I was in the barnes and knoble today and i came across the dark heresy core rule book. As a player of 40k and D&D i was immediately captivated. I've looked into this a little bit and wanted to know what people who play it think.

Anyone got any tips for me?

For instance, what are some similarities to D&D, different aspects of being a GM, just some over all thoughts on the game

Consider the characteristic tests like d20 rolls, with set difficulties for almost any given action. To give it relativity to D&D, consider the statistics of a d20: each side of a d20 is worth 5% of the roll. Getting a 9 or less on a d20 has a 45% success rate. Getting a 45 or below on a d100 characteristic test is going to have the same success as a getting a 9 or less on a d20.

Talents are pretty much the equivalents to both feats and class abilities. Taking the Two Weapon Wielder talent is very similar to taking the Two Weapon Fighting feat - it lessens penalties.

Bonuses are pretty much the equivalent to D&D's Modifiers - you add your strength bonus to melee attacks, for instance.

A Good quality item is very similar to a Masterwork weapon, actually - for melee weapons, you add 5% to attack rolls, almost exactly parallel to a Masterwork's +1 enhancement bonus to attacks.

Suffice to say that there are a LOT of parallels..

Unusualsuspect said:

Yeah like the entire skill list is taken straight from 3.5 with some names changed to protect the guilty. Many of the talents are likewise.

LuciusT said:

Well, there are only so many applicable talents or skills for a game like this, it isn't borrowing or stealing when the results are going to logically be similar. That is like saying break stole its skills from pancake because it makes strong use of egg, flour and water.

This is what I usually say to any new players/GMs I catch: there is a pre-existing misconception that early characters in Dark Heresy repeatedly fail to perform to expected results and that they die too often. Again, both misconceptions arising from people using the system for something it was in all likelihood not meant to do. A pre-emptive apology if I sound harsh in saying "This is what the game is meant to do no fun allowed", but these two are real issues I see.

Firstly, skill tests. Because skills are rolled against their corresponding characteristic (intelligence for lores, strength for intimidation etc), and most acolytes start at 30-40 base, people often find they fail things about 60% of the time (which, for a trained specialist in their field shouldn't happen). The key to this is to liberally apply situational modifiers to the roll.

Early on, you should either never be testing an acolyte on their base skill, or at least give them a generous capacity to accumulate support. That +0 modifier is for a 'challenging' (in the words of the rulebook) test. If an acolyte has access to tools, time, and a reasonable safety net, should they really be testing at their base characteristic? Or would they be likely to receive a +20, 20, or even 30 bonus? Likewise, feel free to give them negative penalties (they just waltzed into the Governor's mansion filled to the brim with guns, grenades, and full body armour - is a charm test really going to be that easy?), but I'd be careful about slapping these down early unless a PC is really asking for it, since early acolytes need all the help they can get in those formative ranks, and even reasonably skilled acolytes aren't supreme masters of their art.

Also, how much you succeed or fail by matters. Failing a Tech-Use test to repair a toaster doesn't mean it explodes in your face. Failing it by something truly terribly like 50% or more and it probably will though.

The second complaint: lethality. People often complain that acolytes like flies. This is again a bit of a misconception - unless your GM sends in a carnifex, in which case you would reasonably expect everyone to die and your GM to never return to your group. But in the majority of cases, acolytes can generally take a fair few bullets and walk away with no major damage, especially if armoured. The case has even been made that people in DH can take more damage than what would be expected.

The lethality is more rooted in tactics. In DH, making a firing line against the enemy cultists is foolish in the purest sense of the word. Acolytes can take a few hits but if you stand in the open you will get lit up like a christmas tree. Start taking cover, suppressing the enemy, and sending full-auto salvos into exposed enemies and you'll have a much easier time.

Really, the two major misconceptions from DH arise from people overestimating what an acolyte is capable of, both in terms of skills and in a general approach to combat. Provided you and your players use your heads in scenarios and try to stack odds in your favour, Dark Heresy isn't as lethal as you'd imagine. Also, Fate Points. It's plot armour just waiting to be used each session.

Once again Hobo Hunter, I agree almost 100% with your statements.

A basic skill test inherently has a +10 modifier to it, you get a buddy to help you out with that investigation or fixing that dreaded toaster and you can get another +10 or so added to the roll. With the proper books, tooks, data slate, code breaking machine or whatever and you add another +10 to your ability. At that point you have already added +30 to you skill. If you are the adept of the group and this is an investigation/research roll well you should be in the 70s by now, assuming you have a INT of 40 or so.

