I keep reading all these posts about the Ascension classes being "broken" because they don't balance with each other... and the problem is?? I remember the 3-ring binder versions of D&D from the 70's and trust me, most other RPGs through to the 80's and 90's were NOT balanced well (don't get me started on the Rifts Juicers). The classes are supposed to by used together and each is supposed to have different strengths. I don't see any problem with a Rank 16 Psyker being able to Push for all he is worth and leveling buildings, the Vindicare dodging nearly everything except assault cannons or the Interrogator/Inquisitor calling down orbital strikes or seconding Space Marine squads. At Rank 16, you are supposed to be some of the most powerful and Influential beings in the Sector. Period.

Now, I am wondering if this is ok by me since I can remember the 1st level Wizard with 4 HP and 1 Magic Missile a day who would always lose to the 1st level Fighter with 10 HP and a sword. At level 20, the Fighter didn't stand a chance! That was normal for nearly 20 years! Most other games had classes that could barely survive the first levels and others that GM's could barely kill at the last level. No problem.

My first thought is that MMO's changed all this... hell, I can remember starting on Cazic Thule at 8 hours past live time in what 1997 or so? And again, there was no class balance (Oh, how I loved my Druid quad-kiting through the hell levels.) Over the years, people have cried Foul, Nerf, Broken, etc. when one character class easily is "better" (usually in combat) than another until the grandfather of them all, D&D, now has a 4th edition that is basically a MMO role playing game without a computer. All the classes are pretty much the same (ok, broadly 4 types who just get different cards/spells/abilities). I have worked years at Waldenbooks, Babbages and the local hobby store and have forgotten as many games as most places nowadays actually stock. When did a make-believe game have to be "fair" to be fun? Role playing ... umm, playing a role... why do the stats matter if you are playing a class/role/archtype that you find enjoyable?

My next thought is that if the classes are truly broken, then any GM worth a thought must be going wild at the ultimate bad guys you can now create! RH has the ultimate nemesis Inquisitors if you campaign is playing Puritans and now the PC's have a chance against the things in CA. With the use of Fate Points, GM's can create truly deadly storylines without having to worry about killing off party members permanently. (You can always give back Fate Points the next adventure if your group is running low.)

Maybe, the problem with Ascension is that it really provides rules to become a different game altogether? Sure, you still investigate but now you have gone from beat cop looking for baddies to THE most secret police watching the leaders of worlds, commanders of fleets and even Chapter Masters of the Astartes. The Influence system works well so far (I have been using the basics from RT for the last few months with only a few hiccups) and the new powers/talents means you are a force when you decide to actually get your hands dirty. My players (again, from 31-44 years old) are looking forward to masterminds, intrigue of the nobility and factions of the Inquisition with the knowledge that now matter how powerful the book stats can make you, the GM is not limited by mere book rules but instead answers to the players in making a fun/exciting/dangerous, etc. etc. story to be enjoyed.

The bottom line is still the GM has the final say and if the players go nuts and create all-powerful characters, then create stories that challenge them in other ways... some of the time; it is always fun to unleash your full power and blast a dozen plus cultists to goo in a single die roll!

-Cynr

It's not age, its play style. I only have experience with DnD 3.0 and 3.5 outside of DDO, but in comparison, DH is a godsend when it comes to balance. I mean, epic level monk/wizard/sorc/cleric became pretty much the only viable classes at highest level. If you were swinging a sword you were going to get killed.

Nah, it's both age and style ....

But yeah, like it has been said before, roleplaying games don't need to be balanced, that's what you've got a GM for. *shrugs* Ascension can yet ruin your day (if you're the GM or player) if you're the only one in your group not into min-maxing and munchkinism, but everyone else is. Then again, perhaps one shouldn't be playing in that group from the start ... So many different kids of 'roleplayers', so many different approaches to a good game. In the end, you'll always get the best and most satisfying results in a group of likeminded people, yet at times it can be tricky to find those.

