Charmander said:

How similar is the WoD system to the one that Adventure uses ?

Because the Adventure system is a very clunky system that also scales badly because of how it handles initiative:

- At the start of each round of combat each player rolls initiative.

- The character with the lowest initiative declares their action, then the next lowest up to highest.

- Actions are then resolved from the highest initiative character to the lowest.

As a result:

- With my group we were looking at about 30 seconds every round for everyone to roll initiative and for the gm to sort it. This was solved by getting someone to write a program to handle initiative (we outnumbered the enemies in every combat before he got this program), so we now have to make sure he updates it when we upgrade anything related to initiative.

- High initiative characters get limited precognition, making them very hard to fight. If a low initiative character goes for a full out attack, his target goes fully defensive while his allies pummel the low initiative character. If the low initiative character goes defensive, the high initiative characters can go attack someone easier to hit.

- It is very easy to lose track of what actions are queued up. Even though our gm has a list of who goes when right in front of him, he regularly misses people as he has to keep track of all the queued actions.

- By knowing what their enemies are going to do, players have a lot more things to think about when deciding what they want to do.

Any one action is quick to resolve in Adventure. But my experience is that rounds as a whole take longer because of the initiative system, even when comparing it to full auto weapons in DH.

Charmander said:

(1) Been saying that for years. Not only do I think the talents mimic feats too much, I think there are too many talents. I dont like the dual shot, ual strick, two weapon wielder (Ballistic), two weapon wielder (melee), ambidextrous and so forth as they come off as so many talents just covering the same basic goal. I dont like the Talented talent as it is noting but Skill +30 and should be done as such, and so forth.

(2) I wasnt refering to Rangers. I was referring to proficiency options in the Fighters Handbook. And as a side note, we ditched Alignment back in like 5th grade (1985) LOL. At least as the end all be all of class and race issues.

(3) Never liked level/class systems (which, unfortunately Dark Heresy is). Never liked the feeling of "you just graduated from fighter school and you see a bar..."

(4) Palladium was a weak D&D attempt. Shadowrun was a trainwreck of two game design teams travelling from chicago on a train going 500mph and hit by a plan with another game design team on it going 750mph

Heheh. I had so much fun breaking Shadowrun, 3rd and 4th editions mostly.

I still remember making a troll street samurai, and just using the base rules + the players handbook having more effective life then a tank, being all but magic immune and running around with a Thunderstruck Railgun (the GM had allowed us one "special" item that was exempted from teh starter availibility restrictions) and a chameleon suit. Essentially I was a 1 man invisible army with a weapon that could put a serious dent in a dragon. In terms of raw combat power relative to the setting and to the other PCs, I don't think I've ever seen such a disparity. The GM had told me I had free hands within the RAW and he actually challenged me to see how badly I could break the character generation system.

So yeah, Shadowrun is a system that really requires communication between the GM and all the players. You more or less have to decide on your own what power level you want to run at, and then kinda do your best to take it from there. Not really an ideal thing for the base rules to allow such a radical difference in PCs.

Quite fun though if you love to optimize.

Bilateralrope said:

WoD we never declared actions, and that only became an issue with held actions (which I think D20/D100 does far better) waiting for an opponent to do something.

The issue tend to see in combat (in most systems) is rarely the core, basic attack and defense system (WoD is simply add your attribute dice pool to your skill dice pool to the weapon bonus, then subtract your opponents defense trait plus armor trait, pretty simple) but it's when you add complications to it. Full auto, reflexive/free powers, complicated resistance actions (grapple is a good example in WoD; a to hit roll, no armor, then a contested roll, then something else, then if your opponent gets an action that turn they can roll to resist/break free), dodges, parries, magic powers, etc. As in FFG, you can just get a huge train of bonuses and penalties added to the roll that make it take longer- take firing a twin linked weapon from a vehicle; you're minus for the movement, plus for the twin linked, maybe minus for your skill in the weapon, maybe pluss for auto fire, maybe plus for range, maybe minus for size.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I agree that FFG has a lot of weapons, talents, skills that all kind of go after the same thing- the list could be paired down a bit. But IMHO you could easily end up with my problem with Medicae (which you and I talk about briefly in a different thread) where Medicae covers not just first aid and setting fractures, but long term care and surgery. Make it too broad and then it feels really wierd. To me a lot of the ambidextrous and tww talents feel very tied into the level system which doens't bother me; I mean that you progress down a trail and get better and better at your specialty.

