Kage2020 said:

If well done, it can but that wasn't what I tried to express. The distinct flavour of a distinct setting and a distinct rule-set make for a distinct gaming experience.

Kage2020 said:

No fair - I didn't say it would be what players remembered the most, nor might even pick up consciously. I said it was adding to the distinct flavour of the setting (and within the gaming experience itself).

Kage2020 said:

No system has ever broke my enjoyment of a game. At least not that I recall. A GM or other players may have... but a system?

Oh and I like Heroes Unlimited, had some memorable moments with Jetboy and Adrenaline (though both dies thanks to unbelievable dice rolls by the GM). It just doesn't allow you to construe the Hero you want to play per se. I liked the old Marvel game with the advanced rules. Allowed you to fairly custom tailor your superhero.

Kage2020 said:

I am neither. I am a role-playing gamer. My understanding of rpg these days is that akin of Rat Pack show (and I am not talking Skavens, lol).

Kage2020 said:

When you're creating a game from scratch you don't have to fit it into the given mechanics of an existing generic system, right? If the setting might call for it for whatever reason you can have d100 attributes. Or you can have skills based on multiple attributes: courage and dexterity for a charge attack roll in a Conan RPG or whatever. You have less design constraints, right?

Kage2020 said:

Give me an example for rules concatenation you don't see as such in GURPS please.

Kage2020 said:

Yeah, well, you're saying basically the same thing I had been saying: the individual distinction of the terms servitor and bioroid is negligible. If you're not just looking at the terms though but at all the things attached to it, the concept of servitors as a whole, you'll arrive at greater distinction. Looking the world of 40K as a whole, you'll have then ever greater disinction from other sci-fi settings.

Kage2020 said:

No sir, I fear I have to correct you there for your statement reveals a logical fallacy. My statement merely reveals that I am not coming from your end of the spectrum . That doesn't imply that I come from the opposing end. As I have hinted at above, rpging to me these days is like a variety show. You don't just get singing, you also get story-telling, joking, egg-juggling, improvised acting, poetry recitals, dancing elephants on the stage - the whole nine yards.

Stressing the roleplaying aspect is too limiting from my point-of-view; I like games the most when they're a blend of all things that are part of the hobby, the improvised acting, the hack and slay and pillage and plunder, and everything inbetween. While reading Final Sanction a silly punch line in the German language regarding Genestealers crossed my mind, I intend to place it somewhere in the second session of FS.

To me, the job as a GM is more like an entertainer, a nerd version of Johnny Carson.

Kage2020 said:

Of course you don't have to but if you don't, you'll end up with sth like Palladium's 15 second rounds, even if in an

Kage2020 said:

If you play Deathwatch in GURPS, will your translating all the stats cost you less effort than learning the rules of the game? Really? And when supplements arrive, you'll translate the new hardware into GURPS terms too. Doesn't seem to be much easier. I think most people who don't have much time (work/school/girl-friend) will be more inclined to pick up a book and learn the rules rather than transcribe it into a system they know.

Kage2020 said:

I have been through all of that and I don't feel much the need to formally go through a rulebook and change the rules to make it feel right for me anymore. Instead I prefer to make changes as necessary mostly as the need for it arises. A player wants a talent he can't have? If he has a good background story, he'll have it.

I don't like the distribution of hits due to auto-fire? I'll use my own hit-tables which are based on Harnmasters, etc.

As scaling for example, I don't require precision there. Only roundabout the right scaling, that suffices to tell a story generally.

Kage2020 said:

Btw, I've recently considered creating an online version of the Heroes supplements as these fine books are generally lost to the Roleplaying public at large.

Alex

ak-73 said >>>

If well done, it can but that wasn't what I tried to express. The distinct flavour of a distinct setting and a distinct rule-set make for a distinct gaming experience.

I imagine that it's mostly just a different dictionary in operation, which is all good and well, but for me "flavour" is something that is setting-based. In my experience the methods that you use to abstract it are just a preference thing.

Of course, one could also point out that DH wasn't custom-designed either...

ak-73 said >>>

No fair - I didn't say it would be what players remembered the most, nor might even pick up consciously. I said it was adding to the distinct flavour of the setting (and within the gaming experience itself).

I used it as an example to indicate where system was memorable. A contra example would be when the GM of another game (this one 2300 AD ) wouldn't let anyone see the system and would continually reverse the die rolls (roll high or low for success?) so that people would not treat the die roll as an event, but merely a process through which the narrative occurred. We are, after all, the sum of our experiences and preferences...?

ak-73 said >>>

No system has ever broke my enjoyment of a game. At least not that I recall. A GM or other players may have... but a system?

True, true. It was more the dogmatic application of rules crunch and tactical gaming coupled with an unimaginative set of rules. That and it was oh so visible crunch: "Roll for this, now that. Thumb through the rules book for that. Track this... Okay, that means this..." Of course, the last time I played the game was 1992/3 but... <shudders>

ak-73 said >>>

When you're creating a game from scratch you don't have to fit it into the given mechanics of an existing generic system, right? If the setting might call for it for whatever reason you can have d100 attributes. Or you can have skills based on multiple attributes: courage and dexterity for a charge attack roll in a Conan RPG or whatever. You have less design constraints, right?

