When I hear the word canon I reach for my revolver.

--

+++++(But then again, didn't GW fans everywhere just accept "oh and by the way, these last few centuries where we've set all these campaigns? Astronomican totally failing. We forgot to mention that.")+++++

It is darwininan evolution - mutations occur constantly - ideas that prove popular survive and spread through the memespace, while others wither and die.

So long as it is with the understanding that the next time an idea may be mutilated, melted down for parts, discarded if it gets in the way or picked up and run with putting out any old **** is fine.

As an excuse to tell people they are doing it wrong and to suppress ideas and enjoyment, canon is hateful and must be destroyed.

--

All in all, if it comes down to someting not existing and someone telling me or anyone else that I can't play/write/draw/paint X because... I'd rather it didn't exist, kthnx.

Dezmond said:

Wow thats narrow minded.

Then why not play a game set in the time period of your choice and populated by... oh I dunno, make it all up yourself. Information can be a springboard. It can be clay to work with.

Text has been deleted by myself.

Text has been deleted by myself.

Wierd double post error.

Peacekeeper_b said:

If you want I'll write it, you can tell me it sucks and he can ignore it.

Luddite said:

Why would it need to be binding to the 40k universe? Why would Calixis be treated differently? Should it not be the other way around - that the 40k should apply to DH? A lot of the complaints are that Calixis isn't what the 40k universe is supposed to be. Are these rules concisely laid out in 40k? Since I haven't seen a description of the 40k Creed or anything like you mention is missing in DH, I am guessing not.

I am of the opinion that DH is meant to be a separate game and not gradeschool and you get to graduate to 40K. Perhaps I am mistaken on that regard.

The book says you should as DH isn't geared for high level characters but I think that is either a sloppy or lazy thing for a game designer to put in a core book.

Luddite said:

Considering much of the books say that the Creed is open to interpretation, Inquisitors have different ideas as to what they are doing, heresies vary from location to location, Arbites to different things in different systems, even the Omnissiah seems to be an accepted heresy, etc. these things have to be vague. Calixis is not some homogeneous sector where the same rules apply everywhere. The absolutes regarding psykers, mutants and xenos are mentioned but that is about it.

Luddite said:

By making the foundation too solid you are putting roleplaying into a 'smaller box' by limiting what is and is not kosher. Keeping the players themselves in the dark about such things could actually be a plus.

With regard to the inclusion of some more notes on the Imperial Creed*, I'd rather have something I need to rewrite than have nothing at all.

Case in point, I don't like the Psy or Sorcery rules, I could whinge on about them, but FF aren't going to change the whole game to just to satisfy me. So using what's been written as a starting block, I'm writing something more to my own tastes. Same would go for if they wrote something about the Imperial creed I didn't like. But at least then I'd have the option of either saying to my players 'Imperial Creed is as in the book' or 'Imperial Creed is as in the book except for A, B & C plus you can only eat fish on Fridays'.

It's not about limiting the freedom of a Referee to improvise and create, its about giving him more options and potentially saving him the effort of having to map and detail every little nuance of the game world.

As for the threat of the rules lawyer gamers who quote sourcebooks as 'the whole of the law'. It's important to stress that every rule and written piece of background is optional. That said if you are going to make major changes its helpful to actually tell the players.

I try to find time either before or after a game to just discuss what’s going on, ask my players what they like, and what they don't like. Important changes to the background or rules can be discussed, argued over, scrapped, written, re-written etc. If anything these little discussions give me even more ideas about the sorts of adventures to run.

*I'm not entirly sure DotDG was the ideal place to print a massive discource on the Imperial Creed, and it could just have been space considerations which shortened the chapter. My personal hope is we'll get a juicy new sourcebook later in the year, 'Creed of the Righteous' ?

What are we arguing about again?

One additional (really minor) nitpicks - the Daemon Weapons can be any kind of armament ranging from daemon swords to good old Kai guns but the daemon weapon attribute called the Heart Seeker adds only a WS bonus instead of WS or BS bonus depending to weapons type.

Hey don't tell me I'm the only one that would like to see a heretic armed with an extremely powerful possessed musket in his campaign .

RichH said:

Absolutely.

Spot on.

I tried, in my review, to express my opinions and disquiets where i was concerned.

However, the only real criticism i think i levelled at DotDG and indeed the wider DH product line is the need for MORE information. Which i don't really see as a criticism at all...more like a plea to the authors...give us more detail!!!

Like you say, i'd rather have something to work with, rewrite or ignore, than being forced to 'fill in the essential blanks' myself.

