Hello All -

I wanted to ask a few questions about how the system works.

I don't play Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader, so I am not familiar with how things work.

My brother playes Warhammer 40K and I have always been interested in the Space Marines.

All of my role-playing experience comes from D & D, which I have played since 1986.

I did try out the new Warhammer 3E. I didn't enjoy it at all . . .

Way to many little bits and tokens to fiddle with.

Any way here are the questions . . .

- Will Deathwatch be rules light? Fast and easy to play without spending to much time looking up rules.

- What is the quality of the books like? Binding, paper quality and art work.

- How do the core machanics of the game work?

- Do I need a map grid and miniatures?

- What kind of dice do I need? I hope that it will not use custom dice like the ones found in Warhammer 3E.

Thanks.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

-Deathwatch will utilize the same system as Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy, the rules will not be light, but I believe them to be relatively free of bloat. The game will be fast paced especially if the games master is decent with the Horde rules.

-FFG have great book quality, the bindings, paper and artwork are among the highest production value I have seen, at the books' high cost though, that should be par for the course.

-The core mechanics of the game are a percentile system. Roll under the necessary percentage on your D100 and you succeed.

-You do not need a map grid and minis, though they can be fun to add, they are not necessary to play the games.

-The dice you need are two D10s, also known as percentile dice. These two dice are really all any one player needs, though I myself have 15 sets of percentile dice used for the game. No special dice and cards to buy like WFRP 3rd.

Welcome and have fun,

Alexis

*smiles*

Oathwin Oakheart said:

No, not really. The 40k Engine is a tad on the crunchy side, with rules stacking on top of each other so you need to know one to really figure out the import of what the other ones does. With that said, they're all very simple and geared towards the theme of the game in question, but unless you know the rules inside or out then, just like with other rulers system, you're going to be looking stuff up all the time. I would imagine that this would decrease somewhat with time.

Of course, one could argue that the whole "token" thing in WFRP 3e was a way to put all that crunch at the hands of the players.

With that said, I don't use the rules so I can only base it from the perspective of a roleplayer that uses what is considered by many (not overtly appropriately) to be one of the crunchiest, rules-heavy systems out there. Yup, I consider GURPS to be less crunchy.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

Absolutely fantastic. I don't think that there are any questions about that. The materials have the support of GW so they're sometimes recycling artwork (which can get a tad annoying), and there are some questions about some of the artwork that went into Deathwatch , but layout, binding, quality, etc. are all things that you don't really need to worry about.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

Check out some of the free demos that you can find on the FFG website. They'll give you a basic gist of it.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

Unless you're playing a tactical wargame? No, no really.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

If you've got the standard run of gamer's dice you'll be good to go. No custom dice required, just two or more d10s...

Kage

Thanks for taking the time to answer my some what scattered questions . . .

I have ordered the book and can't wait to try it out!

Now while I wait for it to arrive I need to do some thing about the fact that I have no knowledge about the Warhammer 40K universe.

Time to read some novels!

Kage2020 said:

That crunchy? Please explain.

Alex

GURPS - less Crunchy then warhammer d100.... LoL.

the WFRP (pre box edition), RT, DH and looking at it DW are not massively rules orientated, and it's easy to gloss over stuff. In general d100 under skill, In combat same as, with damage using d10s.

It's not the quickest combat system, but by far not the slowest.

Oathwin Oakheart said:

There is an introduction scenario with a break down of the rules on the Deatwatch weekly news post, "Gear Up" is the name of the weekly news post with the introduction scenario. Enough of the rules are there to make you feel the FFG d100 system.

I most certainly disagree with the sentiment that GURPS is less crunchy than the D100 system used in DH/RT/DW. For one the game does not require you to "build" your talents and powers like a generic system ala GURPS and HERO5th/6th ed.

But that's a matter to opine on since no answer will ever be a unilaterally accepted one. Some people see it as crunch heavy others see it as lighter.

But I am definitely of the mind its less crunchy than Jackson or Long's D6 systems.

Alexis

*smiles*

It's less crunchy than most systems I've run.

I can tell you this much... it's MUCH less crunchy than 4E for D&D is... as DM all I see are numbers... in DH/RT/DW I can see the action and enjoy the system.

FatPob said >>>

GURPS - less Crunchy then warhammer d100.... LoL.

As always, YMMV (or YMOV in this case). It was a personal observation based upon my readings of both systems. It is just my experience that people label GURPS as being crunchy on the conflation that just because it has a lot of supplements and modular rules that you are for some reason required to use them. Four attributes, how to handle the task resolution system and that's about it. It handles in 11 pages what is handled in Dark Heresy with 62. So, yeah, on sheer page count that would certainly be far less crunchy. On the other hand, there are hundreds of additional pages of optional rules and genre advice if you want them (remembering the conflation that just because it is published that you must use it).

