I'm going to post a (somewhat) brief critique here for the folks at FFG to consider (hopefully - after all if you have forum like this, why not pick up on some feedback)... that said, I am aware that it's only my view and many others might see it differently.

I should also say in advance that I consider the book after the first impression (I haven't even played it yet) a 8.5 out of 10. The rest of this post is an explanation why the first impression isn't higher than 8.5 (which is actually a very solid rating). Those who are interested please read on...

Okay, I have tried to group my main points of criticism into the following categories (I hope this doesn't get too long-winded, I tried to keep it brief, at times too brief to express myself properly, so please bear with me):

1. Scantiness: Please be assured that I understand the constraints of putting the amount of information that DW necessitates into a limited amount of pages. But... the book is ripe with wonderful concepts who then fall short because of implementation. Example: Oath taking. Great idea. Superb. Fosters the team-spirit, sets kill-teams apart from your usual rpg party. But then you only have 6 oaths to choose from. That's a missed opportunity. Here the game had the opportunity to overwhelm players with a high number of choices (like 12?) who gave more narrow bonuses. If implemented that way, players would scour over a long list of possible oaths and trying to find the one oaths among the many that gave them the bonus they thought they needed for the mission at hand. And you can afford this strategical complexity because it's a rare, once-per-mission choice. An important, strategical choice.

Other examples for this scantiness include: Too few Past History table entries. Too few demeanours. Too few random names. Too few PA histories. Only one relic per chapter (2 would be better). Not enough chapter-specific psy powers (10 would have been better).

My main point is here: it would have been better to cut short on other stuff in order to extend various tables and lists a bit in order to overwhelm the players with strategic choices and background (and other) possibilities. That way the game becomes much more unpredictable (Example: right now after a total party kill, there's a good chance one of the new chars might have a past history of a previous char).


Anyway, all this can be rectified in future supplements and hopefully will. Core Rulebook tables can be expanded in the following manner (for example): create a d100 table with the result 01-50 being a reference to another roll on the original core rulebook table and the rest being new past histories or PA histories or demeanours or whatever.

[Fighting hordes, btw, is another great basic design. In implementation though fighting hordes lack tactics due to sparseness of rules. Right now fighting hordes is too much a slugfight. Hordes should have had tactical choices, like surrounding enemies or Firing Concentrated Fire, Flanking, etc. And Marines might try then counter-tactics giving a minimum of tactical complexity. A great design diminished in impact due to a sparse implementation. Again, page numbers impose a limit but I'd have sacrificed other stuff in favor of that (for example, the long-winded but fairly useless speciality descriptions).]

2. Gamey-Factor: A few abilities/talents are just nonsense. They just too video-game or tabletop-ish. Example: a SM fires his Bolt-Gun on Full-Auto. He throws it to his brother with Bolter Drill Talent and he fires it on Full-Auto too. Suddenly the ROF of the Bolter has increased. That makes no sense; that's gamey. Instead one might grant the SM with Bolter Drill that 2 shots + 1/DoS hit. There's other examples. Why can Tactical Marines join the Squad Mode ability of Wolf Senses? And if they need to make use of a Solo Mode ability they suddenly can't see in the dark anymore? That makes no sense. You can get away with such mechanics in a tabletop but I don't like seeing such in an RPG, to be honest. (But others may see that differently.) It seems to me as if the game desginers ran a bit out of more realistic, less gamey mechanics on some occasions. Perhaps some mechanics might get revised in a 2nd Edition to remove some of that gamey factor? I hope so.

[And, btw, I find stuff like "Dig-In" to border on being too gamey too. Just to give another example.]

3. Complexity: I said it before and I'll say it again: DW is not a game for the inexperienced. The PCs start out with an impressive number of abilities which might stack a lot and from there on it only grows with experience. Not only that but you now also have added complexity through fate point proliferation: various abilities offer various effects through fate point expenditure. This makes the choice of whether to spend a fate point or not more complex (will I need the fate point later on for this or that ability?). But you don't want additional complexity in combat in order to keep the game going fast. Tied in to this theme is the fact that a kill-team might have "several" (unquote) Squad Modes at a time. Is this really necessary? How coherent could such a squad be? Shouldn't one at least restrict a kill-team to one offensive and one defensive mode at maximum (or maybe even one squad mode at all)? Unless the rules stipulate that and I just didn't read it. It just makes the kill-team more patchy. After having tried to foster group spirit by oath-taking...