Can't blame you for disliking levels and classes, as I said, though I really think it has it's place, but that's just me.

Ah, the handbooks...love and hate relationship with me. I used to love them, but have since grown tired of the power creep you can end up with, where if you ahve a core character they can end up being outclassed by a supplement (see Rifts and it's supplements). Cool stuff, but I felt it imbalanced and overcomplicated in areas.

To me Shadowrun could only be run well by a master of the rules- D20 modern reminded me of it. You have a system that seems to work on the surface, but there are so many surprises you end up running into that it can quickly destroy a game and can totally. Wait, you have a what level Doc Wagon contract? You can soak how much damage because you're a troll that rolled well on his starting money? Palladium, and AD&D, to me lacked critically in the contested roll department (in addition to just internal imbalances) and a complete lack of social development. But oh how I miss all of those settings.

The problem with being able to run Shadowrun well (especially 3rd edition) is that you have to know the rules extremely well, and be able to make judgement calls on when your players were abusing things too much.

Normally you would think that would be blindingly obvious, especially as a GM. But in Shadowrun you had the core mechanics, and then you had "special" rules for Deckers (hackers ), Riggers (drivers and pilots, including drones), Mages (and there was a LOT of broken crap in the magic rules) and so forth. The worst part about many of these extra rules is that they were almost mini-games in their own right, with a lot of details that were open for exploitation or abuse.

The group I played with here in Europe, not being native english speakers, really had overlooked a lot of details and made some assumptions for the sake of simplicity that just weren't accurate.

The setting itself though is very compelling though, and a lot of fun when its done right.

But of all the games I've played, WoD has probably eaten the most hours. Mostly because its what we played when I was 15-23, and I've never gamed as much as I did when I was a teenager. Now granted this was all under the old system, but the sheer mass of dice rolling could get really intense, and not in the good way.

I don't hate the system (and the setting is awesome...immediately recognizable and identifiable to players, but with so many cool options layered on top), but I don't think I would ever voluntarily go back to it. With this new change to making difficulties standard, it really reminds me of Shadowrun 4ed except with d10s. And that game could really let you amass some huge dice pools as well. It does make for a bit less work for the GM having to calculate odds and what difficulty is appropriate but it sounds like it still requires a pretty large amount of rolling and calculations with all the modifiers.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Players like that will screw up any game system, d20 or not. Luckily I've always had players who realize RPG's are about creating stories together, and not powergaming, exploiting loopholes, or making the GM's life miserable.

Charmander said:

See, that's actually why I hate level based systems and prefer class-less/level-less systems. I don't want characters to start out as chumps. I want my players to be able to make character who are good at what they are good at.

Honestly the desire for starting characters to be chumps is where DH really lost me. To me, the idea of playing Agents of the Holy frakking Inquisition and starting out as chumps is completely contradictory. I wanted a game where I could play characters like Eisenhorn, Betancore, Godwyn Fischig, Harlon Nayl, Patience Kys and Kara Swole. These are characters who are good, often very good at what they do well... but also characters who needed to work together as a team because they each had their own supporting specialties. That's something that's a lot harder, IMO, to do in a class/level based system.

Converting DH/RT from a class system to a free form system is easy, takes some effort but it should be easy, the only acception would be a Tech Priest class and perhaps the psyker.

Example:
Start with determining starting XP


Have each character choose 3 slow, 3 medium and 3 fast profile advances
- Fast (100/250/750/1000)
- Medium (250/500/etc.)
- Expensive (500/etc.)

Divide the Skills and Talents into 3 tiers...