Cynr said:

*Stands, Salutes & Claps*

Glad i'm not the only old fart who sees that.

If i wanted Balance in my games i'd make everyone play Catan, not Munchkin during our "week off whilst the Ref writes the next part of the campaign"

Ok, so although I've never played an RPG till Dark Heresy, one thing became very clear, very quickly - "overpowered" is a matter of context. Astartes blasting down Cultists is overpowered, Astartes going toe to toe with, say, Necrons is not. You're only as powerful as the ass you kick, which is why when I eventually get Ascension (And maybe Deathwatch), I'm going to be more concerned about what enemies the PCs will be up against (Of which I've heard nothing, incidentally)

"Overpowered" comes into play for me precisely when you're definitely and undeniably better than another character in the party at that character's shtick while also being competent at your own. If, for example, you play a pilot in Star Wars and put pretty much every ressource you are given into improving your piloting skills and become a **** good pilot, that's fine. If another player comes, finds some other combination that is better than yours (let's call it "Jedi Pilot", because they're the prime candidates for cheese in Star Wars games) and still has decent abilities in, say, combat (didn't I say Jedi?), that's overpowered to me because he's making your character superfluous.

Funny thing is that you're only really pointing out why I always hated high level games in D&D (2nd through 3.5). You see the problem isn't that the classes aren't balanced in the sense of fighting each other. The problem is that it starts to become impossible to create balanced combat encounters for a party if all the characters differ drastically in power level. You either end up with combat encounters that are too easy for a few while just right for others, or too hard for some while just right for a few. This is not a new problem as you point out. It is a problem all the same however.

Tullio said:

I think that is the Imperial Guardsman's motto... or it should be.

-Cynr

Atheosis said:

Cifer said:

See, this is the flaw of, dear god I can't believe I'm going to phrase this this way, "modern" gaming. The game should not do all of the work for you and RPGs are not a zero-sum game, it's NOT a fething competition! There are a dozen ways to ruin that Jedi's day as a GM and give the orginary Han Solo (Wedge Antilles, etc, take your pick) pilot his moment of glory. This goes for ANY game. The combat psyker making your guardsman feel left out? Null rod him and make that guardsman feel special, put in a psychic blank and watch the psyker's A game crumble. Jedi got your soldier down, Ysamiri do the trick to yank him out of his element. It adds a degree of danger for the "overpowered" character and lets the "underpowered" character shine.

Yes, heaven forfend that the Gamemaster do some extra work to add that touch of spice /sarcasm. There are always ways to tailor your game to make someone the star for the day or make that super hero worry. Space Marine in your inquisitor's party got your guardsman down? Haul out someone with a krak missle launcher, that being easier to be hit cause you're hulking is suddenly a very LARGE detriment, while the nimble dodgy guardsman (or arbiter or whatnot) can strut his stuff. This is the stuff table top, pen & paper rpgs are made of and made for, not recreating a computer game without the hardware. D&D 3.0+ is a joke, a terrible joke, and it was on US! Your buddy wants to play a drow? Awesome, let him, he's more powerful than your standard elf, sure, but goodluck getting service, not being lynched, etc, etc. Those things are easily overlooked if your GM is lazy, not paying attention, or your game is just a combat slugfest. "But what about, several years down the line, when he's shown he's no longer a threat to all life around him and not going to skin you and eat babies!" then good for him, he's overcome his shortcoming and the rest of the party should be glad for him, I'm sure they'll be tired of being run out of town by that point and it's great story for the character, his moment of acceptance by the people who hated him until now. This does NOT need to be repaired by arbitrarily making you need to take an xp penalty or have to be higher level just to play the character you want.

The game is meant to be fun, imaginative and cooperative. I'm with Cynr 150%.

Excellent - I agree 100%

I'm with OP. I cringe every time I see a post (on any RPG forum) about a "build" or balance. Games are made to tell stories. It's up to the GM and the PC's to decide what those stories, and their power level, are composed of in the long run. I've seen discussions on this board about someone's game that I've simply shook my head at, knowing I'd never allow X character or Y player to do or play that concept, but I've read the write-ups just the same because they're all excellent stories.