In short some stuff provides too much tactical complexity.

4. Role-Playing: I simply don't find there to be enough information on role-playing marines at all. Since Marines are no normal
humans, the game should have at least gone into detail of what Marines do beyond practicing, meditating, fighting. Something beyond that in their daily life? Because if that was all there is, Marines would be dull personalities to play. Irrespective of being noble Arthurian knights while on a mission.
It doesn't have to be a psychology seminar but what has been provided does not do.

What do Marines talk about when the Mission is over? That question remains unanswered.

Also, Marines should have plenty of (chapter-specific as well as DW-specific) rituals they observe. Once more, this doesn't need
to turn into a sociological treatise. But going into the rituals of Space Marines should have been a must.

So that's about it. Hope it hasn't been too long to read through. Just remember that if this sounds too negative, I still give it
8.5 out of 10 and I'm quite a critical person. The game has overall plenty of good ideas, some bordering on being brilliant. It's
just that the implementation takes away some of the polish.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I believe Wolf Senses is a Solo Mode ability... Is it not?

Otherwise I agree with a lot of things in this post. Well written and sums up a lot of the feelings I had when reading the book too. I'll be running my first session this weekend so will find out how it "plays" rather than "reads" then...

Neisseria said:

You're right, I realized that in the meantime. But it doesn't change anything - why can't a Space Wolf see in complete darkness anymore when he joins a Squad Advance? That makes no sense.

For me, it's gonna take some time before I can run it because I've scheduled some sessions as Rogue Trader (Navigator) in October first. Maybe I can squeeze a one-shot in but normally I would be obliged to follow up Final Sanction with Oblivion's Edge and that is more than a one-shot.

Alex

Indeed, that's true re: the ability change not making much sense. Well good luck and post back here when you've had a chance - it would be interesting to see your "before and after" impression of the game I think.

with a hat on the space marines gain darksight from the armour I thought.

1. I agree, the squad mode looks like a great concept, and I fealt the Oaths and squad section could have been expanded. I also think a clear reason for anyone other then a tac marine with expertise for leader should be given. Yes other oaths become available, but if you consider a 4-5 player Kill Team, chances are all are going to be seperate chapters.

With the next sourcebook the number of chapters will be expanded and therefore even less likely to get 2 marines of the same chapter.

2. Players love munch powers, this is for them

3.no comment to be honest

4. Roleplaying - I think there is plenty of fluff in the book, and I think player-player dynamics will determine the level of roleplaying. However a few more details on chapter specific littanies and canticles would be coolio.

I pretty much agree with all of the above. As for the abilities/talents that make little to no sense at all I just say this: FFG tries to cater to the MMORPG-generation. As sad as it is, there is quite sizable gamer-population that actually get turned on by muchkinny "ping-I-haz-a-buff-for-moar-dps" abilities. Just look at D&D

A well thought out critizism. I especially agree with point 2, which is simply ridiculous.

I think you guys are too stuck on the rules. RPG's aren't about covering every last possible situation in rule form; this one reason there is a GM.

1. This is only the core rulebook. All the things you talk about will likely be expanded on in other books, but that shouldn't keep you from making up some new one.

Oaths, I believe if there were more than 6 in the core rule book it would detract from the game, and shift emphasis away from roleplaying to the metagame and mechanics.

Past histories, demeanors, and random names are only intended as guidlines to the roleplay, they are aids intended to help players with the background of their character. Too much or too many and you lose the point of why they are there. The simple fact is FFG could hypothetically go to the length GW does and release a book for each individual chapter to expand this to the length some would want, but it would ultimately oversaturate to the point of detracting from the game. Names aside, there are over 1300 combinations, before you get to equipment, or talents, but you only ever need 5 or 6 at a time. When all the rules for other chapters come into play that will kick it up by, a theoretical, 36000.

Power Armor history, covers only Mk7 armor. There are 7 other armor types that will be covered later on and will likely have their own histories. There is even a big box saying as much right next to the PA history section. The core rules shouldn't be about all the bells and whistles. Its about the basics. A d100 table is just too much.