Insofar as your outside of a system, yes. Unless the generic system in question encourages that you shape system to setting even if it does give you common points of reference.

Of course, one could also point out that DH wasn't custom-crafted to the setting, but rather forced into the mould of WFRP. Take as an example of this the fact that psyker/psionics were "forced" into the shape of spells from the original game with little or not attempt to make it fit the setting. (YMMV...)

ak-73 said >>>

Give me an example for rules concatenation you don't see as such in GURPS please.

Ah, I was wondering when we would reach this point. With the aforementioned caveat in full force, the last time that I ran into it was combat and damage. Please also see my previous comments, though, since I'm not saying that they are not present, just that I personally found this in DH to be more crunchy.

ak-73 said >>>

Stressing the roleplaying aspect is too limiting from my point-of-view; I like games the most when they're a blend of all things that are part of the hobby, the improvised acting, the hack and slay and pillage and plunder, and everything inbetween.

Of course, one wouldn't want to imply that "roleplaying" was purely limited to the social interaction or even thespianism, since, well, that wasn't at all what I was suggesting. It is, however, something that has cropped up on this board with regarding Final Sanction .

ak73 said >>>

Of course you don't have to but if you don't, you'll end up with sth like Palladium's 15 second rounds, even if in an

As you didn't complete the sentence I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, especially since citing another arbitrary amount of time may miss the point that was being made: it doesn't really make that much of a difference whether you use 1, 3, 5, 10 15, 30 or 51.2 seconds per combat round since there's still going to be a lot of time not spent in the attack-defend-attack approach. Thus I can merely reiterate the point that most combats are not spent "attacking" or "defending," but rather observation, assessment, moving for advantage, etc.

ak-73 said >>>

If you play Deathwatch in GURPS, will your translating all the stats cost you less effort than learning the rules of the game? Really? And when supplements arrive, you'll translate the new hardware into GURPS terms too. Doesn't seem to be much easier. I think most people who don't have much time (work/school/girl-friend) will be more inclined to pick up a book and learn the rules rather than transcribe it into a system they know.

Here you're stating one of the commonly suggested reasons why the PR mucks touted DH as "the most anticipated game in two decades," or some such. With that said, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest here so I shall leave it alone and merely point out that I am one of those people that doesn't have a great deal of time because of real life. The reason that I'm "converting" it over is because I don't really like the way that the WFRP/DH game system works in general, the pseudo-level system, blah blah blah.

Oh, and by "converting" I really only mean representing the 40k setting in another game system. I'm not converting the sometimes odd-ball (in my mind) ways in which the game abstracts the setting, the way that it handles scaling, etc. (One of the silliest example would be having to give each and every character a resistance to damage equivalent to having invisible flak/mesh (?) armour... even when they're nude! And a Marine? Bullets would bounce off their skin in a very Superman Returns kind of way. Fearz me for I'm a Spes Murreen! ) Of course, YMMV.

ak-73 said >>>

I have been through all of that and I don't feel much the need to formally go through a rulebook and change the rules to make it feel right for me anymore. Instead I prefer to make changes as necessary mostly as the need for it arises. A player wants a talent he can't have? If he has a good background story, he'll have it.

Jolly good. Again, not quite sure how to interpret this. Suffice to say that, for me, it became rapidly and readily identifiable that it wasn't a good fit for me. Since as a GM I would find myself having to "fix" everything, it was easier (again, for me) to us a system that I was familiar with to modularly and custom-craft the information to the setting. One example might be the bucket of "Influence" in Ascension . A good-ish mechanic if you want to reduce the complex interplay of the Inquisition down to a die roll, but misses out on the "right" interplay of status, reputation, rank, favours, history, etc.

Anyway, seems like we're going around in circles. Let me repeat once again that the crunch observation was just that: an observation. The original poster has expressed their own preference in buying the product. Kudos to them. That you might not agree with the observation is just peachy since it is as subjective as the initial observation.

/Kage

Kage2020 said

Of course, one could also point out that DH wasn't custom-crafted to the setting, but rather forced into the mould of WFRP. Take as an example of this the fact that psyker/psionics were "forced" into the shape of spells from the original game with little or not attempt to make it fit the setting.

Yes, that's certainly true, but for most of 40k's life psychic powers have used the same system, or at least very similar systems, to that as used to represent spells in the warhammer games. The initial 1st edition psychic power system was identical to that of the contemporary warhammer, just with a "spell" list that fitted the background more (and cut down on the stupid number of spells warhammer had, many of which had very minor utility). 2nd edition's card system was (at least as far as I am aware) very similar to magic in warhgammer of the same period. It was only with 3rd edition the systems moved massively apart to use entirely different systems.

I do agree that the spell system doesn't fit the setting as well as a seperate one might have done (the RT one looking like it may do it better), but just to make the point that GW has often treated psychic powers and spells to be functionally very similar.

Kage2020 said

As you didn't complete the sentence I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, especially since citing another arbitrary amount of time may miss the point that was being made: it doesn't really make that much of a difference whether you use 1, 3, 5, 10 15, 30 or 51.2 seconds per combat round since there's still going to be a lot of time not spent in the attack-defend-attack approach. Thus I can merely reiterate the point that most combats are not spent "attacking" or "defending," but rather observation, assessment, moving for advantage, etc.