Again, though, remember it's not some form of system pissing contest. In my experience Dark Heresy is far more crunchy, requiring that you chase rules around in intuitive ways. None of that in any way makes it a bad system. Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

With that said, my preferences are for coherent, detailed-oriented systems (whether I to use that detail) over which I utilise a narratively-oriented semi-qualitative system. Make of that what you will. It works for me.

crisaron said >>>

I have ordered the book and can't wait to try it out!

Good luck and have fun!

Cailieg said >>>

I most certainly disagree with the sentiment that GURPS is less crunchy than the D100 system used in DH/RT/DW. For one the game does not require you to "build" your talents and powers like a generic system ala GURPS and HERO5th/6th ed.

I think it's fairly that you're misrepresenting the difference between "crunchy" and the fact that a generic system obviously doesn't deal with the specifics of an individual setting. Would a 40k GURPS game require more work up front than a pre-published, dedicated system? That goes without saying. On the other hand, the core mechanics are in my observation far less crunchy. As you say, though:

Cailieg said >>>

But that's a matter to opine on since no answer will ever be a unilaterally accepted one. Some people see it as crunch heavy others see it as lighter.

Indeed. I merely made the observation because of the common misconception of GURPS , and the fact that as someone that uses GURPS I feel that it is a more crunchy system. The observation may have been relevant, if as idiosyncratic as anyone saying to the contrary.

Cailieg said >>>

But I am definitely of the mind its less crunchy than Jackson or Long's D6 systems.

The one that the WEG d6 Star Wars used? Interesting... I would have gone with Rifts , myself, as an example.

Kage

No I mean Gurps by Steve Jackson games, or its counter part and very similar generic system HERO 5th or 6th Edition by Steven Long's HERO Games. Not the WEG D6 system, which is to me, far less crunchy than Dark Heresy's D100 system. Sorry for the confusion.

Now do not get me wrong, I love the HERO System, and have enjoyed many a great time around the table enjoying GURPS as well. I just personally find that the DH d100 system runs more intuitively than the aforementioned two 3d6 systems.

Another beast completely is my love for WEG D6 system, which to me is was and always will be the ideal system for Star Wars.

Alexis

*smiles*

Cailieg said >>>

No I mean Gurps by Steve Jackson games, or its counter part and very similar generic system HERO 5th or 6th Edition by Steven Long's HERO Games. Not the WEG D6 system, which is to me, far less crunchy than Dark Heresy's D100 system. Sorry for the confusion.

No, the confusion is only with me. As I read the above I had another one of those literal "Doh!" moments.

As you mention in your above post, it's so entirely idiosyncratic that it is difficult to tease out anything. As above my only goal was to offer a personal perspective as someone that uses a purportedly crunchy system that I had a completely different take on things. (Amusingly I find GURPS and d6 to be far more intuitive, and as a partial result of that far less crunchy, than any of the 40k RPG franchise where the pseudo-d100 system is just that: psuedo and in some cases counter-intuitive.)

Of course, we're getting back into that whole idiosyncratic thing. Either way, thanks for not taking my post as being a criticism of the 40k RPG franchise. It wasn't, but it is so easy for people to take any observation as criticism.

Cailieg said >>>

Another beast completely is my love for WEG D6 system, which to me is was and always will be the ideal system for Star Wars.

And that is a a topic for another discussion.

Kage

Oathwin Oakheart said:

Just wanted to offer you a link to what I think is, by far, the best 40k primer I've ever found.

http://darkreign40k.com/drjoomla/forum/dark_reign_contributions/imperial_primer_full_version_2236.0.html

I highly recommend reading through it. It's pretty long, but it covers all of the important details for someone with zero 40k background. Most of the history section can be skimmed, but it's still nice to have.

Cailieg said:

I favour d100 systems myself for the ability to assign the desired modifiers as a GM. D100 means you can assess actual percent chances and roundabout.

Alex

Incidentally, for the sake of honesty, I sneakily and deliberately misinterpreted the page count/crunch thing to illustrate the point about, well, the misinterpretation/misrepresentation.

And completely incidentally, don't all dice allow you to access percentile changes to varying degrees of resolution?

Kage

Kage2020 said:

My post should have read: "D100 means you can assess actual percent chances (and with ease) and not roundabout" though. As a Shadowrun GM I have learned about the value of such.

So how do you define crunchy? I would say if I as a GM do often have to look up modifiers, tables, rules and effects of powers/talents/edges and flaws - then a game is crunchy.

