Hidaowin said:

****Except Psykers can literally do almost anything, and fill almost any niche with their powers if properly built.****

‘Properly built’ being the worrying aspect for me…the GAME aspect that for me is always inferior to the ROLEPLAYING. But your point is well made and accepted.

****A well respected Primaris, or Inquisitor Psyker? Not likely. At all.****

Yes, this comes into the realm of how you see psykers in the society of 40K. For me they are ‘slave’ status, or rather akin to ‘Indian Dalit untouchables’.

They certainly aren’t accepted by ‘high society’…which is a key tension in my story narratives since it’s the primary purpose of the Emperor and the Inquisition (to guide Humanity towards its psychic awakening).

****Again, the level 16 Psyker can probably do it better.****

Only mechanically…coercion is also never as effective as willing compliance, certainly in the games I run. Different styles, memes and storytelling agendas I guess…

But again, point ceded…mechanically psykers do everything better I suppose…

****Requiring the GM to do contortionist acts in order to compensate for huge rifts in game balance is not good design, and this is precisely what he must do.****

This is predicated on the premise that balance = good game design.

I disagree with the premise.

This is roleplaying, not chess.

Balance is not a requirement for a good roleplaying session.

The other side of the coin is that balance is a requirement for a good roleplaying session. I doubt the ‘twain shall ever meet.

****An errata that drags some of the excess down to a semblance of sanity? Also, no one says that the balance issues outright 'ruin the game' but they do diminish it.****

Fair enough, but that’s not really errata is it?
Isn’t it a rules rewrite you’re looking for?

DH already has ‘errata’ documents that are thicker than some other rulebooks!

****but you judge a system chiefly by its RAW (i.e. the quality of its mechanics and guidelines, which is why you use it in the first place!), and in substantial part by the balance of that RAW. The balance is in this case found very much wanting.****

You might.

I don’t at all.

I mainly judge rules on two criteria;

1. Do they adequately model the source material they are dealing with and encompass all its possibilities?
2. Do they work within their own frames of reference.

Now I have significant concerns with DH/RT on both those counts but I don’t equate ‘imbalance’ with ‘broken mechanics’. Sorry.

I suspect this is a debate that will not find a resolution…

Iacton said:

Just that the GM can compensate for a player being more powerful than another player but in so doing may need to contort matters to the detrement of the other player, which can come off as being picked upon.

Lets take the example of a group playing in a setting with tons of evil dragons, the ranger decides to pick up a bunch of stuff to make him do extra damage to dragons, however the next time they fight a dragon its actually an undead construct that looks like a dragon so he doesn't get the bonus damage, and then the next time its just an elemental that looks like a dragon or an illusion thats not actually a dragon. It's just going to annoy the player of the ranger and make him feel singled out.

"Yes, this comes into the realm of how you see psykers in the society of 40K. For me they are ‘slave’ status, or rather akin to ‘Indian Dalit untouchables’.

They certainly aren’t accepted by ‘high society’…which is a key tension in my story narratives since it’s the primary purpose of the Emperor and the Inquisition (to guide Humanity towards its psychic awakening)."

While this may be true of Psykers on the lower rungs, top tier psykers, particularly Psyker Inquisitors are generally well regarded when it comes to the canon; perhaps not quite to the same extent as their non-psyker counterparts at comparative levels of prestige and authority, but they are still widely respected and accepted when it comes to the established fluff, with only the more extreme conclaves actually reviling and hating them to the point where they will not suffer their presence (for example, extreme Monodominants).

"Only mechanically…coercion is also never as effective as willing compliance, certainly in the games I run. Different styles, memes and storytelling agendas I guess…

But again, point ceded…mechanically psykers do everything better I suppose…"

Keep in mind that Psykers _do_ have a wealth of options at their disposal that enables them to charm people into willing compliance.

"This is predicated on the premise that balance = good game design.

I disagree with the premise.

This is roleplaying, not chess.

Balance is not a requirement for a good roleplaying session.

The other side of the coin is that balance is a requirement for a good roleplaying session. I doubt the ‘twain shall ever meet."

Balance alone does not equal good game design (and I have not stated as much), but it is (at least for most people) a substantial component of it.