DotDG presents some excellent ideas. It presents idea F, T, X, and Z; but for me, trying to implement those ideas raise fundamental unanswered questions of A, B, and C, which is infurating.

Peacekeeper_b said:

The usual?

I don't think people can be trusted to understand that the next author either won't have read, won't like or couldn't give a stuff about Teh Detailz.

If you get every fan in the world to sign an affidavit that they won't complain when Someone Changes Something, then maybe, maybe we can talk.

I feel anyone wanting details should be sentenced to three weeks of reading the traveller mailing list.

ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH ARS MAGICA FLASHBACK! MAKE IT STOPMAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOP!!!!!!!!!

Actually, three weeks is a bit cruel - an normal human being would be driven insane inside a couple of days.

So yes - the Details are for getting in to long and tedious arguments over trivia on internet fora. Just Say No!

Regarding details, I have one thought about that.

In my group there is this guy who has as good as photographic memory. He just remembers all the **** he reads. i don`t have this ability, and I am GM. Now, if there were a lot of details, there would be arguments over everything, not just the rules. I don`t want that. Bette to keep it a bit loose and the GM can spend a little time covering these things for him/herself. Great for uniqueness. All you need is a bit of creativity.

This is why I thought it`s good that the Tyrant Star isn`t defined. WTF would I do if this was defined and a player happened to look at the book? Campaign over?

There is no right or wrong here, only opinions! It`s just that I`m the only one here with the correct one

+++++But there is one problem I have with it. I presume it's Calixis centred. So what are the Lictor and the Genestealers mentioned in the overview on Designer's Diary doing there? It's far from main courses of Tyranid expansion. Besides, as of 815.M41 the First Tyranid War is finished, and Hive Fleets Leviathan and Kraken haven't appeared yet. AFAIK until the appearance of Kraken in 993.M41 and battle for Ichar IV the Imperium believed the Tyranids were a defeated threat, with Administratum questioning increased mobilisation in Eastern Fringe.

I know that the fan demand for Tyranids is great, but the designers must tread carefully in order not to step into the trap of DH's historical setting and it being set in the past of the Imperium. It already happened at least once, with DotDG mentioning Amalathianism as one of the oldest doctrines, while in reality it's only about 500 years old in DH.+++++

See?

I remember rather enjoying the Traveller mailing list when I was active in that particular setting. Not sure whether that is going to **** me even more in the eyes of some, but just thought that I would mention it anyway.

Kage

To be fair, I know what Luddite is getting at. All the vague background is great in some ways. It does, for example, allow GMs and players the opportunity to do what they like with backgrounds, characters and story hooks, whilst respecting the integrity (such as it is) of the setting.

But, and this is a big but, it comes a point where you wish that you had something a little more concrete back ground wise rather than a vague shared conciousness of 40k history.

In this respect, the back few pages of the Inquisitors Handbook are probably some of the most useful I've seen. But even they still are frustrating amorphous in terms of guidelines. Concepts like the term 'Imperial creed' or 'Arbites duty' need at least some clarification, even if its a throw away comment from Andy Chambers at his ilk.

Lets face it, the closest thing we've got to a '10 commandments' of the Imperial Creed are the ludmillian Disctates, and thats a quarter page of text that only covers the redemptionists. What about more common aspects of the Creed? i feel that it sometimes a little hard for my players to roleplay a hardline preacher if they aren't entirely sure where the line is to start with...

Even if you subscribe to the relativist idea that 'the feed is what you make of it', it still leaves you treading water, role play wise. Its tricky to give players a moral dilemma if 'morals are what you make of them'.

it gets even worse when discussing Imperial Law and the Arbites. Beat cops? Judge dredd? Interplanetary FBI? Who the hell knows. Its fun to a certain extent to make of it what you want, but it would be good to have some pointers.

Simple and pertinent example: Does an Arbite have authority to kill?

Yes? During the execution of a warrant? What do they get warrants for? Who authorises them? Over whom does their remit cover?

No? Why not? How much trouble do they get in? Why the hell do they have a bolt pistol as a side arm if they can't use it?

Fairly obviously any GM worth his salt will be able to find his way through such a situation, but it'd be pretty good if there was some sort of guidelines.

Any thoughts? Answers on a post card.

kennetten said:

Except that definition doesn't have to be definitive...

And even if it notionally is, there always remains GM fiat so that definition of any aspect in you campaign is subject to your sayso.

So if this player comes at you waving canon about, you can smile and say, 'well that may not be the case'...

