify the story to account for it (is the next scene having to explain to little Timmy that his kittens were sacrificed to the dark gods, or a joyous reunion bettween cat and boy).

Oops! Seem to have stumbled into the wrong forum... I thought this topic was about Space Marines and Dark Heresy. My mistake.

Hey, maybe if I go to the Call of Duty boards they'll be discussing things such as "I wish my character could have more social encounters... all this killing gets a bit samey to me" and "I hate respawning. It's soooo unrealistic! I want perma-death!"

+++++I hate respawning. It's soooo unrealistic! I want perma-death!+++++

You get em. Just that the people making the games are sensible enough to smile, nod and completely ignore them.

There isn't ever, EVER, going to be a GW video game that features any kind of perma-death. So why do we have to put up with it?

A Marine game with perma-death and potential long downtimes between fights wouldn't be worth playing.

Dezmond said:

Because those are computer games . They're a different genre to RPGs, and thus have different standards.

Dezmond said:

To you, perhaps. However, you should stop pretending you speak for everyone in the history of the world ever .

If you don't like it - don't play it . Go and play a computer game instead. You seem utterly repulsed by almost every facet of playing an RPG, so why even bother trying them, when you're just going to compare them unfavourably to computer games, post youtube videos and be generally annoying and trollish.

We get it. You like video games. Fine. Go and play one. Go and play several, in fact. But for the love of cake, please go and do those things somewhere else, and let us get on with discussing RPGs.

Gentlemen, please keep things civil .

I dislike having to get involved in threads like this one, so don't provoke exterminatus. Consider this the first and only warning.

+++++They're a different genre to RPGs, and thus have different standards.+++++

Like being fun and popular...

Just wanted to hit on Docill's comments up above.

He's spot on (to me) as to what's going on with rule sets and durations in different types of games. Most of the table-top Warhammer 40K is short-duration, static stats and rules for a single shot battle. Given that that is where most of us saw Space Marines being used and then transfered to some RTS computer game with a campaign in mind, but with the same static skills/rules... (Dawn fo War for instance) Well, you can compare that to simpky say that's how Space Marines are...but they really aren't. We're all just shown them doing one singular task: Fighting off the mass battles. of which in the computer game we can see how they think some anyways.

It's atypical of how things work in an RPG pencil and paper game however. The Space Marines in this genre aren't static skilled, and can do more then simply go to the front lines...however you're still talking about a mostly brainwashed-indoctrinated attitude with the Emperor and his teachings. True they can bend such teachings (as we've all seen with working with Eldar for a spell, or having to make a hard choice of duty vs what might be better for the Imperium in the greater good of things) Still though...I have yet to read about them (save for Alpha legion and look where such thinking got them eh..choas marines!) doing the stuff you see an Acolyte team doing on a daily basis. Can we count the Deathwatch as just an acolyte team? Maybe...but they are up in the forefront, again doing stuff Acolytes would soil thier trousers at.

What's my point? Oh I forgot about that . Space marines aren't the infalluable drones you may think from just seeing a war game with them in it. On the other hand they do tend to do the massive jobs that others just couldn't handle. And to reference Dawn of War again (let alone some novels), Space Marines fall prey and even meddle in things they might have been taught not to do otherwise. (Libraians falling into a chaos priests lure for exmaple, jusut because they had good intentions, like any Human)

So all this Space Marines 'do not' do things...is it really true? They tend to strecth the truth if it's the honourable thing to do, they tend to work temporarily with the less hostile of xenos on occaision, and chapters have been brought down to the lure of chaos many times. (As people have cited here). That also reinforces the things they do deal with...they are just beyond mere acolyte duties. Same stuff, different level. Most acolytes barely pass beyond that stage (and the player group is that small exception, casualties and all). And you'd want to put an Astartes below an Inquisitor in usefulness? Kind of insulting to the Space Marine in the end, but maybe that's my cheap sense of pride talking.

In the end though, I reckon because Dark Hersey deals with the Inquisition, that I'd probably say different if it dealt with all aspects of Imperial life inside it...and not just having the PC's (player characters) as Acolyte team members. So again, look at the game's focus...you wouldn't put a football (soccer) player in a cricket game? For me it has nothign to do with a Space Marine character itself. They are playable and quite fun to roleplay...with other Astates (and sometimes regular Humans) in Astartes driven missions. So until you can show me an Inquisitor who' allowed to use non Ordo Maelleus or Xenos Astartes, and puts them on a backwater world (and attempts to hide it lol), then I'd happily back down and agree. So, could someone show me a prime example, of say a squad of a lone chapter space marines being paired with acolytes for one of the acolytes mission? IUn fact, can you show me Space Marines doing Adeptus Arbite duties or Imperial Guard Garrisoning? Or bette ryet, show me an Astartes chapter running an Imperial governors post (and not not the Chapters homeworld lol), for some agri world, or a Temple world?

I'm reckoning no one can....but I'd loved to be proved wrong, as it would clarify what Space Marines are really for in the Imperium and why one can justify putting them into say, a common labourers job. (And I admit I'm laughing at that last statement.) But ti's roleplay you may say? yeah and it's also against the grain of the reason for thier being genetically modified soldiers and why everyone isn't just given the enhancements and set about any taks. And if that doesn't make you question it, I don't know what will.