"Fair enough, but that’s not really errata is it?
Isn’t it a rules rewrite you’re looking for?

DH already has ‘errata’ documents that are thicker than some other rulebooks!"

Wait, what? The 3.0 is only a couple of pages.

Also a complete rewrite isn't needed with the possible exception of the Psychic Powers mechanic, though personally I think that can be fixed with a couple of key changes:

• Substitute all instances of 'Willpower Bonus' with the Power's effective Psy Rating * 1 or 2, and Characteristics with 10 * Psy Rating. This makes scaling much more sane, and indexes reward much more closely with risk. Willpower Bonus is still important for granting free points on the Power Roll, and Invocation.
• Limit a Power's maximum number of Overbleed enhancements to that Power's effective Psy Rating. Again, indexes reward much more closely with risk.

Other than that, I would have all Ascended Careers gain access to appropriate Unnatural Attributes (Strength/Toughness for Stormtroopers, Willpower/Toughness/Perception for Judges, etc...) so some aren't complete XP sinks in contrast to their alternatives. It's not perfect, but it's a really good first step.

"You might.

I don’t at all.

I mainly judge rules on two criteria;

1. Do they adequately model the source material they are dealing with and encompass all its possibilities?
2. Do they work within their own frames of reference.

Now I have significant concerns with DH/RT on both those counts but I don’t equate ‘imbalance’ with ‘broken mechanics’. Sorry. "

You consider balance important as mentioned in earlier posts, yet it doesn't enter your primary criteria for evaluation of a ruleset? That odd inconsistency aside, I suspect most people do find balance an important consideration when it comes to the overall quality of the RAW.

If the RAW classes do not grant each player a chance to take the spotlight in a story, then it is the job of the GM, in collaboration with the players, to come up with some kind of understanding.

Like with the before mentioned example of the Lord of the Rings party: each character, no matter HOW powerful, has a part to play in the story. The puny Hobbits are just as pivotal to the plot as the master wizard.

So a Master OMG Lvl 26 Omega Psyker's job is to handle the epic things that are beyond the others. These others should have their duties as well, which should be just as important to the plot . *

You see, the glass is half FULL. This is a roleplaying GAME after all. It's supposed to be FUN.

* Unless a certain player LIKES to be a secondary or tertiary character. Who knows.

Again, it appears that most of the argument with Ascended characters is combat oriented, especially with the Psyker and the Vindicare Assassin. (I think people are forgetting that the Magos gets to become an armour wearing machine and god-forbid he is a Mechanicus Secutor.) In a single story arc of a campaign, how many unavoidable combat situations are there? Usually a skirmish somewhere in the investigation and a climactic battle appears to be the normal. A GM should be able to tailor each combat to the level of the players and even if they are overpowering, it really only comes in a couple times in an adventure. Most of the time is spent investigating, making contacts, dealing with locals, Enforcers, etc. . . not really a Psyker or an Assassin's strong points.

Ascension is about playing in the bigger picture. As a few people have pointed out, Influence can make combat situations in Dark Heresy a sidebar in a story. Great, the Psyker can blast dozens of people and the Vindicare will pretty much kill a single target with his special ammunition every time... I have a player looking at becoming the Inquisitor and I have to deal with his plan and may actually say No to his well thought-out proposal and justifications.

They played through Purge the Unclean and did well with Brother Agamorr. My player has already found the Talent: Oath Bonded to the Angels of Death and wants to buy it earlier than Rank 15 as an Elite Advance stating that they fought well and refused to leave without Brother Agamorr at the end of Shades on Twilight. Hell, they even offered the sword, Luminous Reproach to him at the end for keeping them alive (thankfully I had him refuse the gift). He wants the Peer (Adeptus Astartes) and Good Reputation (Adeptus Astartes) and is "negotiating" for them as an Elite Advance each time they "Influence" Brother Agamorr into joining them on an adventure. (The adventure even says in the Aftermath "Surviving members of Trempan's team are likely well disposed towards the PCs and may become possible future allies, as will the valiant Brother-Sergeant. !!) He is making the argument that the Peer and Good Rep will actually only be with the Deathwatch and not the Adeptus Astartes in general and that, by making the Talents very specific, they should cost less Exp. and/or be easier to obtain.