Alex

Production quality of FFG books is fantastic? Not sure if the people saying that never played Dark Heresy back before FFG aquired the rights to it, but Black Industries used a thicker, glossier paper that led a much nicer overall feel. Not to mention they didn't regularly miss out content that was referred to within the book and then try and fob us off later on with PDF supplements instead of reprints.

FFGs current line of books is ok. Fine. Satisfactory. The artwork is great in some instances, and utterly dire in others. As has been said there was almost exclusively regurgitated artwork in some of the earlier books and i believe FFG took criticisms of this onboard for later books and brought in much more original art, a lot of which is very cartoony and breaks from the traditiona GW art vibe.

The fluff, game mechanics and character descriptions and options are very well written and thought out. These are books you buy to play with, not to look at casually or admire for the production quality.

Well, the nature of the DH engine as percentile or d100 has been debated back and forth for quite a while. I shall not revisit that particular one.

As the definition of "crunchy?" It is my understanding that this is used in two ways: (1) to refer to the rules (as opposed to the 'fluff,' or the non-rules bits); and (2) to the "complexity" of the system. What defines complexity? For you it seems to be chasing over the rulebook and, if that is the case, I would share that. I would argue that it's not a case of supporting your memory since, well, that's why we have books in the first place—so that we don't have to remember each and every rule, effect or whatever.

There's obviously a point at which familiarity with rules will break down the perception of crunchiness, I'll admit, but when it came down to "Okay, roll for damage... Okay, you do that much but you've got Mighty Shot <thumbs> so you get to add to that, but they've also got Unnatural Toughess <thumbs>, but you're firing on full automatic <thumbs> with a tearing weapon <thumbs> with 2 degrees of success <thumbs> rolling for critical <thumbs>... Right, your head is splattered against the wall..."

Again, rules familiarity is an issue. I just personally find that there is more rules concatenation and jumping around in DH. I will not even begin to describe the difficulty that I had with character generation, and that's before even trying to create an Ascended character. I've known people familiar with the system break down and cry when presented with that challenge. Your mileage will likely vary, but as I have said the observation was just that: an observation that I made about the system based upon my own experience in another system that is often misinterpreted as being crunchy/complex and rules heavy when it just requires a shift from the "It's published, let's use it" mentality to "It's published, do I want to use it, not bother with it, or work up something that is more appropriate to the setting in my estimation of appropriateness?"

I'm not sure whether this avenue will lead is into terribly fruitful discussion. It seems that "crunchy" is being taken as a criticism rather than a personal observation and, further, that I determine crunch to be a bad thing. This is not the case since I deliberately selected a system with not unsubstantial optional crunch after coming from a very rules-lite system. It's just that I overlay that with a system that is designed to act as an interface between narrative and crunch, so I end up something that works for me (YMMV), is quick in the same way that a rules-lite system is, but adds on flexibility and coherence.

As to the production quality? I only bought the original hardbook from BI and have only subsequently touched the PDF. For some strange reason I concluded that since the price hadn't dramatically changed that they would be useful the same publishing options along with the layout (which seemed broadly the same).

Anyway, back to work...

Kage

I have many many GURPs books, being one of the best game systems out there (yes it is better then DW/WFRP/DH/RT and D&LOLD).

I got into GURPS when looking for a good all round game (I had at the time AD&D, Paladium RPG, Traveler - original, Gamma World - yes that was some time ago). The system is in essence very simple, however it could be very crunchy, especially when combined with Magic, Bionics, Super Powers, etc. The truth is how you play the game. GURPS combat can be time consuming - though this was massively reduced with 4th ed, but it still can drag on, especially with magic, and powers.

Gurps skill defaults and what gives what adv/disadv wise can get pretty crunchy thats why most people use the GC$ program - sorts a lot out for you. In truth a GURPS newbie will struggle to create a character in under 15 mins, whereas many other games do have a quick roll and system.

However Gurps encompasses so much more. Don't get me started on Vehicles in GURPS,

Still it has one of the best PC to PC and PC to NPC interaction elements in any game via the reputation (and other bits), and in general has produced some very good rpgs for me and my group.

My big issue with GURPS (and all point based character games) is the "Clonability" and rampant munchkinism that can appear if people aren't "guided" int he character generation.

Don't get me wrong WFRP/DH/RT etc have similar elements, with the only diferentiation being the original "luck" on characteristic rolls.

But to say roll, and lets go, as opposed to Gurps system of point spending, min/maxing (yes cos many players do, it's in their nature) for a starter game is a very flawed statement.

