Jephkay said:

I'll second this one.

LMAO! Not sure of what your problem with is of the term, which is merely a contraction of (obviously) "fan supplement." I personally prefer it much better than "fan fic," a term that is broadly considered derogatory, especially when increasingly the quality of the materials that fans are producing go in many ways beyond what the publishers can reasonably do.

Of course, YMMV on this one. But whether I like the work or not, I find myself more amazed, even appreciative, of the work that fans do than sometimes the professionals. Not because I feel that Ross or anyone else is doing a sub-standard job. No. Just because the fans can parallel it and go beyond what I imagine to be the shackles placed upon those professionals. And for free.

(Of course, I'm a fan of opensource, but there we go...)

Again, YMMV...

Personally all I've ever wanted is a place that 40k RPG can be discussed. 40k RPG, not just (now) Dark Heresy RPG. Indeed, the fact that there is a perceived difference is the thing that... annoys me? Is that the right term, or is it too harsh? Criticism is seen as an attack rather than an identification of what might be absent from the game, and of course the opposite is seen as sycophantic posting (I'm guilty of perceiving in that way), and so on. Ah well.

But thanks for the Anargo well-wishing. After all, if the fans cannot push the boundaries then what does that mean about what the professionals are going to produce?

I'll personally stop using that term as soon as I get the impression that GW and its various imprints are not approaching it as such. One only hopes that day comes soon, but cynically understands that it will probably never come.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I'll admit that there is quality in some fan suppliments, but since when has there been anything approaching quality in fan fiction? If anything fan fiction provides the perfect example of Sturgeon's Law.

Anyway... To get back on topic...

1. Join or start a DH game in my area.

2. Avoid spending any more money on DH until I'm actually in a game. No matter how cool DotDG and CA look.

I have but 1 resolution:

1) Finish my adventure submission for the Jan. 6 deadline!!!

Unrelated..

Kage2020 said:

I'm not sure I follow this. Why does this annoy you? I could see why it would annoy one if Dark Heresy WAS perceived as an all-encompassing 40k RPG (which, fan of the game though I am, agree it is not). But why would people perceiving that there is a difference between "Inquisition in the Calixis Sector" and "40 the RPG" annoy you?

Just curious.

aethel said:

Well, to be fair the ellipsis was there because I couldn't find the right word to articulate it. I would just love for their to be a place to talk about RPG in the 40k universe from the perspective of RPG without it being... defensive. Posting here about "40k RPG" just doesn't seem right, since it is a forum dedicated to the Dark Heresy RPG. Despite Wu Ming's comments about Dark Reign, at least I feel that I can post there about my own interpretations without feeling that I'm violating the forum spirit, intent, or whatever.

(On the other hand, getting people to respond to those threads is still always going to be hard. )

Ah, don't worry about me. It was Christmas and I had the "Bah-humbug" spirit on me!

Kage

I just have 'issues' with some of the 'policies' and 'practises' of DR, perhaps its just a couple of bad apples so to speak but I have been quite put off by the site. Having to register to download content that was copied verabtim from other 40K Web and Fansites often without the express permission or notification of the original author(s) goes along way to paint a negitive picture. However, they are quite popular for a reason and do provide a very good service for the vast majority of the 40K (and aparently WFRP as well -- I saw they have a Fantasy forum now) kuddos to all envolved with Dark Reign for that, though.

In regards to the 'akwardness' of discussing more free form 40K RPG or to even be criticle of the published product(s) I don't feel that's the case here at all. I hated posting on the BI site, due primarily to the .... 'energentic moderating process' I have not at all felt that was the case on the FFG forums where they seem rather fine to allow a wide bearth of what is considered 'on topic' for the various forums regarding their products. However I can still appreciate how you might find it in 'bad taste' to discuss such things as complete rewrites of the system or the advocation of using engines from other systems or owned by other companies. However I think that most here as well as the 'powers that be' might not be quite as upset as one might think.

While Dark Heresy is a 'deep but narrow slice' as Ross has put it the goal of the 40K RPG line as I understand it is to eventually provide the rest of the pie/cake/grox haunch ect. thus it is intended to be at some point a holistic 40K RPG and thus I wouldn't think the broader scope of discourse would be too out of place on these boards.

Kage2020 said:

Oh, gotcha. That makes more sense. I didn't think I was reading your first comment right (and I wasn't).

Even with the scope of the line being broadened away from the Inquisition, the setting of the Calixis Sector is likely to pretty much permanently flavor all the games in the line. I imagine eventually they'll have to expand the name/topic of this forum (quite possibly to "Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay" since that's what is on the book spine), unless they decide to make separate ones for Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, which I hope they don't.

Once the fact that Dark Heresy is one piece of a bigger line becomes accepted, I don't see anything inappropriate about posting an alternate setting for the same rules to be run. Or alternate rules for the same setting. But I suppose if your project is both then well, yeah it's an alternate game...