Here is the Ascension math: The Throne Agents are now Influence 44. Normally, to get the Brother-Sergeant for a mission it would be Unique (-70) plus Single Mission (+20) plus Single Person (+0) for a -50 modifier; no chance at all. With the Oath Talent, Availability negatives max at Extremely Rare (-30) plus Single Mission (+20) plus Single Person (+0) for a -10 modifier... they will get Brother Agamorr 34% of the time and that is Without! the Peer and Good Rep bonuses planned for later, which will move the odds to over 50% of the time.

Continuing down this thought line. . . say they make it to "Established Inquisitor" (Influence 70), the Inquisitor at Rank 15 (not even maxed) can have Peer and Good Rep (+20) combined with the Oath Talent for the following: 70 plus Extremely Rare (-30) plus Permanently (-20) plus A Platoon [10-30] (-20) plus Peer (+10) plus Good Rep (+10) for a grand total of 20. One in Five chance of a Permanent Deathwatch Platoon of 10-30 Space Marines! Hell, take another -10, make it A Company 50-100 Space Marines and you have a One in Ten. This is without using Social Skills from Influence: Other Factors and spending a Fate Point to add 2 degrees of success to a test, spending a Fate Point for +10 bonus to the Influence Test or better yet ... the "This One Thing I Ask of You" rule... spend 1d5 Influence to auto succeed! I am already formulating arguments that the Deathwatch really only operate in Kill-teams (squad-sized), but without bending the rules against the players... /sigh.

By the way: There is nothing that says you can't simply burn up all of your Influence score by using "This One Thing..." over and over for things like Permanent use of a Naval ship of cruiser size or larger, all weapons, gear, services. You want combat? I now only have an Influence of 20something but I permanently have an Emperor Class Battleship, 3 companies of Imperial Guard, 1 company of Space Marines, etc, etc. each only costing my 1d5 Influence to own! (Granted, your Influence after modifiers has to be 1 or greater to technically be able to succeed with an auto success, I would think.)

So, be an Uber-Psyker or Uber-Ninja at Rank 16; you are thinking SMALL POTATOES! Ascension is really about seconding Naval ships-of-the-line and putting an entire Space Marine company on retainership! Why risk yourself in fighting when you could keep permanent companies of Vindicare Assassins and Primaris Psykers by burning Influence.

-Cynr

PS: Any wonderful role playing, fluff-based excuses other than "I am the GM so Nope!" would be appreciated.

Cynr said:

Pretty sure that's a win! Bravo!**

And you receive extra points for using math!

(** A win against the Psyker. My Lord of Changes would still warp your sh1t.)

I'm going to repeat this because, at the beginning and end, I think it's the crux of the misunderstanding between what appear to be two factions:

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

"Here is the Ascension math: The Throne Agents are now Influence 44. Normally, to get the Brother-Sergeant for a mission it would be Unique (-70) plus Single Mission (+20) plus Single Person (+0) for a -50 modifier; no chance at all. With the Oath Talent, Availability negatives max at Extremely Rare (-30) plus Single Mission (+20) plus Single Person (+0) for a -10 modifier... they will get Brother Agamorr 34% of the time and that is Without! the Peer and Good Rep bonuses planned for later, which will move the odds to over 50% of the time.

Continuing down this thought line. . . say they make it to "Established Inquisitor" (Influence 70), the Inquisitor at Rank 15 (not even maxed) can have Peer and Good Rep (+20) combined with the Oath Talent for the following: 70 plus Extremely Rare (-30) plus Permanently (-20) plus A Platoon [10-30] (-20) plus Peer (+10) plus Good Rep (+10) for a grand total of 20. One in Five chance of a Permanent Deathwatch Platoon of 10-30 Space Marines! Hell, take another -10, make it A Company 50-100 Space Marines and you have a One in Ten. This is without using Social Skills from Influence: Other Factors and spending a Fate Point to add 2 degrees of success to a test, spending a Fate Point for +10 bonus to the Influence Test or better yet ... the "This One Thing I Ask of You" rule... spend 1d5 Influence to auto succeed! I am already formulating arguments that the Deathwatch really only operate in Kill-teams (squad-sized), but without bending the rules against the players... /sigh.