Everything you've mentioned here is already supposed to be part of "Rites of War." So if you're relying on a supplement, you won't be dissapointed.

2. This goes to what I said before, about the GM. Its upto him to decide whether to allow or disallow things that don't make sense. This is rulebook not a bible. In some fluff marines are portrayed as ubber ridiculous super soldiers, and if thats how a group wanted to play its upto them.

3. Those are decisions for the gaming group. Its a game with a larger emphasis on fighting so it had to do more with it. I'm sure if the game were about diplomacy there would have been as much complexity written about that.

4. The lives of marines are dull, they really don't have much to talk about. For them "There is only War". They are housed and taken care of not as if they were indivduals or people, but are treated just like the relic weapons housed in an armory. Beyond that, demeanors and history are to help you figure out your individual psycology. I think there is some point where you have to step back and ask how it would have been possible to include everything you've asked for. No one faults D&D for not including the rituals of a priest of Boccob. It comes down to fun, the game is emphasizing what are the fun to play aspects of a marines life.

The book is the core book. It gives you the basics of what you need to start playing. It is not intended to be a sole source text, there will be many supplements. Anyone who got Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy will know there is only as much in those as there was in this. Its just the format of the books. With each supplement for those books much has been added, DW will recieve the same. I think given the precedent of FFG books, your expectations were not realistic.

I have to agree with the OP's review - the content was fine, but lacking in some areas leaving me feeling underwhelmed. There is a tonne of space taken up by talents that DW characters will never use, listed there for the "sake of npc's making more sense". Well no, that's the sort of thing FFG could have cut and put into a sourcebook. A book that could cover all 3 of the 40k rpg books and be a big compendium of NPCs and adversaries.

Likewise the setting and fluff, far too much of the big is given over to this when there are clear examples of player character items lacking full descriptions or rules. The teleport homer beacon for example, has a short paragraph of fluff then in an inset (which usually have game mechanics in them) has yet more fluff and no better explanation for their ingame usage.

Also i really think it's impossible to sum up the true character of a chapter in a double page spread. There's more space taken up explaining the origins of the adeptus astartes, the gene seed and their various implants than there is devoted to the character and personality of the playable chapters.

All in all, a good book and far more playable than rogue trader was when it first came out (i only consider RT playable now that the players handbook is out for it(Into The Storm), though why FFG feel the need to let a system wallow for a year before giving it the attention it deserves i will never know).

no doubt a "unified Warhammer 40K" core rulebook will be released in the future.

This will probably include the standard rules, skills, talents, equipment and update the psychic powers from DH for a unirorm system.

Then release sourcebooks for each of the genre's. I knwo that's what I would do anyway.

aka_mythos said:

One does a once per scenario (not even session) strategical decision detract from the game? If anything is shifting away emphasis away from role-playing it's the broad, generic categories of the oaths. A way to circumvent that would have been to make more and more narrow oaths a la "Oath of no Inch Of Quarters Given" or "Oath of Rigtheous Fury" or "Oath of Nobilitiy". Even the names invoke in which situations the kill-team would get a bonus. This could have been handled short and sweet.

If you shorten the descriptions and don't repeat the effects both in text and in a table, doubling the amount of paths won't cost you any additional space. And it would make the kill-team have to decide whether they want to take an Oath of Nobility on their diplomatic mission or whether they smell something fishy and rather take the Oath of Righteous Fury.

But I take it hindsight is always perfect. I am not complaining, just giving my feedback.

aka_mythos said:

Ahem, I didn't ask for more background but more table entries leading to more variety.

aka_mythos said:

You lost me. What are you counting here?

aka_mythos said:

I didn't ask for 100 entries. I asked for more than which would be best implemented with a D100 table. Say 15 or 20.

aka_mythos said:

Splendid. However - sufficient variance in the core mechanics isn't bells and whistles. Suppose I run Oblivion's Edge and manage to get a TPK (a real possibility). Then the likelihood of a PA history appearing for a second a third time is very real. That was my point. The Core Rulebooks random tables lack variance.

aka_mythos said:

And why don't we skip the whole idea of a rulebook and let every GM just do as they please?

aka_mythos said:

The complexity isn't due to combat, DH can be run just as combat heavy. The complexity is that in 40K Roleyplay 13,000 pt chars are stacked with abilities of various sorts. You have a proliferation of skills, talents, traits and solo mode abilities. It means that players and GMs have to pay much more attention to not overlook or forget some.

aka_mythos said:

You're saying in short that one shouldn't bother to write a Space Marine RPG when a more detailled version of the tabletop suffices?

aka_mythos said:

Additional Oaths can be done with no extra space (see above). Additional names - half page. Additional Past histories - 2 pages. Additional PA history - 1 page. Additional Demeanours - half page. Additional Psychic Powers - 3 pages. Deathwatch Psychology/Rituals - 2 to 5 pages. Total 9 - 12 pages.

Other stuff could have been dropped in favour of that. Mission Execution (complications) - 2 pages saved. Specialties descriptions can be shortened for a gain of 2 or 3 pages. Terminatour armour could be considered bells and whistles. Even upper Ranks could be considered bells and whistles and saved for a future supplement.

Again - I am not complaining. I do consider the book good. Still it might be beneficial to give a different perspective here.

aka_mythos said:

You misunderstand me. It's not that I had certain expectations (except for the roleplaying part perhaps) that were not met and now I am complaining about it. Instead I bought DW last week and after scouring over it for a few days I am posting here what I think could have done better and how it might have been done better from my very own, personal, individual perspective. All based on a brief, first impression without ever having played the game.

That's all it is. And I could have said many more good things about the game than negative things. But rather than pointing out what's been done well I have been focussing here on reasons why I would give the book "only" a 8.5 out of 10.

Alex

All in all i would say, DW is a good book, with huge potential and at best mediocre editing, due to core concepts being presented inconsistently or not clear enough. All praise to the concept and vision, and a clear dissapointment with the quality assurance. A LOT more proofreading of the final version should have eliminated most discrepancies. Deadlines probably stalked the design team, which i do understand as a person accustomed to such things, but do not want to suffer from as a customer.

ak-73 said:

Actually, this is not that bad. None of the weapons ever fire their full potential even when used on full-auto. Each turn represents 5 seconds (roughly) yet a bolter on full auto fires 4 shots... when they could theoretically fire 4 bolts in under 1 second. Bolter Drill just represents his superior training (or habit) allowing him to fire longer bursts while remaining under control.

What really makes no sense (aside from a game one, and so why I am fine with it) is why a person can fire so few shots within their turn. Any reasonable assault rifle could be emptied in 5 seconds, not fire 4 (or even 10 in the case of the autogun) shots.

borithan said:

Their is a reason the US military does not have full-automatic weapons as standard issue. The staple weapons issued to troops fire a short burst of three (3) bullets. It has been determined that more than three (3) bullets fired at a time is inefficient. So in the US military one could not empty his or her weapon in one pull of the trigger. I guess this is a good thing.

ak-73 said:

The more time players spend dwelling on the mechanical aspects of a game the less they are roleplaying, and since more choices do just that they are more likely to detract. That is until your players have become more familiar at which point you've moved beyond the scope of the core rulebook.

I think if you shorten descriptions to maintain the space it takes up your losing what makes it representitive of their prepretory action and more "just a rule."

ak-73 said:

How much variety is necessary? You have 6 chapters. 6 Classes, a number of past histories and a number of demeanors. The number of possible combinations of those is rather significant. How much more variety is needed in the basic book? The supplements will add more, but the basic book doesn't need to have so much.

ak-73 said:

So you just want 5 more? I think this boils down to just being a matter of the limited number of histories playing into the differentiation between Marks of power armor. Mk1,2,&3 could have more varied past being as old as they are, as such they may have more going for them, while making other trade offs. When you consider that there are 7 other marks of armor that will be represented, I think its fair that they would make Mk7 PA they way they did. The basics first, variety later.

ak-73 said:

ak-73 said:

ak-73 said:

ak-73 said:

darkrose50 said:

I agree with the OP's criticisms, particularly on the solo mode/squad mode changes. The OP called them "gamey", a good term for those kind of rules is "dissociated mechanics". In other words, shifting from solo mode to squad mode and your nightvision turning off like someone flipped a switch makes absolutely no sense within the game setting. Such a mechanic exists outside the role-playing within the setting. "Gamey", "unrealistic", "mmorpg rules", all these are usually impressions generated by dissociated mechanics. Google up the term and Justin Alexander and you'll get a good article.