Same goes for combat overall, it would not be unusual for a slobbering savgage feral guardsman to have a WS of 40 at Rank 1 (heck you can spend 350 XP to have +10 added to your Guardsman's WS or BS at Rank 1) charging in for an all ouot attack with a best quality axe would be a 70% to hit, add in his side kick Robin the Scum and teh big oaf gets another +10, making him at 80 to hit. Assuming this oaf has S 40 or so, and is using a big best quality great Axe he may be doing 2D10+5 damage, and thats going to smart!

So its all in application.

For me a big difference between D&D and Dark Heresy is that in D&D (and a lot of RPG's for that matter) once the characters are of higher level there is little risk of being killed unless they are being attacked by a big nasty monster/spell/etc. In Dark Heresy even high ranking characters can be taken down by a lucky shot to the head.

To add to Hobo Hunter and Peacekeeper_b's notes, which I agree with fully, unlike many other games a reasonable tool will give a fairly large bonus to the roll rather (rather than reduce in it's absence). There are a number of examples in the main book and in the Inquisitors handbook but there really could be a near infinate list of ideas such as various text books, tools etc.

All in all it gives you a huge amount of variety for a system. There are no real dud's or bad character choices (given a campaign that reflects it) and the options for gm who want's create their own story can be so great as to be daunting but there is enough background in the main book to give you good ideas of where to go even if you don't want to limit yourself to the described worlds.

Dark Heresy is deceptively simple in comparison to D&D when you first look it over, yet DH can add immense complexities utilizing talents, skills, modifiers and such. In the end though, it all comes down to a percentile roll. That's right, toss out all your dice except the two d10's that come in your dice set when you're playing Dark Heresy (like that would ever happen.) When rolling, a result less than or equal to the target number is a success. A result greater than the target number is a failure. Generally, these target numbers are based on your skills and/or basic attributes. Degrees of success/failure can and often do come into play as well.

D&D defines all of the rules for many different types of tests. In 3.5e for example, this included wrestling, disarming, breaking down a door, damaging equipment, etc.... Dark Heresy took a different path from D&D on this. Rather than defining the situation, DH defines the types of tests your character will make in a game. It's up to your GM to determine the best possible attribute or skill to base the test off of.

In DH, you have two basic types of rolls. Both have target numbers based on skills or attributes (plus the relevant mods). The first roll is where you are trying to beat a target number (such as trying to hit an opponent in melee combat). The second is an opposed roll. This is where you are trying to outperform someone else such as in a stealth check (both of you making simultaneous skill checks and comparing who got the larger degree of success.)

In Dark Heresy, if you want to wrestle your opponent to the ground, you both make opposed strength checks. If you succeed by more degrees of success (every 10% below/above the target number is a degree) than your opponent, you succeed at the attempt. If you fail to beat your opponent, they fend off your attempt. This is the basic roll. Obviously, in the game there will be a bewildering array of situations that can modify the results of a roll. Some examples are: Hulking models (such as terminators) gain a +10% modifier to their target number making it easier to succeed against a smaller opponent in a wrestling match, for instance. Slippery ground could add in a modifier for both opponents if fighting in a rainslicked street. If one opponent is on higher ground, they may gain a bonus of 10% for gaining a bit of leverage over their opponent. Needless to say, in every case you can make accommodations for a myriad of modifiers if you and your GM so desire.

As a side note, weapons are much more varied and flexible with the weapon qualities that are assigned to them. No more cookie cutter approach where your weapons all work in the same manner. You'll know what I'm talking about the first time you use a weapon with the "Tearing" quality. Also, if your Ballistic Skill is low or you are unlucky with dice rolls, I recommend equipping your characters with "flame" weapons. Your flaming an enemy doesn't rely so much on rolling to hit, but your opponents rolling to get out of the way.

To me, overall, the concepts in Dark Heresy are more flexible and therefore can be applied to a much wider array of scenarios than the rules in other game systems can ever hope to cope with.

I have found that Dark Heresy (and for that matter WFRP 2e) gave me a more flexible system right out of the core rulebook to work with without having 75 splat books to fix all the holes in a system. Also, while the Dark Heresy books are more expensive on average than some other role playing games, I find them to be of higher quality production with more detail than their competitors. Over the long run, since I don't need to buy as many rulebooks it's much easier on my wallet.