The most irritating thing for me is when someone goes and runs off "game-breaking" builds by way of math etc. In all honesty, every single game out there can be broken. Rules can't encompass everything. They're there to provide frameworks, skeletons to flesh out for your own table. Supplements are meant to be used in the fashion that you decide. For example, I don't think I will ever allow more than 10% of the Radical's Handbook to be used... it's completely over-powered and dangerous to me. That being said, I think it's an absolutely amazing book and hit its goal head-on! Those attributes that are over-powered are exactly why Radicals exist! Any Radical campaign of mine would end in tribunals and everyone being shot. Such is the fate of the heretic.

In the end, it's up to everyone to decide what to do. Ascension gives us the ability to take the stories to the next level... call it Epic or Demigod or whatever. It provides a skeleton for someone to craft a game that exists on a completely different power level. And I think it nailed its goal. I'm a huge fan of it and can't wait for more. It opens the door to a whole new realm of the game and the Imperium.

Cynr, the problem is that you've put forwards the ROLEPLAYERS argument.

Almost all the moaning is coming from GAMERS who, in my opinion, don't really understand roleplaying games. Or rather simply understand them as games , forgetting the roleplaying aspect.

Those like yourself (and me) with some decades of experience in the hobby understand that 'balance' is a complete red herring.

Imagine the Watchmen movie (i'll use that due to its wider circulation - but the graphic novel is the source you should go to) is an RPG.

The gamer looks at Dr Manhatten and cries foul. 'He's too powerful! He's unbalanced! Blah blah...'

The roleplayer looks at Dr Manhatten and thinks, 'now here is a monumental roleplaying opportunity'...

Personally i think there are some core problems with the DH/RT 'engine', mainly around scalability and a serious lack of proofreading (hehe...) but all this hate-speak around at the moment seems to me to be the cries of gamers used to console or PC 'balance' (or as we used to call them, before their were PCs, 'Monty Haulers' or 'rules lawyers') rather than roleplayers.

I think FFG would do well to ignore the naysaying (and indeed in their press releases they certainly seem to be!!

@Brother Hostower

Sorry. I don't buy it. For a very simple reason: There's a finite number of situations where one can negate the advantages of the better character without showing exactly what you're doing. Ysalamari? In space combat? Yeah, right. Same with psykers: With Ascension being out, there may be a number of enemies that can afford the arcane and rare stuff that can negate psykers. Standard Dark Heresy? Not so much, unless the security the baddies have is on a level generally unbreakable by normal acolytes.

Somehow crippling the stronger character may work once, perhaps even twice. After that, it becomes rather transparent and cliched.

Cifer said:

I may be wrong, but I do not think Brother Hostower was implying that you should always cripple a class. I think what he was saying is that stories should be designed to promote different aspects where all players are essential. I realize that people want action, but I am reminded that the players in my campaign went through all of the first winning submission adventure (The Eternal Tide) without combat. They played through the story, making smart decisions and completing the mission without "collateral damage" as they put it. As the GM, I rewarded them for completing their first mission where they did not have to expend "the Emperor's resources." Granted, it is fun to run and gun, but in reality, combat is the last thing you want in an investigation, until you have the heretic/alien/daemon in your sights.

Luddite: I think you put the essence of my thoughts into a better framework than my words could create last night. I will be using your example from The Watchmen and adding to it Superman, a comic hero designed to be "over balanced" and still showing that life is hard even when you are super.

-Cynr

Luddite said:

Was Dr. Manhatten smarter than Ozymandias? No, he wasn't. Please choose your examples more carefully if you want to have a chance of winning in this discussion. ;-)

Mrakvampire said:

I thought it illustrated the point nicely.

It also isn't all about winning, whether in a discussion or an RPG, some of the best times can be had along the way regardless of the outcome.