WHFRP has a lot of dissociated mechanics for narrative purposes, Deathwatch seems to have them for both narrative and mechanical purposes.

Can't anyone just write a rpg anymore and keep your storygame/cardgame/boardgame/miniatures game out of my roleplaying?

First as to the Rof with a Bolter or any other weapon. The military teaches that if you can do something with less, you do it. 'One Shot, One Kill' was what I was taught, and that was in boot camp. Not a sniper, but I never put my weapon on burst.

As to the squad and solo modes. If something doesn't make sense to me, I wont follow it, if I am running a game that is. Sorry, its not the bible.

As to more tables for random names and past histories...really? If you need those for helping to make your character then I feel sorry for you. I may use it to get a better Idea or feeling for a character, but I almost never need them. Use your imagination.

Sorry if I upset you, but I call it as I see it. You will most likely get more tables with additional supplements. I just dont want to have a game like hackmaster or one of those other games which have a table for everything under the sun. I shouldn't have to remember tables.

aka_mythos said:

Actually, there is plenty of "small talk" between marines if you read any of the novels written about them... just not a lot of this "small talk" happens during a mission.

I think what would have been nice to mention in the core book is WHAT marines do in their downtime. No, I'm not talking about fire drills, prayer, squad tactics, etc.

I'm talking about the Space Wolves sitting at "the pub" together, downing lots of ale, while telling stories of their past victories...

Ultramarines playing chess against each other...

Dark Angels sitting together in shadowy corners as they watch the merriment of "downtime" that other marines get, while glaring at the Space Wolves...

Blood Angels chatting about "Oh, remember whats-his-face before he lost his arm to that ork Nob?"...

Black Templars shouting at the Space Wolves, "How can you drink in a time like this when there are blasphemers to kill in the Emperor's name!?"...

Storm Wardens listening to the thrum and rumble of shelling in the distance, conversing dismayingly that, "What I wouldn't give for some rain on this **** planet..."...

See? Those are interesting ideas that could be given as examples as to what a Space Marine does when not on mission. A bulk of your roleplaying is going to be done in-mission... that much is obvious. However, being able to carry over your personal discussions from "out of mission" to help mold your Space Marines personality, and where he fits with his squad, would be a great boon for all players.

Portraying the Space Marines in the above fashion not only does credit to the many novels that have been written about them, but it also humanizes them... breathing more life into what many would consider just "mindless killing machines... where is the fun playing one of those?"

SpawnoChaos said:

I am quoting this because it needs to be read by anybody who plays this game IMHO. Well said.

aka_mythos said:

Not at all because I am going to make my players write down a short oath and put their hand upon another before the leader recites that oath on part of the kill-team. What I am instead doing is giving the players a strategtic choice by handing them out a fairly large number of possible paths with narrow fields in which they provide a bonus.

Fact is the game forces the players to choose an oath. People that play regularly will fairly quickly be familiar with all the oaths, perhaps even have a standard oath. Increasing the number of oaths and narrowing them down keeps the game fresh.

aka_mythos said:

I asked for more variety in the background stuff. More names, more demeanours, more past histories, more oaths.

And no the basic book doesn't need to have so much, but the basic book would have been better if it had and skipped over other things instead.

aka_mythos said:

If you say basics first, variety later why not provide only one speciality and one chapter. You're talking in such a manner as if it was a clear-cut case makes no sense. Clearly a basic rulebook needs a certain amount of variety. And I assert it needs more than just a little to psychologically overwhelm the readers and spark off their fantasy. Because part of that sparking of fantasy is seemingly endless possibilities. 5 past histories has the psychological effect of very limited number of possibilities.

aka_mythos said:

Either that or it's being sold to us as significant. Anyway, Deathwatch is essentially and one character classes game, with all players playing the 40K equivalent of Paladins, boring Paladins going by your own description at that. There's viking or psyker subtypes but even those are just Paladin subtypes. That's the first point to make. Secondly, it's true that marginal differences between characters can make a difference.