After all, gamer OCD requires me to have everything produced by a specific game company if I play that game.

In my opinion Dark Heresy is well worth getting into if you love the 40k setting and are an avid RPer.

For the Emperor!!!

Interesting thing about the naming of the different modifiers...

Do most DH GMs here actually give players +10 rolls (Ordinary) as a default for skill tests? Or do you make them roll with no modifiers (Challenging) before applying situational/gear modifiers?

Nihilius said:

Honestly, I would say we get negative modifiers in our games more than we do flat rolls or bonuses. I guess the game I play in has less than ordinary situations an inordinate amount of the time.

There have been a few passive-aggressive moments in recent games from players based on application of negative modifiers and unrealistic circumstances.

I guess maybe my group is not the best group to take your answer from.

Hrm... I'd have to say that DH is similar to DnD in the basic mechanics. There are skills. There are talents. You roll dice . Though instead of d20's you roll d%'s. There are 'classes' and 'levels' and you gain XP and generally each 'class' is good at something the others aren't.

The differences are that DH is more story driven than campaign driven. There are no encounter tables and bad guys don't really have Challenge ratings. What you fight at rank 1 and what you fight at rank 8 can be the same and still be pretty dangerous. Your character doesn't gain more power with each level as much as they gain more skills and talents. There are no level modifiers on rolls. Also because of the nature of what ever story you are in the character's aren't motivated by gaining loot and slaying powerful monsters (well... mostly). The motivation really is more or less to do the job at hand as best as they can and stay alive.

Also the game isn't quite as combat oriented. Don't get me wrong... There's fighting and killing a plenty. But its not the mainstay of the whole game. As for the combat part it is quite brutal. Your characters don't get 'x' amount of HP per level. They have what they start with unless they take a special talent that increases their 'HP' by one point... period. So when you fight you have to fight smart or you end up dead very fast. There are lots of tactics and things to think about in combat (like cover... LOVE IT). Standing out in the open swinging a sword will get you ventilated quick in this game.

As for how the game 'usually' runs that really depends of the GM. Some like to make their stories full of high-adventure, blazing bolt guns and body parts everywhere. While others go for intrigue, mystery or even horror. Chances are, most of the time you'll get a mixture of the two. But this game is story driven. Its not usually a few random encounter rolls and some dungeon crawling.

Now there are all sorts of other nuances to this game but you'll see them as you play it. Enjoy yourself.

PS: I play and enjoy DnD so I hope this doesn't seem like I'm bashing it. They're just two very different kinds of games, but both are fun IMO.

Nihilius said:

I don't see much of a difference in saying that a character hiding in some shadows would make an (Ordinary)+10 Concealment check vs saying the shadows the character is in gives him a +10 to his Concealment check. A modifier is a modifier is a modifier. In fact the latter seems to be easer for me then remembering the various arbitrary levels of difficulty and what they could actually mean. I just give a +10 for every Thing that can hep a character preform an action and a -10 for everything Thing that would make it more complicated (Thing being any major feature that has an immediate and direct impact on the action being preformed).

Graver said:

Sounds like a good way to use modifiers. My point was that given the wording, a default test (like say, trailing a character through a city) would be at +10. There are after all situations which wouldn't include any modifiers.

I usually use a +10, at least in mundane situations. After all, my Acolytes aren't that high a rank yet so they tend to encounter normal locked doors, mundane security systems, people fairly easy to intimidate, and the like. Dealing with those does not justify a +0 in my opinion.

The Hobo Hunter said:

Exactly. I would take this advice to the next ( strategic ) level: "Do Not Start Unnecessary Fights". Most of the Acolytes work is undercover, and attracting attention is counter-productive. Talk, bribe, cajole, threaten, infiltrate, sabotage. Only fools shoot first if there are other ways to get the results your Inquisitor wants.

Our group has even had a stand-off in an out of the way bar with guns pulled on both sides after an altercation where fists got bloodied. It is amazing how a party can restrain itself when a simple barfight has the ability to go out of control.

LOVE THIS GAME!

LeBlanc13 said:

Hehehe.... When in a small town which is more or less owned by a widowed noblewoman, be careful who you call a "broad." Tact is not our feral guardsman's strong point. And, no, before any of you ask, he was not the one who was supposed to be doing the talking. He merely interjected a question at a moment when others were silent in thought. I love the insanity that is our group LB13, makes the rest of the week worth while.

-=Brother Praetus=-