Now, I will admit straight off that I am not keen on the Gurps system, but I think the 1 second combat round is a legitimate complaint about the system. You make the point that much of combat is not actually attacking or defending as such, but I think that longer rounds reflect this better. Now, from what you said I take it that you only have "combat rounds" in those few seconds of action, where a person might aim their gun and then fire, or the short flurry of blows during a sword fight and deal with the pauses in between as "narrative time"? And you legitimately asked what people are doing in longer combat rounds (for example, many semi automatic weapons could be emptied in 5 seconds if no time was spent correcting aim and such, yet a "semi-auto burst" in Dark Heresy only fires 2 or 3 shots and takes an entire turn).

However, I would argue that that with longer combat round times much of that down time is included abstractly in the fact that people can do a lot less than they might do if they focussed purely on doing that for 5 seconds (or whatever figure used in whatever game). When playing Gurps (which I have only done a few times, so I will accept that I am not really used to) people seem to be able to do a great deal more than they should. Most gamers I have played with will want to do some attacking or defending each turn, which Gurps IIRC will allow you to do (even if, at least with guns, you will become increasingly useless at it), meaning characters tend to be a bit... hyperactive. To properly model those pauses for breath, observation etc, according to the rules characters have to spend an entire round doing nothing. Now, from what I understand, you just gloss over these periods by moving out of the combat rules, which is fine, but if you don't do that the game leave players often doing nothing for a turn (or more) which many will find a bit dull, and things feel slow (grenades taking 3-7 turns to explode, for example. Perfectly realistic depending on the fuse, but from my experience with the system you can throw a grenade at the start of a fight and have finsihed the fight before it even explodes). Having longer rounds means players can attack and defend each round, yet not having characters acting in too hyperactive a manner. I personally feel rounds representing about 5 seconds tend to have about the right feel.

Though I will admit I think I am on the more gamer end of roleplaying games. By having different systems the "game" element changes.

Kasatka said:

As someone who has multiple copies of the Black Industry versions of Dark Heresy and a copy of the FFG release, I can say that I would rather have FFG ' s quality over Black Industries. One of my BI copies has developed significant spine separation from the cover with little use, where as my FFG copy; which I use regularly, is holding up fine. My second copy of the BI release has remained fairly untouched, so hard to say if it. As to the qaulity of the paper, I'd rather not have that glossier print. Less glare at odd angles to the light. Also, cuts down on costs.

Oh, and not to mention the fact that FFG has gone completely hardcover, for added durability.

Kasatka said:

You are so right. In their whole three book run of things, Black Industries never forgot to omit mention of something pulled form the final print of a book. Shame on FFG for making that mistake in one out of 11 publications; one out 13 if we count the Rogue Trader stuff in there as well. Shame on them for not catching the reference to the removed Saboteur alternate rank in Radical's , or for providing it to us for free in a web supplement for the book.

No. You are absolutely right. FFG should never release any web errata's. Or additional FREE materials in a PDF format for their community which has been extremely vocal at times with requests for just such a thing. They should be charging for those downloads, right?!?

But, totally, I am all for them not being remotely considerate of their fan bases checkbooks and wallets. Yes, let's remove everything they've ever released through the web for free and wait for them to reprint the books with the erratas and omitted writings so that we can purchase more and more redundantly unnecessary versions of the same book. That is a brilliant marketing scheme.

I am sorry, but I think a lot of people who nay say things since FFG got the license are forgetting something very important. If it wasn't for them, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as the whole 40K RPG line would likely be long dead and buried by now.

-=Brother Praetus=-

borithan said >>>

Yes, that's certainly true, but for most of 40k's life psychic powers have used the same system, or at least very similar systems, to that as used to represent spells in the warhammer games. The initial 1st edition psychic power system was identical to that of the contemporary warhammer, just with a "spell" list that fitted the background more (and cut down on the stupid number of spells warhammer had, many of which had very minor utility). 2nd edition's card system was (at least as far as I am aware) very similar to magic in warhgammer of the same period. It was only with 3rd edition the systems moved massively apart to use entirely different systems.

I was indeed aware of the history of the product. My point in raising it was to acknowledge the fact that the DH psyker system was basically just "Magic" given a different name.

borithan said >>>

I do agree that the spell system doesn't fit the setting as well as a seperate one might have done (the RT one looking like it may do it better), but just to make the point that GW has often treated psychic powers and spells to be functionally very similar.

And I would agree with you there. The RT system is, in my mind anyway, superior to that presented in DH. If I were to use the DH system, I would certainly utilise at least some of the mechanics from RT.

borthan said >>>

Now, I will admit straight off that I am not keen on the Gurps system, but I think the 1 second combat round is a legitimate complaint about the system.

I'll let you into a secret: You're allowed to not like a system, offer up complaints or criticisms, even if it is a system someone uses and likes. What's more I'm not going to take offence. The whole point of discussion boards is to discuss (though maybe discussing the pros and cons of another system might be pushing the boundaries?). I'm not going to jump up wildly declaring it the best thing since sliced bread (maybe a silly example from a Celiac's sufferer ) and claiming that SJGames can do no wrong. That's just... Well, I'll just leave it at that.