However if those differences don't occur because they have thrown the same number on a D5 or d10 table, you're taking away some of those marginal differences who then don't up. That's why you create more entries in a table so that the same results are less likely to occur.

But it's not even about that. It's about a player or GM opening up the book and seeing a PA history or Past history or whatever table and going "Wow, cool, so many entries, it's going to be fun exploring all that". If you take a look at the Past History table for PCs though, the psychological effect is this "Oh, he may have fought nids.. or Chaos... or Orks. Okay."

aka_mythos said:

So why don't we? Why are we here? Why is there a DW rulebook? Why are others here? Why are we discussing all of this? The reason is because we are paying authors to create stuff for us so that we don't have to do it from scratch. In that case, if an author writes sth that you think doesn't seem to make sense (which happens), it's only fair to post in a forum such as this about it.

aka_mythos said:

Time will tell. However I can tell you that sometimes it's better to not give out any specific talents but did it like they did with the inner organs - giving a blank Toughness "bonus". Sometimes it's just better to have +20 and 4 shooting-related talents than having 12 shooting-related talents that stack. Especially for a GM.

aka_mythos said:

You're wrong about this. An essential part of role-playing -if you get past the aspects of pure gaming- is identification with your character and I don't mean the kind of where you consider gaming a competition and identify your character with yourself. And part of identification is exploring the "character" (it's no coincidence that player avatars are called such in rpging) and giving it some life.

If you can't do that, he's just a set of statistics. Or worse, just a bore.

No, part of role-playing (for many gamers) is exploring what it feels like to set your foot on WF Erioch for the first time. Or what it's like to set foot onto a Tyranid Hive ship for the first time. Or what it's like to face a sea of Orks with only a handful of brothers by your side.

Sure there's gamers who can do without. But they are just part of the role-playing community. And I doubt that they are a huge part of the aging section of the rpg community.

Alex

I agree with some of the OP's feedback as well, in particular with the Chapter trappings, personal history and the armor history. I can work with it of course, but doubling the options for all of these would be nice. It might have also been effective to not use several well known names from the Black Library novels as well, but that is being a trifle petty on my part.

My biggest complaint (other than just general confusion regarding the Squad/Solo/Oath stuff...that is more my comprehension skill and needing more time to read over the material in great erdepth), is the General career path for Space Marines.

Perhaps, it was just wishful thinking on my part, but I was hoping the General path would contain more options for marines to "pay to play". Meaning that if my heavy weapons marine wants to take a little Medicae, he can (before Rank 8 at least!!) He would never be as good as an Apothecary...not even close, but I like the option to choose. If my Apothecary wants to sacrifice a little bit of his specialization to become a a sniper with a lasgun...I think he should have that choice. It is very possible that I am missing something and need to continue to dig, but it seems once a marine has his specialization...that is his singular duty which is splashed with a Deathwatch or Chapter paint job. I realize that this is the very nature of military thinking and even the biggest bookworm Space Marine is a killing machine, but I think that some House Ruling is in order so my free thinking players at least feel they have more freedom.

Of course the Librarian has almost a bewildering array of options and choices to make along their career path.

RolandC said:

Elite advances. He can but he has to pay more. And he needs GM consent.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Not a bad way of doing it. I actually didn't realize medicae was rank 8 until now, that does kinda bug me. I mean, being a well trained fighting force, I would imagine SM are well enough capable of and trained in first aid early on (of course, current RAW means I'm wrong on this). I would probably houserule medicae as a rank 1 general advance for 800xp, and give no future ability to improve. Just so that a party without an apothecary can at least try to heal between fights.

Not at all because I am going to make my players write down a short oath and put their hand upon another before the leader recites that oath on part of the kill-team. What I am instead doing is giving the players a strategtic choice by handing them out a fairly large number of possible paths with narrow fields in which they provide a bonus.

Fact is the game forces the players to choose an oath. People that play regularly will fairly quickly be familiar with all the oaths, perhaps even have a standard oath. Increasing the number of oaths and narrowing them down keeps the game fresh.

I'm all for making my player choose strategically, but I'd rather it be as a matter of actual planning as opposed to being driven as much by mechanics.