By the way: There is nothing that says you can't simply burn up all of your Influence score by using "This One Thing..." over and over for things like Permanent use of a Naval ship of cruiser size or larger, all weapons, gear, services. You want combat? I now only have an Influence of 20something but I permanently have an Emperor Class Battleship, 3 companies of Imperial Guard, 1 company of Space Marines, etc, etc. each only costing my 1d5 Influence to own! (Granted, your Influence after modifiers has to be 1 or greater to technically be able to succeed with an auto success, I would think.)

So, be an Uber-Psyker or Uber-Ninja at Rank 16; you are thinking SMALL POTATOES! Ascension is really about seconding Naval ships-of-the-line and putting an entire Space Marine company on retainership! Why risk yourself in fighting when you could keep permanent companies of Vindicare Assassins and Primaris Psykers by burning Influence."

Hi, my name is Psyker Inquisitor; I have ridiculous Influence AND more psychic power than the Primaris can ever hope to achieve. Thus we have a character that is thoroughly broken on every level, enough said, end of story. BTW, Primaris Psykers and most other careers can themselves amass some pretty sweet Influence, and Influence Talents. Compare and contrast the Influence potential of the various careers rather than just holding up a singular example, and I'm sure you'll find that while not completely equal, many are actually quite competitive on the Influence front, including the PP, and in the meanwhile, the latter enjoys ridiculous amounts of personal power. I will grant that Vindicares are one trick ponies, and I personally have never found them to be truly problematic, or broken.

Cynr I could kiss you that was so sexy to read.

Truly, that is what I see Ascension being about. The power to command armies, and shake the Imperium to its very foundations with your actions. So what one character is a combat monster, who cares one is a demigod of mind ****** power. With the right connections those traits not only become moot, but irrelevant to the dance we would dance.

Thanks,

Alexis

*smiling happily*

Lasers said:

I am wondering about this. You can go directly from Acolyte to Inquisitor (hence Psyker to Inquisitor, no Primaris Ranks here). You can go from Acolyte to Interrogator then transition to Inquisitor as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and GM permission (hence Psyker to Interrogator to Inquisitor, no Primaris Ranks here). Finally, If the GM wishes, he can allow another Ascended Character to transition to Interrogator as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and then finally to Inquisitor as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and GM permission, yet again. (hence Psyker to Primaris to Interrogator and finally to Inquisitor meaning at the obsolete most 6 Primaris Ranks and that is if you have a GM who allows you to get away with a single Rank as an Interrogator before transitioning to Inquisitor.)

I guess with a very lenient GM and a bit of min/maxing you could build the Primaris Inquisitor. Depending on what Ranks you take when he/she could be a Ravenor-like character, but they would never be the most Influential or powerful Psyker.

Is that what your are getting at? Or did I miss something?

-Cynr

Luddite said:

If I may point out the Highly Respected Inquisitors Ravnor and Eisenhorn to the "No such thing as well respected Inquisitor Psyker" argument. I haven't had a chance to read all the way through those books, but everything I've heard thus far points to this.

And I judge systems not on the balance of the RAW, but on the setting, and the chances to do crazy fun things with a world and the characters we place in it.

Kylen said:

Umm, both were considered Rogue and investigated. Eisenhorn was actually charged as a heretic when he goes Radical and binds Cherubael to fight for him and Ravenor was taken into Inquisitorial custody at the end of the trilogy. Also, most references to psykers, from the original Rogue Trader to the modern novels show psykers as disturbing to normal people to say the very least. Any other psykers that were well respected or even treated as something other than aberrations by people of power?

-Cynr

"I am wondering about this. You can go directly from Acolyte to Inquisitor (hence Psyker to Inquisitor, no Primaris Ranks here). You can go from Acolyte to Interrogator then transition to Inquisitor as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and GM permission (hence Psyker to Interrogator to Inquisitor, no Primaris Ranks here). Finally, If the GM wishes, he can allow another Ascended Character to transition to Interrogator as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and then finally to Inquisitor as an Elite Advance costing 2,000 xp and GM permission, yet again. (hence Psyker to Primaris to Interrogator and finally to Inquisitor meaning at the obsolete most 6 Primaris Ranks and that is if you have a GM who allows you to get away with a single Rank as an Interrogator before transitioning to Inquisitor.)