So, good to go.

With regards to the criticism/complaint, as it stands I guess it comes down to whether you're a lumper or a splitter, or something in between. As indicated in my previous post(s) I tend towards lumping, but depending on the pace of combat that I'm trying to project, bit it slow and measured, or the frenetic, stroboscopic style of combat. Each has a different use. This means that I flit in between using 1 second rounds for a handful of turns, then jumping to something that is more narratively paced.

Might not be your style, but it works for me. Indeed, I believe it is the style that is recommended in Final Sanction now that I think about it. That is, use the Horde mechanics for a while, but then into personal combat for a few turns to make it downright personal, thereby making it more immediate. I just do it without the Horde mechanics.

borithan said >>>

When playing Gurps (which I have only done a few times, so I will accept that I am not really used to) people seem to be able to do a great deal more than they should.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. It allows you to divide time down to 1 second, a period where a proficient martial artist can reasonably perform 2-3 strikes. What stops them doing that is its darned tiring to keep up that pace of movement. So, in a five second lumped combat round let's call that 5-7 attacks, or 4-6 that are not account for in the aggregated system. So while you might use the term "hyperactive," one could equally say that in the aggregated system people are moving glacially.

If you're applying the 1-second round, then you have to take into account all the factors, and I mention some of those above. That's one of the reasons that I take the approach that I do since I don't feel the need to dissect the flow of combat into an artificial attack-defend-attack-defend scenario that can tend to happen when you aggregate combat rounds.

Which approach is more realistic? Heh, my feeling is that breaking it down is more realistic, but it's not really where I want to tell a story. That's the somewhat dogmatic and rigid approach that has never appealed to me, and with that system I can certainly see it can seem artificial if you're not applying all the modifiers. Again, though, tactical combat applied "by the book" is way too crunch for me, which is one of the reasons that I never add that particular "module" into my gaming kit.

Which is more fun? That I leave up to you. I have my own solution to making a fun and interesting game, but YMMV as always.

Kage

Brother Praetus said:

Hallelujah Brother, spread the word! *clamps and sings in the background as the gospel is spoken*

I'm thinking that there is a slight bit of over-exaggeration with regards to the fate of DH had it been fully canned by GW and not licensed to FFG. It wouldn't have received official support, but people would have kept on playing it, developing fan materials, and so forth. Of course, some people consider that "death," but... I'm a bit more optimistic.

My personal opinion about FFG is that they are, for the most part, doing a great job. Their approaches to "community" have been above average, and while they still could improve, they have to start somewhere.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Well, yes, it is an exaggeration (only just so, in my opinion) that the 40K rpg would be completely dead if someone had not been allowed to pick up the license from Black Industries. And I agree in general with the sentiment that FFG has been doing a great. But I will also be one of the first to say it has not been a perfect job. Things slip, all over the place. But they are typically little things compared to some stuff I've seen with other companies.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Brother Praetus said:

I'm not going to comment on that, but this is one of those things that I tend to view as a learning experience. In other words, it would be great if a company looked at what the others are doing (which I'm sure they do) and learn and act upon it. That and they look at what their fans are producing. In some cases FFG are a bit behind on what the fans are doing...

Regardless, though, I stick by my previous post.

Kage

Brother Praetus said:

The hardest thing is yet to come; it's not as difficult to become world championship as is maintaining that standard on a long-term basis.

Usually what follows is that companies explore different character classes and world regions. And when they run out of good material, they start creating a timeline for temporal exploration (and yes I am thinking SR). Of course a substantial part of the player community doesn't like the timeline and won't follow it and its products.

Me, I don't want a company develop a timeline for me, I want to develop my own timeline. Besides that, the problem with that is it introduces changes in the setting and people who loved the original setting are likely to not like the setting after cumulative changes have taken place anymore.

Better than official timelines are alternate campaigns. Or at least continue to support the original setting with sourcebooks.

We'll see what FFG's strategy for providing good content long-term will be.

My recommendation would be to sit down and ask yourself what players will want to play/explore. And to support that with material. Rather than to ask: what remains to be explored in the game world? There's a difference.

Alex

More preference? Yes, I think so...

One certainly couldn't imagine FFG going down the ground of using time in some way in their products. Errr... Ordo Chronos? Aren't they the ones that are once again stepping on the toes of the Eldar and their "advanced knowledge?" Ah, no idea. Only vaguely remember reading about them anyway.

It's all fun until someone gets a mote in the eye.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I was merely giving a warning of taking the route that Shadowrun and Rifts has taken. They explored their game worlds first spatially. After that had been done they had run out of good material it seems and introduced a timeline into their game worlds. The problem with that is that for example SR has been a huge hit with the 2050-2053 setting. Later products didn't support that classic Cyberpunk/Fantasy setting anymore and introduced changes via a timeline 2057, 2060, etc. and sourcebook per year. I find this highly problematic. I don't a game company to dictate what happens in time in my game world. I want to be the one to advance time; game companies can give me the tool to do that but not do it themselves. What if I don't like a significant occurence in the official game timeline? I might dislike all products relating to it and future products built on the world timeline.