Common Lores would be first tier, Scholastic second and Forbidden Lores third
1st Tier: 100xp per level
2nd Tier: 200xp per level
3rd Tier: 300xp per level

Talents work the same
Primitive Weapon Training would be 1st Tier, Swift Attack Second and Lightning Attack Third

1st Tier: 100xp
2nd Tier: 200xp
3rd Tier: 300xp
Perhaps you could raise talent costs to 200/400/600 xp

This system would take a lot of regulating from the GM in case of min/max/power gamers but it should work..

Santiago

LuciusT said:

Those that were introduced during the game DID start out as chumps. Betancore was a hooker! Fischig was barely competent.

MILLANDSON said:

Inquisitor sapiens potensque said:

Well, the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books were about Throne Agents, I think. I don't know why BI decided to adapt those books into a game where characters start as mooks...

Actually, Bequin was the hooker. Betancore seemed extremely competent from the start (but he had worked with Eisenhorn for some time before being introduced). About Fischig, well, I don't recall him going through much progression (he starts as dumb as hell, gets a little better then falls back to amoeba-level dumbness). I don't know much about Ravenor's team because the first book almost bored me to death and I had to stop reading but they seem competent enough (if bland, clichéd and uninteresting).

Whee! said:

Whee! said:

It is clear you don't know what the d20 system is. Most of your examples here is D&D setting elements mixed with 40k ones is a nonsenical way.

Why would Boltguns be Magical? Magic items is not d20. DH even has magic items of sorts, but they would be nothing like D&D.

And alot of what you say is wrong even in D&D. So no, not gonna bother. Even in D&D I have played games that had plenty of grit, even going so far that it became too dangerous and likely to fail at a wrong toss of the dice.

In DH however the gamemaster sections usually encourage the GM not let an evening or worse, a campaign, be ruined by a bad toss of the dice or even a missed opportunity to obtain a clue. The game should feel gritty, not be it. No fun playing a game with 50% chance of losing a FP every goddamn session.

As for me, last time I charged a bunch of Orcs in D&D (about 30 IIRC) my character got 3 crits and died right there. And no it wasn't 1st level...

But don't get me wrong, I'm glad they didn't go for d20 as the system is more complex and time consuming, while the d100 system with it's flaws is generally faster. Also I usually prefer the continous advancement of talents and skills rather than advancing a whole level at a time, and the fact that an ascended adept in DH can be completely crap in combat despite being "high level." Not that I would make an adept so, since combat is so prevalent in DH.

H.B.M.C. said:

Well it doesen't necessarily promote it much more than DH does. For example, the players know that a shot from a laspistol is extremely unlikely to incapacitate them, especially if they have a little armor. Thus they can pretty much laugh in the face of danger of someone ready to shoot them at 3 meters distance.

In D&D it is similar - if you have 30 Hit Points it will be difficult if not outright impossible for someone to take you down in one hit with a short bow. But there are also alot more user dependent - for instance a strong fighter or barbarian with a great axe can certainly take down or kill such a character in one lucky hit.

Basicaly whenever a game system diverts from realism it will encourage metagaming - but good players and GMs will try to avoid it as much as possible as it can often cause disbelief.

I don't think that I understand the term "meta-gaming". I alway thought that reference to the meta-game was reference to events outside of the game as it is played, basically to add depth to whatever millieu you are playing in.

Kyorou said:

Right, Bequin. A Rank 1 Scum that spent all her starting XP on Untouchable.

Why do you think that DH is in any way an adaptation of those books? It's not; it's basically a gothic horror game. Eisenhorn is action pulp.

(And the DH rulebooks are actually better-written than Eisenhorn. )

Bad Birch said:

Metagame is the overall plot of an RPG setting, it can ruin a game when Uber-NPCs get to do all the great stuff and PCs get to watch. Metagaming is using out of character information to build a character that maxes out against the campaign. Like building an Undead Hunter because you know you're going to Ravenloft, or a Giantslayer because you know your DM wants to run Against the Giants. Similar name, different meanings.

I have only one thing to say:

Converting 40k RPG to D20 equals Heresy

Santiago said:

And you would still have rank 1/level 1 incompetents running around as PCs.

