There have been several trheads that have broke down into "whats the point of it being an RPG", "OMFG no skills", "All characters are the same", "Wot no skillz" etc.

I do wonder what people are expecting from the game. My take is that is shares a lot of similarities with Pehdragon RPG in so much as that all characters were essentially the same only differeing in demeanors for the most.

However how you actually played your knight in the pursuit of glory (usually killing some big monster or taking part in a huge battle) was the important factor.

DW to me seems more or less to share similar traits - you are effectively greater then the individuals you will meet in the game and how you play in these encounters is what defines your character.

Again the similarities between smashing the footman in the first charge of a battle to taking down the hordes with your devastator are clearly there. The

When a knight dealt with courtiers and such like they would behave within certain confines - from the Haughty Prideful Glory knight to the humble chivalrous knight. Much the same is possible in DW - as some will be dismissive of non astartes, whilst others may be humble and listen to recomendations before taking a decision on what action to proceed with.

Again in pendragon people had a selection of skills - more or less everyone had the same key skills, sword/battle/horse/lance/heraldry plus a couple of other non-combat skills.

DW offers (from what has been seen) the same sort of skills (combat related) with perhaps a smattering of non-combat skills.

What this allows when everyone is more or less the same (clones as stated) is for the players themselves to step out and play a different and unique persona.

Take D&D (or any fantasy rpg) you have your sterotypes:

Warrior - to do the fighting
Rogue - to do sneaky stuff
Wizard - blast things as well as expected to know stuff
Healer - well heal the party, and expected to know stuff the wizard doesn't

In these games you have a pre-defined role by the vary nature of your class, and notably would have extensive skill lists reflected in this class - be it master of all weapons to knowing runes, details of dark gods to the skill to open any portal.

When people play very similar character types they need to put a stamp on the game and since all skills and abilities are more or less same the only way to do so is by playing a very strong character.

thats my thoughts anyway.

There has always been a bit of tension between roleplaying and skills, on all fronts. In this case, it can be divvied up between those who play similar characters different and those who prefer skills to set them apart.

I like Dark Heresy for the 'oh god, we're gonna die' mood and the grunts-eye look at the Imperial Inquisition it gives. I like Rogue Trader for the fact that 1st level players get a huge ship and a free run of the universe. Both challenge the players and the games master in various ways, from portraying their view of the Warhammer 40k universe to running things in a very large or a very small stage. I expect another aspect of that world to be brought to life by Deathwatch. And I know that my Blood Angels Assault Marine will play very different from the Dark Angels Assault Marine, because both players have very differing ideas of how to resolve 'issues'.

There are games that stimulate roleplaying by offering ingame incentives, but I like to think that you have to bring a lot of your own initiative to this game, and make it your own. It is a wonderful process that gamesmasters can encourage and players can really come to relish. Personally, if people continue to call the Space Marines cardboard cutouts they deserve the Emperor's Mercy, cause the various chapters and factions have so much history ( freely available online with a brief wikipedia search ) that you can roleplay a complete tactical squad and still have widely varying dispositions and characters.

Good insights all.

Like any RPG there will be as many roleplaying opportunities as your group puts into it, or wants to put into it. Roleplaying is the "X" factor brought to the game by the players regardless of the rules, the setting, the genre, or even the characters' predefined roles (or lack thereof). In fact in my experience I've found that predefined roles often bring out the very best in roleplaying. Whether its a game like Shadowrun that assumes the characters are all "shadowrunners", or Dark Heresy's assumption that the characters are acolytes in service to an Inquisitor, a clear sence of purpose and place within the setting always enhances the roleplaying experience. Three things tend to keep an RPG character from "coming alive":

• On a personal level: a lack of individual goals, motivations, and desires for the character.
• On a group level: a lack of purpose and identity for the character within the group.
• On a campaign level: a lack of character context within the setting itself.

All three of these issues can be greatly alleviated by thinking in terms of character role; role within the group, role within the setting, and of course the role of self. Without these definitions all character's become little more than two-dimensional puppets. On the other hand the more clearly defined the role (in everyone's mind) the greater the ability to bring the role to life. In my opinion the true roleplaying "artist" is the one who can be given a well defined role and brings it to life while making it uniquely his own.

In my experience the weakest roleplaying I've ever been forced to endure has always been at the hands of "roleplayers" who want the freedom to be "anything they want" without anyone "telling them what to play". Almost without exception you end up with a character who never really "fits" into the story, the setting, or with the group. Little more than low-budget cameo appearance.

On another note, as far as skills go I'm sure we'll essentially see the same skill lists as both Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader, no reason to think this will be different.

I think the challenges of a combat centric RPG lies on the game master. The game master really has to "put on a different hat" and approach it differently. This maybe cold hearted but in a combat centric RPG the players lack many of the non-combat skills, exploit that as the GM and put them in situations where they have to roleplay something outside their characters comfort zone.

One thing I've done are ethical challenges; moral ambiguity is a common theme in action movies and it would work in an action rpg. Imagine a mexican stand off between two inquisitors and the deathwatch walk in on it. Or imagine they've been ordered to capture a relic, but where they determine its too dangerous to turn over to whatever authority they've been told to. Or even a mission where they've been ordered to demolish an alien temple despite warnings that doing so will awaken a Cthulu-esque alien that will devour the stars. Thats where real roleplay kicks in and allows action and combat to be a tool to the active narrative and not the sole device.