TLDR: GURPS>DW/DH/RT/WFRP however DW/DH/RT/WFRP easier then GURPS

I think that this shall be my last response to since I'm fundamentally just repeating myself and, well, that's about as interesting as driving razor blades into your eyes. Feel free to continue it at another venue...

FatPob said >>>

The system is in essence very simple, however it could be very crunchy, especially when combined with Magic, Bionics, Super Powers, etc.

Which was the point of my observation and subsequent explanation (and deliberate misinterpretation of page counts ). At the core it's a series of a very simple mechanics that you can customise as appropriate for the campaign in question to become, if you want, very crunchy. It has rules for nigh on everything and more being written as time goes by (even if, arguably, the 'fluff' in th books is worth more than the 'crunch' in terms of genre advice, etc.). That is the core assumption and one that seems to be at variance to many others: you take the minimum and bolt on what you need in a modular fashion.

I don't think that is the case in how I have observed DH being used due to rules concatenation, the relative inflexibility of the character generation system (which does make it much quicker; an advantage), etc. YMMV, of course, but this was the ultimate source of my observation and why I'm still sticking to it. And, once more, making an Ascension -level character? I found that more daunting than GURPS 3e Vehicles (aka "The Crunchinator" ).

Hand on heart, though? In my conversion of the 40k universe to GURPS 4e I have used quite a few rules books, but only to streamline the process and so that I can reduce my work load. Thus, yeah, I've delved into Thaumatology for sorcery and psykers; UltraTech for Space Marines and general technology, Supers for genre advice on how to handle uber-power armour; Powers for psykers (and nigh on everything else, including Faith, Enuncia, etc.); Characters and Campaigns for some crunch so that I can "properly" simulate and compare, say, Marine strength; Martial Arts will likely get a look in for the Eldar Aspect Warriors and Temple Assassins, perhaps even to model "Marine Power Armour Combat" or some such; I'll look to Mysteries and Action for advice on DH-esque campaigns... etc. Again, though, that's just taking the things that I feel are "necessary" for the simulation in hand and then discarding the rest.

Now that I think about it, though, my sorcery rules are most crunchy. Then again, the crunch in there (copy/paste of Path/Book magic) is mostly to bring some flavour to what is, in DH, rather bland even though the FFG materials indicated some more promise than those of BI.

FatPob said >>>

The truth is how you play the game. GURPS combat can be time consuming - though this was massively reduced with 4th ed, but it still can drag on, especially with magic, and powers.

Again, that depends on whether you're using the full (optional) tactical combat rules, or you're using the lite variant or something in between. I personally use a variant of the lite that allows for tactical decision making but within a narrative framework moderated by FUDGE terminology. Of course, I partially do that because my gaming is online and nothing will slow down a game than lots of dice rolling, and nothing will kill a game quicker than the players feeling that you're just making everything up out of cloth.

FatPob said >>>

Gurps skill defaults and what gives what adv/disadv wise can get pretty crunchy thats why most people use the GC$ program - sorts a lot out for you. In truth a GURPS newbie will struggle to create a character in under 15 mins, whereas many other games do have a quick roll and system.

In all fairness, though, a newbie to any game is going to struggle to create a character in almost any game, especially if it is a concept-driven process rather than just random rolling. Even randomly rolling for everything (as in some approaches to the DH character generation system) the number of choices can be bewildering if you're working with even a low-to-mid-range character. (I've only created characters for level 3-4 games, and have at each time had problems with the choices and being able to create a concept-driven character.)

FatPob said >>>

Don't get me started on Vehicles in GURPS,

Now that is a book that I use a program for. Then again, if you haven't updated to the optional/modular Starships then I can see why you would be having a problem. (Assuming that you feel that there is a need to stat out such things as Starships, Titans, etc.)

FatPob said >>>

My big issue with GURPS (and all point based character games) is the "Clonability" and rampant munchkinism that can appear if people aren't "guided" int he character generation.

I'm afraid that the same can be said for the DH engine since it ultimately mixes with player preference. That's why it is common when introducing people to a new setting/genre to use "templates" (a pre-prepared series of game descriptors for a given type of character) so that they can be guided through the process. If you want to call them by another name, we could call them "Classes" and... Yeppers. It's similar to DH.

Again, the three times that I have created a DH character (two normal, one ascended) I've run into the situation where I've basically thrown up my hands and gone, "Help me, GM!" (Again, some of that is rules familiarity, but the same applies both ways.)

FatPob said >>>

But to say roll, and lets go, as opposed to Gurps system of point spending, min/maxing (yes cos many players do, it's in their nature) for a starter game is a very flawed statement.