I guess with a very lenient GM and a bit of min/maxing you could build the Primaris Inquisitor. Depending on what Ranks you take when he/she could be a Ravenor-like character, but they would never be the most Influential or powerful Psyker.

Is that what your are getting at? Or did I miss something?"

Yes you are. Inquisitor Trait, The Psyker's Gift, Page 95.

Also again, I feel it's important to highlight that most Ascended careers, including the vanilla Primaris Psyker, are capable of playing the Influence game quite proficiently. It's not like real ultimate power (albeit on the individual level) and Influence are mutually exclusive of each other.

Going back to the (IMHO highly contested) opinion that all psykers are little more than tools and slaves to be used and expended:

Since when did all psykers possess a giant floating arrow designating themselves as such? If a psyker was going to be somewhere that frowned upon their kind, it shouldn't be too hard (especially at ascension level) to acquire a new set of clothes and leave the force staff at home. Yes, IMO psykers are regarded with a hefty amount of fear and superstition, even amongst those with an actual idea of what they do and who they are. No, psykers don't immediately advertise their presence with a palpable aura unless they either channel powers to do so or the ones detecting them are highly psychic themselves.

Assuming they're from any school barring straight Pyromancy, they should be more than capable of contorting their appearance and/or circumstances enough that they should get past all but the most severe scrutiny.

The Hobo Hunter said:

All offically sanctioned psykers (i.e. the only ones officially allowed to live by the Adeptus Terra), are branded or otherwise scarred both physically and mentally to mark them out.

By far the most common psyker in the imperium is the Astropath - blinded and scarred by the soul binding, mentally indoctrinated into imperial service, and of very little but slave/servant status.

The 'front line' psykers seen on the TT in the Imperial guard armies are given 'minders' and are subject to being executed by pretty much everyone around them at the merest hint of them 'Warping out'...

Given the Imperium's position on psykers, an unbranded or 'hidden' psyker is pretty much a red flag to the authorities that should illicit immediate lethal responses surely? After all, a hidden psyker is an unsanctioned psyker and therefore a threat to the Imperium.

Sure the psyker might put up a fight, but whatever they were doing, once this situation occurs its pretty much just a matter of time before they're brought down.

There are of course psykers among the Inquisition, but these are outside of Imperial Sanction, and are only those judged strong enough to be capable of surviving without the requirement for soul binding.

Oh, and of course their are the Navigators - whole other kettle of fish there...

Now then, if DH/RT has established a slightly 'greyer area' for psykers, mainly in the interests of the psyker being a player character class', so be it...but there's a lot of work to be done there on the roleplaying/status implications of the psyker PC.

Fluff-wise, psykers are feared, hunted and either fed to the Emperor or soul bound for a lifetime of imperial Service.

Even a 'primaris psyker' (whatever that is?) that has been sanctioned still has to be careful. A 'god-build' psyker PC, frankly in my opinion is a serious threat to the Imperium, unless its roleplayed as intensely humble, subjugating himself to the authorities around him...as a sanctioned psyker should do...

OR....maybe as the OP suggests, i'm just to old...

Luddite said:

Because it is easier to unbalance a balanced game (if that's what you want) than it is to balance an unbalanced one. You may enjoy unbalanced games - fortunately for you that is an easy kind of play to arrange: simply take different characters and apply different amounts of XP. Presto: balance.

Obviously not everyone enjoys that kind of game. Even ROLEPLAYERS. I know plenty of great roleplayers who prefer that all characters in a group be balanced. Unbalanced play will ruin their game, no matter how good the ROLEPLAYING is, simply because some characters will feel superfluous. I've seen StarWars games where non-jedi players, despite having interesting characters with cool quirks and interesting backstories, were bored out of their minds because the Jedi were far more powerful that they were. And that's not something that a GM can easily fix.

Lord of the Rings is a novel, not an RPG. If I ran a game where half the players were master elven archers, mighty dwarven warriors and mysterious rangers while the other half played halfling farm boys who didn't know how to use a sword, half the group would have quit, 'cause they'd have nothing to contribute.