I think with Deathwatch their are other ways to challenge the players on a roleplaying level. Say the mission is to recover an artifact and destroy it, but upon discovery it belonged to the Primarch or Founder of a player(s) chapter. Will the internal conflict drive a wedge or create tension with in the Killteam, which is suppose to be a fine tuned machine? There is that inherent conflict of interest and split loyalties that are ripe for stories and conflict to drive an adventure.

Other things to consider is how the rest of the Imperium or whatever alien world they visit treats them. Can you trick them into a false sense of security by having the population great them as heroes and champions?

All those are non-combat challenges. To keep combat interesting, you need to think of ways to challenge the way they might fight to move them outside their comfort zone. There is the "Aliens" scenario, "you can't shoot armor piercing bullets down their, you might hit something" or the equivalent for flame weapons in a flamable atmosphere. Or the "Predator" scenario, "its hard to hit what you can't see."

Think to a degree like video games placing hazards that can be used to help or hurt the heroes, ie exploding barrels. Or how about elaborate battle grounds that require the players to keep moving as they fight less the ground crumble beneath them.

aka_mythos said:

I like your points. GMs should always challenge their players in some way that fits both the game and their playstyle. Sometimes this can be hard to do with certain groups, if the group basically decides to not have fun and just spoil the whole game, but then I don't know why they are there. I have seen it happen before, it isn't pretty, and no I don't know why they would do it.

The more amazing thing is the amount of people who have written this game off so early.

Where are they getting their advanced copies of the rulebook I wonder? I mean, they have to have copies right? No one writes a game off without having read the rulebook, do they?

Oh, no, wait. This is the Internet - the land where Hyperbole is a sentient being - so of course these people haven't read the rulebook.

BYE

It is indeed strange if people complain that a military-themed game is likely to have too much military-themed activity, like warfare. But who thinks that it is going to be only combat? War is 95% waiting, polishing your (and possibly your Battle-Brother's) bolter, scrubbing your Mark VII, praying, meditating and all that. The rest 5% is getting ripped to shreds by genestealers and tyranids.

I am already being impatient about the game. I want to replicate a number of decent action flicks which involve small special-ops teams fighting aliens. How many minutes of those movies are about firing short, controlled bursts?

There's a whole load of adventure possibilties just dealing with the support infrastructure. Who's stealing our bolter rounds? Who's murdered that favourite servant of mine? Who keeps painting my chainsword pink?

RPGs are all about letting people play out a number of different scenarios just because a setting is combat-centric is no reason to write it off. The simple fact is that most RPG sessions end up being combat intensive even if the game isn't designed to make combat interesting. The fact that the game is military themed or combat centric doesn't really change much to a game sessions structure; it is merely the predefinition of the nature of character relationship. Other than that the same nuiances and challenges work for this type of RPG as they do for others. Just to add to that the nature of the Deathwatch also lends it self even more to RPG, they're an isolated team, often working on their own without the advantage of reinforcements or larger military assets. They might as well be the Earps and Doc Holiday walking into town.

I have already posted this in another topic, but:

Some time ago, my friend ran a CP2020 game that could as well be a Space Marines game. All the characters were totally overpowered Solos introduced to and indoctrinated by a fanatical, militant corporation. The power level was such that we didn't bother much with rolling, we just took on thousands of troops using a mixture of tactics and bravado.

The thing is, it was the deepest, most psychologically engaging campaign I've played. The fighting parts were like taking a break, because the real action happened in the base, during briefings, debriefings, training and just goofing around. Combat didn't fuel those games, it was a backdrop. Things that really mattered were psychology, moral values, human condition and the price you're willing to pay for a better world.

These themes can easily be explored in a Deathwatch game. You're a genetically enhanced supersoldier who can barely be called "human" anymore. You are taken away from your brothers in arms, from everything you ever knew, and tossed into the far reaches of space. With you, several other supersoldiers, each coming from a different Chapter and having different views on, heck, pretty much everything. And you're expected to set aside all your differences for the sake of humanity's protection... or at least how your superiors and the Inquisition view it.

Add a sufficiently epic war in the backdrop, and lo! Drama ensues.

If I have any worries about Deathwatch at the moment, it's not about it's story or drama potential.

Hang on, was this the game discussed on VFTE? That was an interesting topic!

Err, completely off-topic, of course, but then again I'm seeing the rest of the thread as potentially related to misinterpretation on another one, so... Yeah. Back to writing about post-apocalyptic settings.

Kage

Howdy!

Only combat?

First of all who is the team leader? What about the different perpectives of the different chapters towards combat operations. What is the plan, how are they shaping the battle field, supporting friendly forces, and accomplishing the missions. Are we capturing and interogating the enemy or letting the emperior decide their fate. Yes there is a lot of fighting....tada...they are space marines and DeathWatch after all.

Deathwatch = A-Team.

All different, but all military.

Mohawks optional.

Kage2020 said:

I don't think it was, it's the first time I've heard of VFTE.

Morangias said:

Ah, fair enough. Just sounded similar to this thread over at Views from the Edge , a Cyberpunk-dedicated forum (well, mostly).

No worries, though. Thought that I would ask.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Ah, what are you writing about post-ap settings Kage?