I think that you're going to be painting DH with the same brush as GURPS here, surely? If you don't frequent the online play boards you will be forgiven for not knowing, but point-buy systems for DH seem to be at least on par with random attribute generation, as is selecting which skills/traits/talents you want (with the resultant filtering to the abilities that make you "powerful"). As you say, it's as much if not more something that can be lain at the feet of the player (or the GM allowing the player to do so) than systemic.

With that said, when you add the qualifier "starter game," which I presume to mean level 1, on the face of it (since I haven't done it) given the broad lack of choice that you have (with bolting on IH) are fairly limited so, yeah, it's going to be easy to be fairly easy to create a DH character. On the other hand, if you replicate that mechanic with GURPS ala the templates you can pretty much have that same level of choice (nor not). Both games get more complex the greater the power level, both games can be min-maxed at some point , both have some crunch and 'fluff.' About the only difference that I see, and the reason that I made my statement, is the rules chasing, or rules concatenation. (Of course, this is not helped by the poor to non-existent indexing, but hey-ho.)

To borrow your turn of phrase... TLDR? I'm not suggesting that one system is better than another, I don't agree with the sentiment that the DH engine is easier/less crunchy (and in my experience the opposite is the case) if one presupposes that the setting conventions/information have been pre-established (otherwise the analogy would be for the generic "you" to build DH fresh from the WFRP engine and see whether that is "easy" or not).

Again though, unless there's a wild and outlandish response I think that I'll break it off now. I just find it interesting that the same labels that apply to a purportedly (and arguably erroneously) crunchy system can be applied to one that people claim is not really that crunchy. While some of it can be moderated by system familiarity... No, again, I'm repeating myself.

Anyway, interesting and, again, YMMV.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I prefer dedicated specialist rules for each genre. One of GURPS biggest flaws is the one-second combat system, btw.

Kage2020 said:

GURPS has just as much rules concatenation though.

Kage2020 said:

Not my taste. In the end it will be just GURPS in yet another setting and that's minus for me as I don't want to play the same system all the time. The "crunch" is part of the atmosphere of a game, not just the "fluff". Differing systems, more unique flavour for each.

Kage2020 said:

Does GURPS still use 1 sec rounds?

Kage2020 said:

Let me say this: if a system is going to try to be somewhat realistic, you will have different modifiers for firing modes, different modifiers for lighting, etc. If a game uses edges (and flaws), there is bound to be stacking and interdependence with other game mechanics. In that regard I see no difference between GURPS and 40K Roleplay. Having less attributes also doesn't make a system less crunchy. Whether you have 8 or 4 makes no substantial difference. A system gets crunchy when it goes more into detail than called for by the setting. If you want to create a fairly realistic rpg in a war setting expect many modifiers and rules. If you want play a cineastic Hongkong action RPG, there will likely less rules and modifiers.

You want to make Deathwatch a bit less crunchy? Just don't allow for different firing modes, always assume maximum fire mode and work that into a single damage roll. Etc etc etc.

Personally I am comfortable with the crunch level of 40K Roleplay given the setting (fluff?); the engineers of the system did an adequate job.

Alex

Okay, really my last reply since I really don't want to go back to writing about 19th-century work yards.

ak-73 said >>>

I prefer dedicated specialist rules for each genre. One of GURPS biggest flaws is the one-second combat system, btw.

That would be your own preference in both cases. My own is that I have never really seen a mechanical doohickie that has been critical to the narrative that requires a specialist system, and have seen specialist systems that require quite a bit of homebrewing to really reinforce the "flavour" as it pertains to a specific play group.

ak-73 said >>>

GURPS has just as much rules concatenation though.

Not in my experience, though with the caveat that rules familiarity comes into play as mentioned numerously.

ak-73 said >>>

Not my taste. In the end it will be just GURPS in yet another setting and that's minus for me as I don't want to play the same system all the time. The "crunch" is part of the atmosphere of a game, not just the "fluff". Differing systems, more unique flavour for each.

Again, that's entirely your preference. I've seen the argument about "unique flavour" and as far as I can tell it comes down to either preference of mechanic (or which dice you wish to roll), or what name you give something (servitor or bioroid? cogitator or computer?). What does show the greater variance are the inherent assumptions of balance that, if you let them, can alter things (or reveal that crazy assumptions of balance).

With that said, for the most part, I've always pushed system into the backso the idea that system really matters to anyone but the individual is not something that I would personally spend too much time arguing. That's why the initial comment was a personal observation born partially out of preference, just as is the case for this continuing back and forth. If system desperately matters to you such that you feel the need to defend the game? Fair enough. It can provide some interesting discussions as long as it is realised that it is not a question of superiority, and that preference and experience inform observation and perspective.

ak-73 said >>>

Does GURPS still use 1 sec rounds?