Better to do it the CoC way: have different time periods (established as sub-genre) and support them individually Romans/Mediaeval/Gaslight/20s/Modern etc.

I want to be the one to decide what happens in the Jericho Reach and what its future holds ultimately.

Alex

I think that it is always useful to remember ones position in the world. I'm not overtly a fan of the 40k RPG license setting, but remembering that I am not every single customer is always important. More or less the customer base for the 40k RPG license are happy with what FFG are doing. I would imagine that they would otherwise vote with their wallets and just not buy it. On my own behalf, I get what I need from the publications, even if more than likely it isn't quite what they would have wanted me to get from it.

With regards to the advancing story line, while you might not like it, others do. I'm one of those others. I rather enjoy the advancing storyline of the Shadowrun milieu, especially when one incorporates Earthdawn . (Indeed, I still work on my multi-period Shadowrun Apocalypse setting/campaign so you make see this as indicative of a certain amount of bias. ) I certainly enjoyed the transition from the Rebellion-era to the New Era, err, era in the Traveller setting. Others didn't, of course, including Marc Miller (IIRC), hence the various milieu to T4 , GURPS Traveller , etc.

Same thing with any game setting, to be honest. You're allowed to set it when you want since, well, you're an individual. As much as you don't get to tell others what to think, surely no-one gets to tell you what to think?

In short, I disagree with your assessment. Production of materials does not require acceptance, and just because some game designers decides that's where they're going to take it doesn't mean that the individual has to or that it is inherently superior to what some one else could do. They are, after all, just "plumbers" (read: mere mortals).

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I'd never dare let it escape from my mind for a second. :-)

Kage2020 said:

What does that have to do with what I said though?

Kage2020 said:

Again I'd like to recall CoC as exemplary. SR doesn't support the original setting with sourcebooks, right? Only the most current time? Same with Palladium, etc? While the comparison to CoC isn't exact, it's a good enough example to use here: in SR's case, I wouldn't have minded a timeline, provided they had kept supporting the original setting of 2050.

What would CoC players have said if Chaosium had dropped playing in the 20s and all their new products would be centered on the 1940s and 1950s??

If you advance a timeline and don't support the original setting you'll lose those customers who have fallen in love with the game as it came out.

Kage2020 said:

I think you've been missing my point though. :-)

Alex

ak-73 said >>>

What does that have to do with what I said though?

It's one of those posts where there are a related number of points. In this case, it is merely pointing out that I, too, am only a single person and do not speak for the entire gaming community.

ak-73 said >>>

Again I'd like to recall CoC as exemplary. SR doesn't support the original setting with sourcebooks, right?

All you're presenting is your own preferred business model and stating that as "exemplary." I remind you of my first comment as well as the additional commentary that you are not beholden to buy the companies products nor, as is frequently commented on this forum, they are not beholden to do everything you want in the way that you want them to do it. They, like you, are their own set of people; their own set of choices.

Put it another way. You're in charge of the SR line (or the 40k RPG one). You have, at least in you own estimation, fleshed out the world as much as you want to and you really don't want to go with that suggestion for "SR: Lower Tooting (Yorkshire, UK)." The thing is, you rather like your job. Maybe you're even good at it. Certainly you like the pay cheque. So, do you try and wow the customer base with the hidden evils of Mrs Miggins from Lower Tooting and her Macaroons of Doom, or do you search for other alternatives?

Okay, so you've decided that Lower Tooting is not the way forwards. Maybe you've decided to capitalise upon all of those cool little things that you had dropped into the various adventures, campaigns, and supplements since, well, whenever. So you advance the story line thinking that the meta-story that you've created is kind of cool and interesting and you're sure that people will love it. Of course, not everyone , but you're fairly sure that there are people that would like to see how the game world will change in 10 years. In fact, let's make that a part of the shtick...

...And the thing is that you're not going to please everyone (another familiar argument presented on these forums). You realise that there are going to be some die-hard fans that will not accept that you've decided to take a direction that they're not interested. (Heh, I'm one of those when it comes to the 40k universe, and they didn't even advance the timeline! ) The hope is, of course, that new people will be drawn to your product.

On the other hand, you could have decided to continue to support several time periods at once but, well, that means that you're going to have to get back to writing Lower Tooting up. Hmmn, maybe they should be Scones of Doom?

All I'm saying is that it is not necessarily a bad choice. It's just one choice amongst others. That you don't like one over the other doesn't make a fig of difference, just as it doesn't really matter what I think about the 40k license (hence the other comment). Of course it matters to me and like-minded individuals, hence the continued participation in these forums. Big picture, though? Not so much. I don't pay their wages after all.

About those wages. Now you're going to have to be producing more materials for all settings (including Lower Tooting and the Great Macaroon/Scone Debate). Let's hope the coffers are full.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I didn't misunderstand your point. Once again, I just don't agree with it since it ultimately depends upon concepts of investment and preference.

ak-73 said >>>

If you advance a timeline and don't support the original setting you'll lose those customers who have fallen in love with the game as it came out.