Unbalanced play can be fun, but only when everyone knows what they are getting into before the game begins. Someone who has been playing DH for two years and has enjoyed playing a guardsman who could contribute effectively to combat sessions is probably not going to be pleased to discover that he might as well retire, as he's just slowing down the psyker and the vindicaire assassin while they wipe out small armies.

macd21 said:

Cynr said:

I heard Eisenhorn was cleared of charges, only he CHOOSE to remain in seclusion. I don't really know the details, mind you. I'm still working my way through Xenos. And I don't know anything about the Ravnor one, cause I haven't started reading it.

To be honest, there aren't a whole lot of books focusing on Psykers, un/fortunately.

So why have rules at all? If all that is important is telling the story, everything else be damned, then what is the point in having a system for combat, psy powers, movement, skills, item costs, or anything else? Why not just allow the players to state "I succeed at X!" ... unless the gm arbitrarily decides they don't succeed at X.

Rules are there for a reason, not merely to look good, and a large part of that reason is to keep things in balance for the players as well as the gm. These rules not only provide some framework that defines what can be done, but help to establish a fair system in which everyone is treated with some degree of equality.

Using Lord of the Rings (we'll look at the film because it provides a visual context) as an example as it has been before ... do you really think the encounters there would be fun for characters of such vastly different power levels? In the battle in Mordor the group is fighting orcs ... a rather low level group of creatures for those 8+level characters which made up the majority of the party. So until the Cave Troll enters the fight they are merely going through the motions, knowing they will succeed with minimal effort and really feeling left out as the excitement here is all about the low level characters trying to survive. Then the Troll comes in and the low level characters are left out because in reality there is nothing they can contribute to the battle and suddenly the remaining orcs become unimportant to the scene and the low level pcs realize they were being pandered to. At no point is this encounter fun for everyone. (and this encounter is ABOUT combat, so slamming down the announcement that rp should suffice is rather hollow)

This same sort of example could be used in a noncombat scenario where politics or tech use are most important. The point is that the people with the best skill with outshine the others in many situations and throwing a bone to the weaker characters as a kind of apology for them being so useless isn't a good answer - especially because those weaker character's players are likely to recognize that is what you're doing.

Say I'm playing the Guardsman who becomes a Crusader ... I've honed my melee skills, bought some tallents to make me more effective in hand to hand, bought up my Health, etc. and pride myself on being a proper bodyguard and line of defense for my Inquisitor ... then, when we are ambushed it is the assassin who hops in, dodges all the attacks and kills the vast majority of the foes without a scratch while I'm fighting for my life ... how am I as a character going to feel about myself? While a little soul searching - "where do I belong?" - is fine in rp from time to time, being made to look obsolete and unnecessary on a regular basis isn't going to be fun for the character or the player.

This is akin to giving one of the characters all the answers in the mystery and telling the others "yeah, your efforts are mostly just for show, but the point is roleplaying!".

Without balance the rules become pointless and without rules you might as well throw your character sheets away (in fact, why bother with character sheets if rules are unimportant?) and play round robin storytelling. (which can be fun, sure, but if you're playing an rpg you are typically looking for something which offers more structure)

Luddite said:

Having a sanctioning brand doesn't mean having a big Inquisitorial =][= stamped on your forehead plain for all to see and verify that you are in fact a conduit to the Warp. And last I checked, formal banquets didn't require their guests to strip down before entering. It could quite easily be on the palm of your hand, your chest or back, your buttocks, and so on. Besides, a skillful biomancer could probably sculpt that image off his flesh, and a powerful telepath could 'hide' it from the eyes of others through influencing their minds.

Military psykers often are given handlers, (the Primer orders 4 soldiers at any given time ready to shoot him), but by the time one reaches the upper echelons of the Savant Militant path, they're usually high advisors giving orders to generals and the like, or commanding small units of psykers themselves.

This is before we even reach the Inquisitorial service the PCs are in. I'm sure a Primaris psyker who accompanies an inquisitor is able to throw off the shackles of his bodyguards. It's quite possible that no-one beyond the Inquisitor and his cadre/cell (depending on what scale we're talking) know the individual is a psyker at all. It shouldn't be too hard for a psyker given free reign by his master to roam the streets like any other indidividual, provided they weren't already being hunted.