It does, but that is also dependent on how you approach it. For example, as outlined above my own choice is to use the lite variant with an overlay of terminology borrowed from FUDGE (you could argue that this is homebrew, but it's really just saying that something is good, something else is average, etc.), which means you basically move between points of narrative description and 1 second "crunch" points where time slows down. You could think of it is narrative bullet time if it is felt it is necessary. (You can also do the same with the 40k RPG license...)

Of course, just how long you feel comfortable making your "combat round" is entirely up to individual preference. For example, AD&D had 60 second combat rounds and Shadowrun has 5 second ones. What are you doing in all that time?

ak-73 said >>>

A system gets crunchy when it goes more into detail than called for by the setting. If you want to create a fairly realistic rpg in a war setting expect many modifiers and rules. If you want play a cineastic Hongkong action RPG, there will likely less rules and modifiers.

Indeed. Hence the original comment and modularity.

ak-73 said >>>

You want to make Deathwatch a bit less crunchy? Just don't allow for different firing modes, always assume maximum fire mode and work that into a single damage roll. Etc etc etc.

I didn't say that it couldn't be made less crunchy, but that's a top-down approach rather than a bottom-up one. Mileage is going to vary as to which is preferential. (Obviously, I prefer to cobble on complexity as required and for the flavour of the game...)

What I did say is that, in my experience, it's a very crunchy system (with the caveat that rules familiarity does play a part) and, given my system of choice, I find that somewhat of an amusing observation. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, merely making the observation. You don't agree? Excellent. In disagreement there is the potential for discussion. Just don't take it as a criticism, since that would not be the case.

ak-73 said >>>

Personally I am comfortable with the crunch level of 40K Roleplay given the setting (fluff?); the engineers of the system did an adequate job.

Excellent. Glad to hear it and all that. Since many people love the game mechanics you would seem to be right in your assessment. Of course, as above, I'm not saying that they did an inadequate job.

Hand on heart, I would never use the WFRP or DH (and related) systems as a GM. I would, however, play in those systems if I had sufficient guidance to help me through all the mechanical options so that I could work on a concept-driven character rather than "roll your character up, then making up your concept" (though that can be fun at times as well). I would hope that, if I were playing a psyker, the GM had co-opted the RT variant to make it a bit more "interesting," and perhaps they worked up the sorcery rules so that they were a tad more interesting and worked to the promise that the RH sourcebook hinted at... Maybe they might even remove a few things that turn me off (Toughness Bonus invulnerable buffingnumber of ways to solve this)...

Of course, that doesn't have anything to do with the price of bacon since, again, it was merely an observation not a criticism.

Right, back to 19th-century work yards.

Kage

Kage I may not always agree with you, but I will be completely forthright in saying that, your grasp of linguistics is simply amazing and speaking with you is always a pleasure.

Alexis

*hugs and smiles*

Kage2020 said:

That's not the point. The main point is in not having to always play the same system, thus adding to the distinct flavour of a setting. Secondly, you don't have to fit the pattern of any more generic rules. If your setting requires a Spirit Walk and it's supposed to have a different Spirit Walk mechanics than the generic version, you'll have to remember that. But that's just a side example for what nesting a specific setting into a generic ruleset entails.

Kage2020 said:

Too bad I don't have edges and flaws nearby, I am sure I could stack some of those very neatly.

Kage2020 said:

First of all all these things summed up do contribute to a flavour or an atmosphere. The individual distinction between the terms of servitor and bioroid is negligible. One could also argue whether buildings have a gothic appearance or modern - they're just the same buildings. It all adds up though and makes for a unique, distinct flavour. Including which dice to roll. And yes also including how to make things stack up given the mechanics. How fighters are balanced vs psykers/wizards, etc. This unique balance also adds to the distinct flavour of a game.

The way something looks in the game world, which name it has, which dice are rolled, what the balance of the mechanics are... all of these things matter to atmosphere. If they didn't, we could remain playing humans, only rolling d6, not caring about classes, etc.

The principle of any narrative can be told without all that fluff. There's no principle that exists in the world of pulp adventures that hasn't been told in classic literature before. In fact, it's a mix of all the stuff that the classics more or less established.

Kage2020 said:

I should clarify at this point that I am not a fan of the 40K Roleplay system. I consider it very solid system though. Suitable to the setting.