See the above with regards to the 40k universe (which in this case includes the 40k RPG license).

Ah well.

Kage

I will point out though that Shadowrun is an awful example for your point AK, since most different itterations of Shadowrun have been written and published by different companies, and obviously they each want to be able to write their own unique bits for Shadowrun, and they obviously can't just retcon the whole thing (they aren't allowed), the only option is to advance the timeline each time it moves onto a different developer/publisher.

Plus, if you don't like the things that happened in the background, ignore them like you would any other bit of the game you don't like. It's not hard, and just because you dislike the way the timeline has gone doesn't make all of the setting stuff or rules published afterwards useless.

MILLANDSON said:

First of all, you are aware how much tech driven Cyberpunk/Shadowrun is? If I remember it right, in the latest edition there is wireless decking and all. Many published shadowrun adventures revolve around the larger events, you have plenty of "update" sourcebooks, etc. etc.

Furthermore, I don't buy it wouldn't have been possible to publish Shadowrun 2070 and Shadowrun Classic product lines, if someone had made a well-founded case. Again, I'd cite call of Cthulhu even if the situation is a bit different there. But it shows that different time settings within the same world can survive as product lines.

RIfts is making the same mistake. What if I don't want Tolkeen to fall to the CS? New products are based on the fall of Tolkeen it seems, probably with the CS setting its sight on other lands. Not going to buy any such Rifts products either.

I am sure game companies will do their best to try to sell their customers their timelines with flowery words nonetheless. I understand the business calculation behind this; without timelines there's the real threat of running out of material. Timelines are an unimaginative answer to this but they have become the industires answer in a number cases. Just try to sell your timeline as 'cult' and hope that the PR catches on. <g>

Or one at least could support different timelines/events to choose from. Palladium could have published a sourcebook 'The victory of Tolkeen', for example. Might not make too much sense from a business perspective though. I'm sure from a GM's perspective it does though.

@kage:

FIrst of all to you, I have never made any demands so I don't think it would be fair to act as if I did. Secondly I am not presenting any business model, I am primarily talking about my preferences as a GM. There is no need whatsoever to remind me that I am the only gamer on the planet. Still this is an open forum, you talk about your preferences of play, I do here the same. I think you wouldn't appreciate it either if I'd pretend as if your preference of GURPS was an actual expression of you demanding from FFG to change the rule system of 40K Roleplay into sth GURPS-like.

The rest of what you have been describing me isn't news to me. In fact, that is just what I had previously said: running out of good material, you turn to timelines. And once again I come to state the following: This is the unimaginative man's answer. In the case of Rifts I could tell you of at least two vital sourcebooks they have missed (but I won't). In the case of SR, they could have made a sourcebook about the Renraku Arcology, for example.

Like I said: I understand it from a business perspective. And I understand that there is a vested interest from the business side to sell to the rpg public this approach and to... sideline dissenting voices in order to protect business. Fanboyism should be useful in that.

My personal stance however is that from a GMing perspective it makes no sense. A Game company ideally define the world, illuminate fragments of the world in campaigns, leave plenty of white-space for the imagination and the work of the GMs. Timelines are more stuff for fanzines than full commercial products from that perspective. But I think I'd like to see wider debate this in the gaming community. Even if it ain't good for business.

And if you really can't think of anything new anymore and your co-workers can't either, maybe it's time to retire the product line *for a few years* and come up with fresh ideas for a different setting.

Or time to get a real job . (I'm just kiddin', okay?)

Alex

Whether you purchase it is entirely your choice. However, as only one person, your not buying it doesn't drastically impact the developer or the publisher, so they are likely going to do what they want anyway, and more than enough people will end up buying it. I mean, Shadowrun is one of the best selling RPGs out there at the moment, and that's despite the "flaw", as you see it, of a living timeline, and the fact that the boss of the developing company stole about $800k of company money and isn't going to be charged for it. So... yea, people will buy it regardless.

Personally, I have also stopped purchasing Shadowrun products, but not because of the timeline, and instead because of the aforementioned fraud that won't be prosecuted (because if the chances of the developers and writers seeing any of my money is less than certain, I'm not sure why I should line someone elses pockets).

Sadly, given the nature of 40k (sure, it stops at 999.M41, but the 40k RPG line is set before that), and the nature of a Crusade setting, I'm not finding it hard to see the setting moved on a little in future books.

ak-73 said:

Personally speaking, I'm fully aware of the updated materials. It really doesn't make too much of a difference unless you only run games based upon official information. In fact, the campaign/setting that I mentioned before will fully captalise upon the differences in technology, resolving it into a fulcrum from which another setting will form.

Of course, as always YMMV, and your use of the term "classic" might be considered significant. That is, you're making a value judgement as to your preferences and then extended it to a commercial model that may not be viable.

ak-73 said:

The examples that you have are culturally distinct and are not broadly the same culture within a slightly advancing timeline.

ak-73 said:

You may find that those same "flowery words" are used for new systems as well.

ak-73 said:

There are clearly arguments that can be had both ways. That you feel one more worthy than the other is fair enough. Just don't mistake it as the "right answer," only the "right answer for you."