Easiest solution to not have useless Dark Heresy PCs, reset starting XP to 1000.

I don't get why people use novels as a reference point for starting characters. Do you think Aragorn is a level 1 ranger at the beginning of Lord of the Rings? Experienced characters should be able to emulate characters from a story, but RPGs always start below that and leave room for improvement. I like that I can always use a Rank 2 Guardsman to represent your average infantryman. PCs are the ones that stand above and grow beyond that point, but I much prefer a low start and a long progression so I can tailor things to my specific game.

Just look at all the conversation about what pre-deathwatch marines look like on the other forum. Even if PCs are starting at a certain level of experience, it would be nice to have a progression for scouts and normal marines for comparison and NPCs. If you want to start out a little stronger just begin the game at rank 2 or 3.

The Glen said:

Okay, thanks. We have always called that kind of behaviour "power gaming" in my group.

deinol said:

This.

If you want your character to be bad asses coming the 6-10 game session, go play D&D. You want Epic battles where players can do tons, go play Star Wars D6.

One constant in 40k is that you suck and you're a nobody and no one cares for you. The PC had the 'chance' to rise from their station and become somebody for the price of being the thin line that safeguards mankind, looking out at the darkness so that the rest of those fools, losers and nobodies you don't care about can go on with their laughable sad lives for another daycycle.

The fact that all those guys in those novels people quote are badasses is because it's quite a more intresting read than reading about Mr. Jok Acolyte fumbling with a simple button for 3 pages because he's from a feral world ('Can be fun, but you know) and that no one is is cell is willing to touch it and bring the wrath of the Machine Spirit on themselves. Way better reading about Inquisitor X strutting his Aquilla on Hive Big-Top, wearing his super ancient wool coat and plasma pistol and slapping Generals, Planetaly Gouverners and Magnos here and there saying 'Inquisition Biatches!' Story over characters. Story is good but the characters are purely there for plot reasons.

I'll prefer characters over story. You get a better story like that, and the characters acually make the plot.

deinol said:

deinol said:

Its why I despise rank/level systems. In point based generation systems you could build your ranger and assume he is a Aragorn style/level character (even if we would give Strider extra starting points for his coolness). But in D&D you are level 1 and therefore more Ranger Smith andless Ranger of the North.

In games where you can spend your points on advantages, stats, skills and so forth and gain extra points for taking penalties you can start off with your Betancores, Eisenhorns, Ciaphas Cains and so forth and not necessarily have an overpowered character. But in level/rank systems that number will always haunt you and remind you that you are the putz.

Braddoc said:

First, Character and Story should go hand in hand. Even extremely interesting characters fail to enteretain or excite in a bad story. For example, Aragon and Darth Vader find the dead body of Indian Jones in the comedy classic Weekend at Indie's! (OK, bad example, Id actually watch that).

D6 space is a great game, and would well for 40K! D20/D&D had its moments and no, never in my experience were D&D characters badasses after 6-10 adventures, heck we were lucky to have leveled up in the games we played (we always preferred AD&D at the 3rd-7th level of experience). Any system has its issues when trying to reflect a setting that has multiple media forms. 40k has novels, table top games, video games, a animated movie, comics and so forth. And really Dark Heresy does a decent job of letting it come to RPG life.

The biggest issue is rank 1 characters tend to be one sided and simple, and sorry that isnt the setting. Its the majority of the universe,but its not the setting. The setting is space marines, commissars, psykers, heroic guardsmen, inquisitors, arbitrators, rogue traders and so forth.

Adding 2-4 additional talents and skills to starting characters goes a long way to making them more competent without being super ninja death punch kewl awesome death rangers.

The secong problem with Dark Heresy is the higher levels, the skill and talent bloat phase.

Bad Birch said:

More like cheating, I don't mind people making campaign specific characters, but if you make a character designed to beat the campaign before hand I'm gonna a meteor on him.

deinol said:

Always ? Feng Shui doesn't, nor does Agone and other non-reward-based systems. I can understand why DH took the zero-to-hero approach (it is the most common) but it was in no way a necessity.