Jack of Tears said:

Your troll scenario actually is flawed because while yes, that one encounter is about combat, it is not the only encounter in the story. Further, the point of the higher level character is to protect the lower level character while they do what there to do, make mischief and carry a ring that holds the whole fate of the world. Somehow being the only class that can save the whole bloody world seems a little important to me, even if they can't fight the best or do the most techy things. And back to the fighting for a second, why would you tone down the orcs? To balance the situation sure you may be able to kill an orc a turn as the high level, but 50 orcs are rushing through the door, and now, their is balance without either group being shut out, the objective of the warriors being to protect the hobbits and survive x rounds, the roll of the hobbits to try and survive for x rounds. Outside of combat hobbits are also the only ones likely to be able to act as a buffer between elves, humans, and dwarves for a plethora of reasons.
Your crusader example is also a little flawed, as the only one jumping around dodging everything is a temple assassin, and his job is to kill a room full of people, your job as crusader is to simply defend the Inquisitor. If that's not your cup of tea, don't play a crusader, play a storm trooper, who, as I stated early, has access to things that an assassin doesn't. Hell, even as a crusader you will more likely survive that full auto-burst then the assassin.
And to both your first and final points, the rules are there as a guide line, to point you in the right directions and provide parameters for reality, a framework to work within. People aren't saying throw out the rules, they're saying a good gm and roleplayers find balance of their own in the rules.

Bombernoy said:

I always find quotes like this amusing, because they seem to basically say "if you don't play the way we do then you aren't a good gm or player" which is patently false. Having been at the hobby for a very long time and known many gamers and gms I know the difference between the good and the not-so-much and both myself and my players are excellent roleplayers, but we also see value in system balance.

Someone else noted that what they look for in a system is a fun game world ... but setting and system are not the same thing and merely because the one is high quality does not mean the other is by default.

Naturally as GM I am willing and comfortable with changing rules that seem to break game balance, but that doesn't excuse the problem rules themselves. And, yes, there are any number of ways a GM can "fix" an issue of power imbalance through arranging rp methods to compensate and adjust the balance of power back the other direction - but these are bandaids which still acknowledge the existence of the problem.

As to the comment about my LOTR example, perhaps we have different personality styles, but I would not (nor do I believe would any of my players) want to play the weak character in the party whom everyone else had to defend because I couldn't hold up my own end. Frodo's possession of the ring would - to me - seem like a contrivance on the part of the gm to force the rest of the party to protect him and drag him along ... which might be alright in a story, but wouldn't be very flattering to the player of said character.

Not to mention that your example of level differences is wrong by its very design - we are not addressing the concept of characters of different Levels, and thus of different power levels by the very core design of a system, but of imbalance among characters of the same Level within a system. DnD made up for this by imposing different xp requirements for level advancement - thus making sure that the most powerful classes had to work harder and longer to advance and that was a power balance; DH does not do this.

The systems I've played in that did not work power balance into the creation of starting characters usually had some means of insuring that balance difference was quickly overcome - at least the good systems did - so this desire to feel that not everyone is artificially equal from birth was fulfilled, but still counted on the idea that the tools were there to quickly overcome that obstacle in the course of the game. (in Talislanta 4th edition, for example, the players may begin play vastly different in degree of power, but the increasing costs to improve skills meant that those behind would catch up fast enough that those more powerful could not out pace them and leave them behind for long.) That is a philosophy I can get behind, but stating that balance simply isn't important is not.

Also, one must recall that rpgs are Roleplaying GAMES - in what other game would it be considered fair if one or more characters started with an innate advantage over the others? In Monopoly you don't have some pieces rolling 2d6 and some pieces only rolling one. The only difference here is rpgs are not meant to be competitive, but that doesn't mean players don't all want to feel their characters are given the same chance to flourish.

Wow, lots of replies to this (relatively) controversial topic.

I think balance, and a player's perspective of it, come down to how they were introduced to roleplaying.

My brother ran me through my very first D&D game when I was maybe 6. He made me a dwarf, a magic user, and a cleric. Those terms/their use may ring some bells and indicate just hold old those D&D books were.

Anyway, he had my 1st or 2nd level characters explore a dungeon and then kill the dragon inside. That's right, we killed the ancient red dragon. Then we got tons of gold and built a castle. I think the black books had those rules... Anyway.