As for the role of the system, I think I stated my take on it above. I could run a game entirely focussed without a fixed set of rules, totally improvising everything based on d100 rolls too. If one wants to focus on narrative that is a possibility. I just don't want my role-playing *games* to be that centered on narrative though. I want the feel the game effect too. ;-)

Kage2020 said:

Shadowrun 1st and 2nd edition has 3 second rounds. A protracted firefight with both parties at medium distance and firing out of cover wouldn't be unreasonable

to take a minute of fighting. Good luck playing such fights in GURPS. Even in SR 20 rounds (with possible multiple actions each, let me remind you) takes very long to play out. I am saying this because I found that in SR most of the time players seek short-distance slug-outs resulting in fights always lasting about 15 seconds.

The interrupt frequency in GURPS is just to high, making protracted fights too lengthy if not fairly impossible.

Kage2020 said:

Or you don't buy yet another GURPS sourcebook but a dedicated game which means you have to learn new rules but also means you have another game you can explore from scratch.

Btw, I don't dislike GURPS. I loved playing Bab 5 in GURPS. Just don't want to play it all the time.

Kage2020 said:

I find it average/pretty solid in that regard too. It has edges, which most modern games have. It has firing modes which most modern games have. It has modifiers for range, visibility, movement, etc. All the same modifiers you find in Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Aliens, Twilight 2000, Dark Conspiracy, Spacemaster, etc etc etc

Edges can be made to stack, that's normal for games with edges too. If you find that crunchy remove edges mechanics and improvise. :-)

Kage2020 said:

Let me tell you this: I was very skeptical towards DH when it came out. I had no idea how things would work out. But as I mentioned before we used the Heroes of Tomorrow generic RPG supplement to roll up my PCs background. Multiple accounts of spending time in prison made Scum the natural choice although I didn't actually want to play a Scum. Rather a Psyker. But the randomly created background events asked of me to invent a background story out of the cornerstones and after understanding how my ex-con made the transition into being an Acolyte, I love my PC.

So much for concept-driven characters. Some of the details I would have never thought of myself (limited imagination?). ;-)

Alex

Once again I must break my word and reply. I'm just trying to be sensitive that this is, well, the forum that it is and didn't want an observation to be turned into some form of nerd-rage/gasm. Not saying that it is, I'm just trying to avoid it. Thus far... <touch wood>

ak-73 said >>>

That's not the point. The main point is in not having to always play the same system, thus adding to the distinct flavour of a setting.

I do not think that is this case. Are you meaning to suggest that a dedicated systems works to add a unique experience to a given setting? That's a different matter, I think, or at least is not how I would use the term "flavour." If that is the case, then I would certainly agree with you to a point. For example, my original group only ever used one system: AD&D . When they were introduced to Shadowrun , one of the things that they remembered was that the system was different and that they weren't rolling a d20, but rather a sea of d6. On the other hand, what they remember the most was the story line.

As a personal anecdotes, one system that really broke my enjoyment of a game was Heroes Unlimited . On the other hand using the Storyteller system? That was kind of fun.

This is one of those points that a difference raised by Luddite on Dark Reign comes up (and with no judgement about the superiority of either): Are you a roleplaying gamer or a roleplaying gamer ? As I prefer the system to disappear as much as possible, just be there to abstract characters/events/whatever in a "believable" way, I consider myself to be a roleplaying gamer. Thus, as a player system tends not to enter into it until it gets in the way.

As a GM? Different set of criteria, although my preference for system invisibility and my experiences of other systems does set a certain pattern.

ak-73 said >>>

Secondly, you don't have to fit the pattern of any more generic rules. If your setting requires a Spirit Walk and it's supposed to have a different Spirit Walk mechanics than the generic version, you'll have to remember that. But that's just a side example for what nesting a specific setting into a generic ruleset entails.

Hmmn... As I'm looking at things you actually have it the other way around. Placing "Spirit Walk" into a dedicated system is going to be potentially more jarring than into a generic one that is designed to allow a "Spirit Walk" that is custom-tailored to the setting. It takes time, effort, and can involve quite a bit of "crunch" to get it to fit the concept, might look god-awful to someone that doesn't know the crunch, but that's GM-end. Production/player end you just get a description.

Maybe I'm arguing against myself, now? Or perhaps that I'm just exploring the reason that I made the observation that I did. The rules concatenation, the crunchiness... They were all, for me, player end even though you're dealing with materials that are specifically designed for the setting (well, mostly; there's some transference of concepts from WFRP).

ak-73 said >>>

Too bad I don't have edges and flaws nearby, I am sure I could stack some of those very neatly.

As I'm using the term, I'm talking about the situation when the cause and effect are obfuscated by a chain of rules that you have to follow through to resolve the situation. Don't get me wrong, there's always the "Shout and roll dice!" method that is tried, tested and trusted by many but... Again, it's the front-loading.