Dak Rogers said:

Most arguments are subjective so I think that became offical some time when humans started to be humans, and had discussions. When it comes to skill and personality, how do you reason? Are carpenters similar in their personality, or people good at using computers?

Dak Rogers said:

But now you are letting your own standards for the setting act as the default ones. I would not kill or drop a character as a GM just because he has no place in the skill spectrum, as long as that character is entertaining. That must be the overall goal, to be entertaining. You can't let the setting getting in the way of having fun.

Dak Rogers said:

If we are simply talking about the rules, well yes, you are right. But all the things written about the two classes also means something which is probably the most important reason for dividing them. Otherwise you could just stop making new careers, like Sisters of Battle. What are they but female guardsmen on steriods, a little less compared to marines, but soliders just the same? What you want is the flavour, not bumped up stats.

Dude. This has got to be a Marine weapon.

Solardream said:

hmm yes and no - again as you mention it depends on the "level" of the game you are running - if you are dealing with a couple of dodgy cultists at the bottom of a hive then yeah the Space marine is massive overkill - I guess I have just run larger scale games usually with one player as aInterogator or Inquisitor.

Sending a team of Marines to a backwater world for a specific task/ elimiation/recon is very different to turning them into "common labourers" - I not sure where you go that from? On that subject the Salamanders do interact with their homeworld and have forges etc - so are craftsmen - presume thats beneath them? Ultramarines and others I guess run whole areas of space not just their homeworld.

The Inquisiton uses whatever and whoever it can to get the job done - at leasts thats how I see it, so you can have pretty much anyone - Space Marines, Xenos, mutants, whatever..............many of whom are as single mineded, dedicated, difficult to disguise or whatever as Marines.

I guess we see different things in the game - to me its just more background, fluff and mechanisms to let me play in the 40k Universe - I am certainly not restricted to having all players as very very minor people - although that can be fun.

By the by, this thread represents an excellent demonstration of how to roleplay Marines -

Everyone chooses a different Warrior Ideal for their Marine - Viking Beserker, US Marine (Ooh-Rah), Greek Hero, Knight in Shining Armour, Anime Sword-Saint, whatever, and proceeds to attempt to live up to it and convince everyone else that their way of doing things is best.

Hilarity (and epic carnage) Ensues.

sounds about right

strict code of condut a raison to banish SM? certainly not or you need to put out allmost all class

cleric need to follow the imperial creed and pray the god emperor whit fervor they consider heretic xenos and mutant whit more hate that everyone else

assassins have there how code one elite advancecement say failling a mission grant you a death mark by yoour peer and your a KOS vs your assassins order

gardmans have to follow theimperial creed and commissar are there to be sure they obey order AND to the emperor religion

arbitrator beleived in emperial law like the cleric follow the god emperor so they code is very strong too (they beived in the imperial creed too) in the book they says some inquisitor dont take member of the arbitres in fear to be juge and kill by them (and is certainly a possibility if the guys go on the radical way)

psyker have a good freedow but they have Survival Rules ( stay alert ....never loose control...stay strong) or they can put there life in danger ( 2 of my spyker player finish with an ammo in the head shot by others player after they have a catastrofphic roll on psychic phenomena followed by a very bad roll on peril of the warp) ( this is the prive for power)

tech-priest workship the god machine like the cleric beleive in the god emperor.......and each machine a part of the god machine they certainly not act again there god and destroy machine ....they can betrayed there fellow acolyte in favor of a tech piece or a tech knowledge

the sororitas follow both a mmilitary code and the god emperor religion ( like palidin in D&D)

all of them have roleplaying restriction and a stric code player must follow ( lot of the talents list in the class are fonction of those code of conduits so if you dont lay it you can be penalise by loosing the apropriate talent) ----- my point of view here------

vs the other class SM code is not very different and not more restrictive in term of code of conduit ( whit some differennce in fonction of the chapter.....grey knight code IS REALY RESTRICTIVE but they are special even for the astartes )

adept and scum have the most freedoms in term of code

In final what is realy matters is you the gm ( and your players ) can you play or not with a SM player. all of the class can be roleplayed every class have is restriction in term of attitute and possibility and all of them can be fun ( all conditions is fonction of the group )

i played in 2 groups one where i have lot of fun ( whit lot of roleplay ...sometime we stand up to play the scene....) (always remember the chain sword duel of the friend using empty 2l pepsi bottle as weapons ) and one where player dont form a very cooperative group ( every ones debate constanly and where i have lot less fun) i realy dont see a SM in the second group but in the 1st? well presently we dont have one but i m pretty sure we can manage it in the group

You're seriously posting a picture as your only reply? Seriously?

Darn these word things as a means of making ones point...

Kage

1000 words of total awsome right there buddy.

It is threads like this where it really hurts my feelings there is no Private Messaging on these forums. There are a couple people in this thread who I would so dearly like to send my respects and sympathies to...

Is everyone aware of the various attempts to produce true-scale (As Big As What They Should Be) Space Marines?

God In Heaven what I would give to be able to buy boxes of those guys in plastic!

very cool minis

Dezmond said:

While we're at it, could we get Orks to scale, too?

cappadocius said:

Only when they sell as well as marines.

Dezmond said:

This is GW logic! MAYBE they'd sell as well as Marines if they got cool sculpts! Forgeworld does their Orks to scale, and if the weak dollar weren't killing the thought of me buying anything from Europe or the UK, I'd totally use their stuff.