Well, like Wu Ming, I don't see anything insufficient with the anargo site, but whatever location works best for you, create on!

aethel said:

Meh, again I was being most inarticulate. The fault was all mine.

aethel said:

Again, darned my inarticulate self. My own interpretation of 40k RPG is entirely separate to the concept of locale, even if I do talk about it over at Anargo. Anargo is in part just a project to show what can happen when the shackles are taken off and fans do not feel constrained by the universe, but rather they feel inspired.

For 40k RPG, though, one of the few things that I have trouble with is getting the feel of psykers just right. I have not yet seen a system, official or otherwise, that seems to do them justice. Buggered if I can get it right myself, either.

Ah well.

Also, even less on topic, how did you get your "image missing" avatar? It's really kind of amusing!

Kage

Kage2020 said:

..Man, we need a watercooler/general chatter thread or something, especially now that we have no PM function.

I think if you were to discuss alternate rules takes in the homebrew section (which admittedly, doesn't seem to get the traffic the main section does) there'd be nothing inappropriate about it. Especially with the scope of the line expanding. But I do acknowledge that the internet is full of people looking for something to be defensive about.

Yes, much as I like psykers (and Dark Heresy), I have to admit they're not 100% like the feel depicted in fluff. But I'm not sure it would be possible to do them 100% and have them be balanced, playable characters in a traditional RPG ruleset. For the level of play Dark Heresy is set at, I thought they made nice choices in the tradeoff of balance/playability versus feel so I haven't put much brainpower into re-thinking that particular realm of mechanics.

(Alas, the avatar is just an internet fluke. Frankly, I'm irritated that I can't go back to the blank you have. I didn't know once you picked one you couldn't ditch it.)

Likewise on all counts. (espcially the Avatar.) Although I have been trying to 're-tool the Psyker system but have found the more work I've done the less and less it seems a re-tool an dteh more it begins to look like a complete overhaul. I too have felt that while 'good' for 'balance' the current sytem is not at all representitive of how I (and here I emphisise myself) see psykers within the setting. However as I only tend to play with my wife, mother and a close-knit group of friends with whom I've been playing for more than a decade now, 'balance' is less of a concern for me/us than having an 'accurate' (agin emphasis on 'me') portrayal of psykers as we've precived them in the 40,000 universe.

Which is another one of the reasons that I haven't been posting material here. If I would have posted any game material, I envisioned (quite reasonably) getting the response of, "You do know that this is a board dedicated to Dark Heresy don't you?" On the other hand, if I had posted something that doesn't directly refer to game mechanics, I would most likely have spent a good bit of time trying to explain how it would play out (trying really hard not to get into game mechanics, which might exacerbate the confusion), or, I fear, people would have taken comments about my disenchantment with the Dark Heresy system—which includes the identification of what I like and don't like in the game—as being critical of that system.

Maybe I'll try it then. I would say look for the post but...

Balance is, for me, something that should be partially in the realm of the GM and the players. In short, and again for me, if you don't feel that a psyker would be balanced in the game then I am of the opinion that they shouldn't be included in the game (for that group).

With that said, the only thing that has really gotten to me is "relative power levels" of the varying Grades. Still cannot find anything out there to help with that, especially since, if you will forgive me, Dark Heresy as published dodged the ball on that one, and even TSLuikart's suggested rules tie it to efficacy, something that just hits the wrong note for me.

Ah, thanks for the explanation.

Not sure whether I did or not because the forum always seems to throw up an runtime error for the "Last Replies," or whether this is a part of your signature. If not, and I did, then my bad.

If it helps, since I'm not going to hijack this thread any more past this reply, even a "complete overhaul" of the system tends to end up looking very much like it. It just goes to show, in my mind if no one elses, that Dark Heresy was not completely unsuccessful in how it handled psykers.

I feel similarly unconstrained by balance.

Anyway, thanks for listening. I'll go and find the post from Dark Reign and see how it gets received in the Homebrew section.

Kage

Wu Ming, Kage- re: balance. That's rather what I expected you to say, from what I've gathered about your preferences in posts up until now. I am DEFINITELY on one far end of that spectrum when it comes to questions of balance through mechanics versus through other means or not at all. But I know not everyone (I daresay few to the degree I am), are. Darn personal preferences thing again.
(I could elaborate on why I have the preferences I do, but really no need... )

But I do think those preferences I have are part of what lends me to liking the DH system so well. I just happened to be a good match for it. Others who like things done differently, might and have find more they want to change.

And Kage, it was my sig. I know you know my gender. (I feel kind of dumb having to put it in my sig to be honest, but I don't like any of the overtly female avatars available.)

(This was a test. This was only a test of the emergency kana system. Had there been an actual need for kanji, this thread would have been accompanied by much greater frustration at the lack of 2-byte support.)