Kage

MILLANDSON said:

As for your first point, you are stating the obvious. I am fully aware of this. But just because sth takes place whether you dissent or not is no reason to not voice that dissent occasionally, no? :-)

Is the new Cyberpunk selling well too? The reviews I have read when it came out were horrible, at least. Paranoia didn't meet too much praise in advancing their timeline either (in Paranoia's case I have to make an exception though: I bought all the stuff anyway to avoid summary execution). What worked was taking that leap forward to Paranoia XP, it seems. Timelines aren't without perils.

As for 40K, that you're advancing the Crusade a bit is likely. A bit of advancing isn't a problem. Shadowrun 2050-2055 was more or less one setting. Classic Cthulhu is a setting. I assume it will also be easy to write a campaign for DW that takes place somewhere in the Jericho Reach and that can be ran at any point of the DW eventual timeline because it won't tie in to larger events and DW timeline events won't affect that system anyway.

In SR almost all of the published material of the 3rd Edition era seemed to have been politicized in some form. Dunkelzahn, Immortal Elves, Horrors, etc. etc. etc.

The "normal", more small-scale Cyberpunk-Fantasy scenarios seem to not have been of interest.

@Kage: No, thanks, I'd rather adapt a classic Cyberpunk RPG scenario into the world of SR using my own Harnmaster variant than try to follow the SR timeline. ;-)

'The examples that you have are culturally distinct and are not broadly the same culture within a slightly advancing timeline.'

This of course totally incorrect: most of the stuff in CoC Classic is based in New England. Cthulhu Now is iirc also mostly based in the US; I know that Delta Green is centered on US culture. The difference is that SR for now has advanced half the time. How long will they try to advance it and at which point will it become comparable to you?

And as for flowery words... in my view advertising for a new product is one thing; trying to squeeze the last of milk out of it after one has run out of ideas for it is another. Or I shouldn't say run out of ideas... new ideas are there but they tend to lead into the direction of nerd soap opera. Will Dunkelzahn become president? Will Ehran marry to further his goals? Will the Renraku AI peep on inhabitants through the security cams? Tune in in next week's sourcebook to find out.

And while it's right that it's only my view (and some others) as of today, it doesn't mean one can't lead that debate (in generalm that is). And a debate about the role of marketing in this. ;-)

Alex

Normally I would not serial post, but... FFG. Could you seriously update the usability of your quotation system? It pretty much sucks more than explosive decompression at the moment. Sorry, but it's true (and detracts from all the cool stuff that you've done).

Edit: Apparently I didn't serially post...

ak-73 said >>>

Still this is an open forum, you talk about your preferences of play, I do here the same. I think you wouldn't appreciate it either if I'd pretend as if your preference of GURPS was an actual expression of you demanding from FFG to change the rule system of 40K Roleplay into sth GURPS-like.

I think the point here, at least from my perspective, is that you're presenting your arguments as unequivocal. This is, I would argue, quite clearly not the case. We're just a bunch of nerds having us some discussion, but I feel the difference is that my answers are just that: my answers. They're not yours, and they're certainly not FFG's.

With regards to what you're actually saying here, rather than how I'm interpreting it? I have no idea, though I have the impression that it's not entirely accurate.

ak-73 said >>>

The rest of what you have been describing me isn't news to me. In fact, that is just what I had previously said: running out of good material, you turn to timelines.

Or, on the other hand, it might have been intent? That you don't like it is no here nor there. On the other hand, that you might personally find it inelegant is fair enough.

ak-73 >>>

And once again I come to state the following: This is the unimaginative man's answer.

I would at this point reiterate the idea that the "milieu" argument is predicated upon making the different settings distinctive. This is not really the case with the example that you use.

ak-73 said >>

My personal stance however is that from a GMing perspective it makes no sense. A Game company ideally define the world, illuminate fragments of the world in campaigns, leave plenty of white-space for the imagination and the work of the GMs. Timelines are more stuff for fanzines than full commercial products from that perspective.

And, once again, I disagree. Please don't conflate my disagreeing with you with not understanding you, though.

ak-73 said >>>

No, thanks, I'd rather adapt a classic Cyberpunk RPG scenario into the world of SR using my own Harnmaster variant than try to follow the SR timeline. ;-)

This is what we call choice, I believe, and exactly what was mentioned above. Also, I laud you! I'm always a fan of when people take their own passions and goals and make something of them.

ak-73 said >>>

This of course totally incorrect: most of the stuff in CoC Classic is based in New England. Cthulhu Now is iirc also mostly based in the US; I know that Delta Green is centered on US culture.

I think that you might want to revisit my comment based upon your own post where you talk about "Romans/Mediaeval/Gaslight/20s/Modern." Each of those are culturally distinct. Even the ones that you present in the above are arguably culturally distinct, e.g. IIRC CoC is based in the 20s and Delta Green is based in the "modern" period?

These are culturally distinct; discrete. The SR timeline operates on broadly a continues cultural process. While the end product might not ultimately be the same... Well, that just defines an act of preference again. For example, while a certain number of my scenarios might occur in "SR Classic" (as you call it, again the use of "Classic" is potentially significant) others are going to contrast in, say, the post-apocalyptic concept of the universe.