It wasn't about power or rules, it was about having fun.

It wasn't until college that I encountered gamers who sat down, looked at all the rules, and figured out the best way to min/max a character and deal the most damage. I was a little astonished by those guys... "Great" I thought, "your dual-wielding ranger does tons of damage... but you just recreated Drizzt for this homebrew world... who cares?'

But they had fun doing it, right? So, indeed, who cares?

So, on balance:

Personally (and as I think others have said), I don't much care if a magic user is way more powerful than a fighter. You know, from casting awesome spells of doom and whatnot. I just don't want that magic user to be a better in close combat than the fighter. So conversely, I don't want the fighter to be a better healer than the cleric, and so on.

And if there exists a game where such issues of balance occur, what do I do? I just play whatever role has the most character to me. My rogue/bard/dread pirate routinely did more damage in close combat than our fighter, ranger, or paladin. No one remembers him for that, they remember him for stealing the only airship in that world. Because he inferred that he had permission and it seemed completely (in)appropriate at the time (for HIM to do so). He may have also stolen the only submarine in that world for approximately the same reasons. They remember him for his personality and the interactions he had, not the "numbers".

But that's just how we play, and we have fun. And if you play differently and have fun, then keep at it. I won't get mad at you for demanding balance if you don't get mad at me for not caring too much.

Jack of Tears said:

Clearly we do have different play styles, I mean, I would love to play frodo, the character who essentially gets to look at everyone else and say "I OWN YOU". And since the original LotR post had levels, I assumed that was part of your issue, mea culpa. But even in the fact that you thought I meant if you didn't play like me you were wrong shows we don't see eye to eye. I think a good gm and players usually work out the rules without much issues, if there are problems they work around them. I mean, sure DH has flaws, but all systems do if you look hard enough, and aside from psyker, dh is actually one of the harder ones to really break. Also, I'm not allowed 2d6 in monopoly, and I only get to start with half the money, some people complained about balance issues and how I was always winning .

Bombernoy said:

The base DH game wasn't so bad ... sure the psyker could become a scary thing to deal with, but he had to worry about Perils of the Warp, which if rped properly made for a very solid power check. My main gripe is with some of the suppliments - Ascension most recently. Some of the professions in the new product seem extremely under powered when considering the special abilities they receive or can choose from, while others are extremely overpowered ... I mean, the Vindicar Assassin - aside from their given special ability being tremendously powerful - the ability also has three different effects where most of the class's special abilities have one, maybe two. On the other hand the Judge's ability is extremely underpowered for what it is ... targets get a +30 roll to resist? How is that really balanced against anything in the rules set for that suppliment? Thus a big part of the problem isn't about the characters even being balanced against one another, but balanced against the standards set by the system itself.

When designing some house rules for a Ravenloft game I was running some years ago I made starting packages for members of every culture in the game, giving each benefits and drawbacks based upon the culture in question. When doing so I was not focused on the idea of balancing characters against one another, but rather about balancing the packages against themselves - each having as many drawbacks and advantages. (or at least having the total of their advantages and drawbacks balance within the package) Using this method you could have some characters starting the game with a slight power advantage over others based solely on packages that came with an rp decision, (which culture attracted you more) but because the weaknesses offset the abilities they balanced within themselves and those who began stronger also had more vulnerabilities. This, to my mind, is also a fine philosophy to come into a game with ... but Ascension doesn't do this. Where are the drawbacks for the Vindicar Assassin to offset his initial power level being higher than that of most other characters? Or the benefits the Judge receives to offset his base granted ability being next to worthless? (come on, +30 to resist!?) You can say that the balancing elements are in the rp - a Judge may have more contacts than the Assassin, at least in many circles - but here you tread a weak path because it assumes all GMs are going to interpret the rp advantages the same way, play to games that make these advantages important, and have players who can appreciate and play into them. Even in a game about roleplaying, relying on something as fluid and unreliable as rp style and skill to provide balance to your system is poor design because there are too many variables.

That said, don't get me wrong, I liked the Ascension product - I think it added a lot of nice stuff to the game - I just feel there were some poor choices made in the balance area.