Okay, maybe I am shifting things to GM vs. player "crunch" and setup vs. play "crunch?" Either way, you can for sure stack advantages and disadvantages to mutual benefit in the G-game. That is, in fact, how you custom-build abilities so that they fit the setting by exploring the specific combinations of advantages, disadvantages, abilities, enhancements and limitations of an ability (be it magical power, technology or whatever) in the setting and with acknowledge of any appropriate genre convention.

This type of "stacking" is not what I'm referring to be rules concatenation (see above).

ak-73 said >>>

The individual distinction between the terms of servitor and bioroid is negligible. One could also argue whether buildings have a gothic appearance or modern - they're just the same buildings.

Strange. Yet you will see arguments that "servitor" is a distinct and unique entity, and there's a whole psychology of architecture, decor, the creation of social space and the reflection on social order. I consider this setting information and it makes little difference whether you use a generic or dedicated system as long as the effort is made for setting and genre "appropriateness."

ak-73 said >>>

I just don't want my role-playing *games* to be that centered on narrative though. I want the feel the game effect too. ;-)

I think that answers the earlier question I posed, so thank you. It does much to explain the distinctions that you're arguing. Suffice to say that we come to it from opposite ends of the spectrum.

ak-73 said >>>

Shadowrun 1st and 2nd edition has 3 second rounds. A protracted firefight with both parties at medium distance and firing out of cover wouldn't be unreasonable

It's quite possible that 3e and 4e have 3 second rounds and I merely misremembered. In fact, you can probably guarantee it. I only really buy RPGs for the setting information, and the description of abilities, for many years now. I read enough of the system to see how it abstracts, any glitches that I would prefer smoothed out, those that might have a bearing on a conversion, etc. (For example, Toughness Bonus is never going to see the light of day in a conversion of the 40k setting to GURPS .)

ak-73 said >>>

Good luck playing such fights in GURPS. Even in SR 20 rounds (with possible multiple actions each, let me remind you) takes very long to play out. I am saying this because I found that in SR most of the time players seek short-distance slug-outs resulting in fights always lasting about 15 seconds.

As above, we come from two different angles. You consider system to be a vital element in the "game experience." I do not, even if as a GM I have a preferred selection. Even if I were to dogmatically follow the letter of the tactical combat system, "realistic" protracted combats of minutes would be fairly easy to "game" out quickly and efficiently. It depends on whether you believe all combat take the form of attack-defend-attack-defend-attack-defend. If you do, then it might be a nightmare. On the other hand, most wombats, especially melee wombats, do not work that way. (Sorry, couldn't resist the deliberate typographic.) In tactical combat terms, much of your time is spent moving (circling, etc.), feinting, assessing, sporadic flurries of activity, etc.

If you feel that it is necessary to "game out" every single combat round? I would imagine that any system that's going to be... intensive.

ak-73 said >>>

Or you don't buy yet another GURPS sourcebook but a dedicated game which means you have to learn new rules but also means you have another game you can explore from scratch.

On a personal level, I buy alternate systems anyway. Why do I need to learn a new set of rules, though? I've done plenty of that in my time and have more important things to burn the 'ole grey matter on. Of course, now that's just my set of preferences. Again, though, I'm a roleplaying gamer so as we've seen, I feel, YMWV.

ak-73 said >>>

Edges can be made to stack, that's normal for games with edges too. If you find that crunchy remove edges mechanics and improvise. :-)

Just FYI, I once went through the core system and determined what I would need to change to make the system "feel right" for me. It was nigh-on everything. Rather than waste my time doing that to maintain a mechanic that I didn't feel scaled very well, I just acknowledged this and moved on. Please do not mistake the observation that I noted it to be crunchy to be the same as not being able to understand how to remove "crunch." Please also note that we're not talking about the same rules concatenation, as above.

Again, though, it's not a criticism of DH and related games.

ak-73 said >>>

Let me tell you this: I was very skeptical towards DH when it came out. I had no idea how things would work out. But as I mentioned before we used the Heroes of Tomorrow generic RPG supplement to roll up my PCs background. Multiple accounts of spending time in prison made Scum the natural choice although I didn't actually want to play a Scum. Rather a Psyker. But the randomly created background events asked of me to invent a background story out of the cornerstones and after understanding how my ex-con made the transition into being an Acolyte, I love my PC.

Note that you're not alone in the use of Heroes of Tomorrow, although I would imagine that we would use it very differently. It is, however, interesting that you use this as an example when you commented on making generic information "fit." With that said, please note that I cover this point in my previous post.

Ah well. More's the fun.

Kage