The best example of how 40k / DH definition should be done (in my opinion) is found in the Shadowrun: Seattle Sourcebook (the best example of a setting book written for any RPG ever, in my opinion ) www.amazon.com/Seattle-Sourcebook-Shadowrun-FASA-Corporation/dp/1555601111

kennetten said:

Ah yes, but mine is more correct than yours......hehe...

You point is valid and pertinent though since my review expressed my opinion that DH requires more information to add value to the game...

DotDG is a solid product and gold-plated stuff for most GMs. In my opinion it would be only made better (as indeed would DH in general) by the provision of more information (which i'm not arguing should be definitive or exclusive) concerning life in the Calixis sector; how things work; how society functions, etc.

As Doug Barry says in his review of the Seattle Sourcebook (at the link above):

The Seattle Sourcebook is perhaps the single best example of a setting book in RPG history. Rather than trying to force plots and unneeded NPC, all you get is a hard look at Seattle in 2050. Neighborhoods, businesses mundane and shadowy, local landmarks, weather, politics... everything needed to set any kind of adventure in the city.

The book is only approved by the Wiki-like commentary added by "users" of this book. Some of the commentary is humorous, some can be adventure hooks, and some of course are blatant lies. But the method of presentation makes them flow naturally into the rhythm of the writing.

Dark Heresy needs that 'hard look' at society in the Calixis sector. And if we had it, DotDG would have been a 9/10, not a 6.5/10 for me.

Perhaps 'an official history/society' that every one can agree to. And then the GM can undermine.

For example: The official 'definition' of the Tyrant Star is 'some sort of warp phenomenon' (or whatever). So the players are happy with their shared understanding of the universe. Then the GM can have great fun undermining their beliefs through story telling.

So using the above example, thae thingy they think is a warp phenomenon turns out to be a baby Jokareo or whatever. Shock! Horror! players are surprised and intrigued by the 'secret history' theyve just learnt.

If you haven't got a history to start with, you cant have a secret history to surprise them with...

Seneca said:

Absolutely spot on mate.

All this stuff is ABSOLUTELY KEY to effective roleplaying. As you say, how can you roleplay Imperial morality without any idea what it actually is. DH giving us 400 pages of guns and how to use them is no help at all. DotDG telling us there's a trade in xenos artefacts and then not telling us how / who / why /etc. is even less use and devalues the excellent effort being put in.

As i (and you) said, its castles built on sand.

I feel it's worth saying that without us GM's having knowledge of the subject matter, a lot of the lore skills are pretty worthless.

well, we can all manage without it. I just think personally that given a basic set of rules for weapons (ie from DH rulebook), most competent GMs and players could come up with new weapons easily enough. the internet itself is a great example of it, a simple trawl of the forums wil show that writing rules for new autogun patterns or xenos kit is easy once you've got a feel for the rules.

But the 'crunch of the fluff', as it were, is harder. I've seen plenty of rules for new homeworlds etc, but i've yet to see anyone tackling the daunting task of drawing up a list of an Arbites duties.

Lets face it, no one here knew the Temple Tendancy were unorthodox worshippers of the Emperor until the DOTDG told us so. Why? because we had no idea what othodoxy was, as far as the Imperial creed was concerned.

This is far from a rant about the inadequacies of DOTDG (i loved it personally, as a GM), but rather a plea for a source book, similar to the oLd Codex Imperialis about the hard tacks of life in the Imperium...

Sh*t does the above count as a spoiler?! I apologize and DONT LOOK

Seneca said:

Welcolme to the world of Anargo. It's slow, sometimes a bit acerbic, but ultimately it considers all these things to be a part of its remit to expand our understanding of the 40k universe. Even if that understanding comes from the fans.

Kage

As does all understanding, when it comes to it.

All the authors intent is for nought without the audiences comprehension

I've had a look at the Anargo stuff and some of its pretty good, and all useful if only from a dialectical point of view. But I still like an official Dark Heresy product with some hard rulings.

In my games, the Arbites do approximately the following:

- they are not police (planets have their own) and do not do ordinary police duties.
- they represent the Imperuim and is considered a kind of FBI/CIA/SWAT kind of force which deals with the following:
*witchery
*riots
*wanted persons
*planetary tithes
*corruption
* smuggling

Arbites can be seen doing "Inquisition work" on a smaller scale, as they deal with threats to the Imperium as a whole. They have a licence to kill, but the goal is almost always to detain and question before execution. Information is the key.

It can sometimes be hard to find the line between Arbites and acolyte work, but this problem exists in the real world as well. Duties overlapping until it is clear what agency is taking over.