The core book is suppose to make people familiar with the game, once they've learned it that then becomes the domain of supplements and expansion.

If you say basics first, variety later why not provide only one speciality and one chapter. You're talking in such a manner as if it was a clear-cut case makes no sense. Clearly a basic rulebook needs a certain amount of variety. And I assert it needs more than just a little to psychologically overwhelm the readers and spark off their fantasy. Because part of that sparking of fantasy is seemingly endless possibilities. 5 past histories has the psychological effect of very limited number of possibilities.

I'm not saying the main rulebook doesn't need variety, it just needs something less than the level you want it. It needs adequate variety as opposed to variety that supplemental books can bring.

Why not only one specialty and one chapter because the game isn't playable with only one specialty, and some minimum amount of variety beyond specialty is needed to differentiate the characters.

A book will never be able to contain "seemingly endless possibilities," it can never compete with an imagination run rampant.

Isn't it 5 past histories per chapter? Its only meant to help further distinguish two or more marines of the same chapter. Dealing with how are a bunch of relatively similar people who all live together different. If 5 players in your gaming group wanted to play the same chapter it might matter. Otherwise its jsut meant to be one more thing to add randomness to stat, while giving you something to keep in mind about your character.

Either that or it's being sold to us as significant. Anyway, Deathwatch is essentially and one character classes game, with all players playing the 40K equivalent of Paladins, boring Paladins going by your own description at that. There's viking or psyker subtypes but even those are just Paladin subtypes. That's the first point to make. Secondly, it's true that marginal differences between characters can make a difference.

However if those differences don't occur because they have thrown the same number on a D5 or d10 table, you're taking away some of those marginal differences who then don't up. That's why you create more entries in a table so that the same results are less likely to occur.

Space Marine is treated less like a class and more like a race. It is a game where everyone is on the same physical footing.

If you're consistently getting people with exactly the same characters, first you need to see if they care, if they do allow one of them to reroll if they'd like. No one says your stuck with the characte you generate.

But it's not even about that. It's about a player or GM opening up the book and seeing a PA history or Past history or whatever table and going "Wow, cool, so many entries, it's going to be fun exploring all that". If you take a look at the Past History table for PCs though, the psychological effect is this "Oh, he may have fought nids.. or Chaos... or Orks. Okay."

That "wow" aspect is superfluous. Power armor is issued to a marine, though personal and fun to explore, as a part of the game it isn't part of the actual game play beyond its effect in varying the rules between marines.

So why don't we? Why are we here? Why is there a DW rulebook? Why are others here? Why are we discussing all of this? The reason is because we are paying authors to create stuff for us so that we don't have to do it from scratch. In that case, if an author writes sth that you think doesn't seem to make sense (which happens), it's only fair to post in a forum such as this about it.

No system is perfect pen and paper RPG's by their nature take advantage of the fact that as group there is a creative force that can both guide the story and mediate indiscrepancies. You want more than what they gave you. Which is more than what's needed. They have supplements coming to give you more, but the core rulebook gives you only whats adequate.

You're wrong about this. An essential part of role-playing -if you get past the aspects of pure gaming- is identification with your character and I don't mean the kind of where you consider gaming a competition and identify your character with yourself. And part of identification is exploring the "character" (it's no coincidence that player avatars are called such in rpging) and giving it some life.

If you can't do that, he's just a set of statistics. Or worse, just a bore.

What your saying is no longer a critique of the book, but its subject matters suitability as an RPG. There is more on Space Marine psychology and background than there has ever been for Tieflings or other rare D&D playable races. People get on fine with those. I'll agree that it can be challenging but that doesn't mean it needs to be on a silver platter. You want more so that plays can "explore" characters. I'd rather my players just be given guidlines and allowed to make it their own by defining their character.

Personal histories and PA history, are only major aspects of the individuals history but they do not preclude any other major elements of a characters past from existing.

No, part of role-playing (for many gamers) is exploring what it feels like to set your foot on WF Erioch for the first time. Or what it's like to set foot onto a Tyranid Hive ship for the first time. Or what it's like to face a sea of Orks with only a handful of brothers by your side.

And the point of playing a Deathwatch marine is to be a space marine doing all those things, but you still wouldn't want to force them to sit through the tedious part of what a marines life entails.