FatPob said >>>

I don't think this is the case at all, I think it is down to intepretation - and knowing what will work well with your group.

That would, once more, be lumped under GMing advice. Usually it's a welcome discussion since it is ultimately geared towards improving ones "art." In this case, though, it is a little bit of a straw man. Earlier someone talked about how an individual was ignoring what they were saying just so that they could get across the same 'ole point. It seems that the pendulum has certainly swung in the opposite direction and may have even stuck.

FatPob said >>>

I also believe several people are offering advice and further clarity on how the game can be played - in the thought that people may want help on how to run the game as it is written.

And the point in question is that, given FFG's statements on the subject, the adventure as written could have been markedly improved with some tweaks, all of which would have emphasised features that they themselves had hyped up. That's all. Nothing more than that. No suggestions of burning people alive or torturing animals. Merely a, "Hey, it's strange that FFG produced a Designer's Diary and got together with Alan Merrett to illustrate that Deathwatch is not just a Bug Hunt, but the demo game was basically just a Bug Hunt. Sure, I as a GM can easily determine where to include these, shifting around the basic structure of the adventure, but surely a part of the point of buying into an official product is so that I don't have to do all the work myself."

Truthfully there is a tiny bit of fallacy there. I'm not going to be using the official 40k RPG mechanics, so I am going to have to be doing all the work. On the other hand, I was adopting the role of someone that will be using the mechanics. In that scenario I might come to the demo adventure thinking that since it's about Marines that it is going to heavily feature combat. No surprises there. On the other hand, FFG have said that it's not just going to be about combat so the adventure as written is... Well, it's a little bit surprising since it is primarily a Bug Hunt.

It has been illustrated how some fairly minor changes can change that emphasis, even make the Marines more "awesome" from the social standpoint rather than the pervasive "Dakka Dakka!" one. The question really remains that, if the game isn't just about the "Dakka Dakka!" then why isn't the other stuff a tad more prominent, especially when one remembers that it is not particularly hard to do? After all, numerous people have spent a great deal of time showing how this could be done on the presumption that others were having difficulty with the concept.

And after all that? Well, then you can get back to actual constructive discussion about Final Sanction and Oblivion's Edge as it extends into a military adventure/Bug Hunt. What are its strengths? Weaknesses? Could the Horde combats have been better constructed to illustrate the whole Horde/Turning Point thing? Might the objectives have been more overtly illustrated? Should a map have been included? If space is a consideration, and surely it is to a point, then should supporting materials have been made available on the, well, Support page? Double-barrel positive with that last, after all. Not only do you get the positive PR with regards to a free RPG product, but you get brownie points from the fans because you're throwing even more stuff up there... for free!

FatPob said >>>

It also seems that this is a very emotive topic. Who would have thought eh.

More a case of "facepalming" at the circular argument. After all, the above is mostly just pointing out the rather obvious and going, "Who would have thunk it?" Then going, "Okay, how do we fix it?" That last takes all of 30 seconds to type out, so after that for those that are interested you can begin to get into the nitty-gritty of the strengths and weaknesses, how to capitalise upon the former and avoid the latter, etc.

Emotive? No. Frustrating (for all parties one would imagine)? And then some.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Not always, just when someone expects a 40 page (actually 36 not counting the covers) free supplement to do their roleplaying for them. I know people feel strongly (some even appear to feel betrayed) that this supplement is letting them down, based on their expectations for the game.

Could FFG have chosen a different facet of Deathwatch to cover? Yes. Could they have focused on different selections of new mechanics to highlight? Sure. But, can we at least acknowledge that choosing to cover the horde rule as (oppossed to others) allowed them to minimize the number of pages taken up by rules? That this in turn allowed them to provide an experience that almost feels like a campaign as oppossed to a single adventure? Can we also acknowledge that no matter what portion FFG chose to focus on, someone somewhere would be upset and feel that a poor choice was made?

I too am looking forward to seeing other parts of the mechanic and fluff (squad mode, chapter fluff, rules and fluff for new Xenos, etc.) But i also acknowledge that FFG has to decide what should ultimately be given for free and what the consumer has to pay for. I thouroughly enjoyed playing this scenario as it stood and am looking forward to my home GM's treatment of this game based on his techniques and approaches. Based on FFGs other offerings, I'm confident DW will deliver what the designers are promising. Feel free to disagree and despair.

Atheosis said:

None intended, and my comments were not meant to flame you. I was talking to everyone, including those who might benefit and enjoy from all of our points of view. The four of us who played this game (oops, 5, sorry GM!) thoroughly enjoyed it and for those that didn't get to experience this game yet, it would be a pitty if they only heard one side of the discussion.

I capitulate. Give up. No point continuing. The same things are being said over and over again, etc. I guess as much as one might suggest that it isn't FFG's job to do the roleplaying for people, one might imagine that the reverse is equally true—it really isn't the job of the players to do the scenario design. After all, the "fixes" are arguably quick and eays and wouldn't take up much space but, well, I guess that isn't a point worth listening to.

Again, though, it seems clearly that it would not be fruitful to continue with this discussion.

/Kage

I declare this thread dead.

Kage2020 said:

I would just like to mention that as a long time DM myself, I never run prepared adventures, so I would never expect a company to provide me with all the scenario "ins-and-outs". I feel that would stunt any creative input on the part of the DM if they saw that everything was already laid out for them.

Just how campaign books for D&D have fluff, plot hooks, etc. but rarely do they go over specifics for adventures.

I would just consider this and Final Sanction to be a small taste of the new system. Nothing more.

SpawnoChaos said:

Ditto!! The players at our table enjoy it most when the GMs use pre-printed adventures mostly as fuel for inspiration and a lot of the pre-printed scenario gets modded/changed. Our GM actually ran this scenario for the first time almost 100% unaltered (he provided a map of his own design). He ran it for me and 3 other players we'd never played with before (thus he had no idea what their expectations from a game are.) For us the adventure ran flawlessly, (each experience may vary based on the group) and everyone had a great time. To me that spells success from FFG fulfilling their obligations. The very things that Adam started this thread complaining about were completely absent from my first experience with this game.