Obviously one should not confuse physical locale with distinctiveness. That doesn't work even in the same time period.

ak-73 said >>>

The difference is that SR for now has advanced half the time. How long will they try to advance it and at which point will it become comparable to you?

I think that you're going to have to complete this thought, or at least rephrase it.

ak-73 said >>>

Or I shouldn't say run out of ideas... new ideas are there but they tend to lead into the direction of nerd soap opera. Will Dunkelzahn become president? Will Ehran marry to further his goals? Will the Renraku AI peep on inhabitants through the security cams? Tune in in next week's sourcebook to find out.

Sounds like you're getting your nerd on because they're taking a "setting" that you love and making a story of it. That's quite common with the 40k universe, so something that we're all familiar with.

Me? I don't feel so constrained by what the game developers produce. I have, after all, my own set of preferences and desires.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Unlike you I am not making a constant point out of expressing that one's mileage might vary and all because I consider it a given. Likewise, when I say that timelines are not a good idea, I consider it a given, that I am expressing my own point-of-view.

Kage2020 said:

That's also a matter of packaging the product though, no?

Kage2020 said:

I've found the system to make small enough contribution that I am not going to put too much effort into refining it further anymore.

Kage2020 said:

CoC Classic and Deltra Green as well as Shadowrun Classic and Shadowrun 2077 (or whatever the current time is) are all taking place more or less in the same nation and culture, divided by *time*. If you perceive SR Classic and SR Current as not distinct enough, then it seems as if that's the designer's fault. Just think back of the world in 1980. I'd say running a game then and a game in the year 2010 might be culturally distinct. Cold War? Terrorism? The internet? Rap music?

Would you consider running in the 20s and running in the 1960s as culturally distinct?

I think it has a lot to do with packaging.

Kage2020 said:

What I said above: how time has to pass between two settings within a game world for them to become culturally distinct to you?

Kage2020 said:

It's not a matter of constraint. It's not even a matter of developing a timeline. It's a matter of dropped official support for the original setting. I'd love to see an occasional sourcebook coming out for the 2050s. Or a scenario/campaign whose cover reads "Suitable for all SR time periods".

Developing a scenario on par with a plot as intricate as Maria Mercurial on one's own is time-consuming. Part of the problem with SR was that for a time at least (don't know about now) they only focussed on the big game world events.

In Deathwatch terms: I myself am not too interested in the campaigns where all of Jericho Reach is at stage except rarely. I am more interested in the run-of-the-mill day-to-day Deathwatch missions. That way the truly epic campaigns will remain epic. If you don't have enough small scale action, the supposedly world shattering events will get scale quickly.

Personally, I'd rather roleplay saving a prostitte from sin than saving yet again another whole planet. The former is more close and personal and less abstract anyway.

Alex

ak-73 said >>>

Unlike you I am not making a constant point out of expressing that one's mileage might vary and all because I consider it a given. Likewise, when I say that timelines are not a good idea, I consider it a given, that I am expressing my own point-of-view.

Errr... with respect, you might want to go back and check the last series of posts. Throughout it is "YMMV" is most prominent. As before, though, if my pointing out that your posts were coming off as unequivocal lead you to believe that my posts also had that intent then, once again, my apologies.

ak-73 said >>>

That's also a matter of packaging the product though, no?

If you say so, but arguably only to a point.

I think, however, that we're done with this thread. Or, at least, I am. You feel that advancing a timeline, even if planned presumably, is a bad thing. I do not, or at least do not suggest that it is universally so. In the specific example of Shadowrun I don't see a problem. As I pointed out before, though, personal bias is probably evident there since my current campaign focus/writing involves numerous periods throughout the SR timeline. (To be honest, though, many of my campaign ideas go thusly. I guess I just like the idea of long campaign arcs.)

Have I found advancing story lines to be a problem? No, not really. Mostly because, as a GM, I have always felt unconstrained to limit myself to a specific "now" (see the above, though). If I had picked up SR4 as-is, would I be grumbling? I have my doubts since it's still a nice little setting. (Again, honesty: Bias might be cropping in here since I like the concept of the AR as represented in SR since I'm working to develop an AR interpretative framework with work.) If I wanted to run it in an older setting I could just do so with that rules set and supplements, or I could go all "retro" on it and buy SR2 (or SR1 for more crunchy 4M3 attacks!). If you like the idea of bringing Maria Mercurial into the 2070s (2070 from the main rulebook but I haven't purchased anything past that, New Seattle and Street Magic) then it should not be too hard to do.

Perhaps that might explain my general thrust. I don't see it as a problem because, well, I don't see it as a problem. You do, so it's all cool. Just trying to explain, that's all.

You're other example, CoC? Sorry, I know that many seem to think that it is the best thing since sliced gluten-free bread, but I've never seen it myself so I have absolutely no interesting in the game. (Though I believe I did once look through the Chaosium and the d20 incarnations of the system.)

I'm not sure that there is anywhere else to go from here, so with a "thanks" I shall bow out.

///Kage

Do Techmarines get improved armour?

miss dee said:

Techmarines get the "The Flesh is Weak" talent which gives them an extra point of armor each time they take the talent.