Mrakvampire said:

How do you measure comparative intellect when one of the two people being compared no longer percieves reality as a human being? Intelligence is not a linear progression, in spite of what pretty much every RPG may claim.

But.. i has an 18.... Thats clearley betterer that 17....

Mrakvampire said:

'Win'?

A discussion?

Astonishing.

I've followed your arguments with interest and not a little incredulous amusment in other threads.

I'm afraid i have to conclude that you, either willingly in mischeif, or unwillingly in ignorance, simply fail to understand roleplaying and indeed many of the arguements and opinions expressed by others.

Your response above is so misguided i struggle to find the effort to even begin to address it.

I therefore, and with heavy heart assign you and your comments to the ignore section.

Apologies.

>CLICK<

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Indeed.

Linear progression is at the heart of almost every RPG character development mechanism though isn't it? Its the nature of the 'crunch beast' i suppose.

A simulationist stance would, like real life, have unused skills degenerating, but what RPG has character skills falling when not used?

There have of course been examples where stats/skills change or reduce.

The old D&D versions had aging which changed a charater's stats.

And games like my Beloved Pendragon also had aging as a serious issue. Indeed, certainly in our campaigns, most PC knights actually died of old age rather than on the battlefield. And in Pendragon, as elements of your character's personality changed in response to events in the game, some went up and some went down.

But yes, the linear progression model, a carry over from the D&D 'level progression' mechanic still dominates almost all RPGs.

I'm not sure how you could model it in DH/RT? Probably not. And indeed the gamers would be up in arms if their stats went down...'but i spent xp on it!!'

However, given the constant threat of moral, spiritual and actual physical degeneration that seems to be at the heart of the 40k memes, i'd have though a non-linear or even degrading mechanic might have been nice. Even the 'descent' mechanic (IPs and CPs) are mostly a linear progression.

But to the OP, 'are we too old'? Its interesting, since the core mechanics of DH/RT are seriously a return almost to the beginning of RPGs. ITs mechanically 'retro'.

Functionally limited character classes (and 'races'?) - albeit with GM fiat of 'elite advances' to short-circuit the whole thing.

Linear progression and character levels (call 'em ranks they're still D&D style levels).

BRP d% task resolution and scaling, clunky, rules bloat, inconsistent design methodology, etc.

3-part core game, each of progressive 'power levels' (pure basic D&D model that one).

Yes, it all looks VERY familiar to me, reinstating many of the problems and issues that we though had been solved by later, better, more streamlined and effective mechanics...i look at DH/RT and got all sort of nostalgic for the good (bad) old days...hehe...

Is it true that old school RPG purists also hate the concept of Fate Points?

I've heard that sudden, random and often anti-climactic player death is considered another hallowed part of the Golden Age of RPGs.

Necrozius said:

No idea. :¬D

For my part though i find 'fate points' useful depending upon the game.

In a 'cinematic-style' game they are entirely appropriate.

In more 'realistic-style' games, perhaps less so.

Situation dictates i would suggest.

Ah Luddite, though I don't always agree with what you say, I've missed you terribly.

*wipes away a traitor tear*

I would also like to second the Original Poster's statement. I can't stand this notion of "balance" in storytelling. It belongs in the same category as using MMO language in games. (anyone who described another character as "the tank" in an encounter, or made reference to "kiting" would be politely asked to leave, and then shot in the head as they made tor the door)

Cynr, I agree one-hundred percent. Hell, I've only been roleplaying since Vampire: The Requiem came out in 2004, and so haven't been through the many years of experience some of you have, and yet even I can see that balance means nothing, because ultimately it's about the story and the characters. Some of the best characters I've ever played have been either jack of all trades, and therefore not as good as anyone else in the group, or just plain bad at most stuff, but I loved them because the character was interesting and fun to play.

It's all down to how much of your character is rolling the dice, and how much of it is down to what you instil into it as personality, in my opinion. I much prefer the latter, so I don't care if mechanics aren't balanced. If your character is just a vehicle for rolling dice to do stuff, then is when you're going to have a problem with "unbalanced" stuff.