I'm not a fan of random character creation. I much prefer point buy systems, and I like to let player choice reign during the pregame show. With most of Deathwatch, this isn't a problem. With Power Armour History, it's a bit more complicated.

I'm not really for them just cherry picking the best ones, but I also don't want to just eliminate the concept. I wish there was a list of appropriate bonuses and penalties of approximately equal value that could be mixed and matched to get a set that the player could then construct his history around. To that end, I may be working on such a list, and I figured I'd check here to see if anyone has already done this before I start from scratch.

How about letting the player pick out 5-10 histories, and then roll among them? With the new tables that should be fairly possible, and will not force someone to take a choice they don't want or would work against their character concept.

I don't know. I think armor history is supposed to be, if anything, the most random thing out there. The idea that you get your armor passed down and gifted to you is almost like saying you have to deal with it. And I think the +1 -1 rule based on your roll gives you a 3/10 chance to find something you like, if you're just counting the basic Mk. 7 and the Basic table in the Core Rulebook.

Though perhaps you could balance out a point buy system to balance out the armor they can get (marks 5-8), and then each of the different charts corresponds to a cost to pick from based on the one they pciked. Like Mark 6 armor is good for assault marines, so then picking off the skill of the artificer would cost the most, followed by legends, followed by the regulars, then followed by scars.

I wasn't thinking of using the actual entries on the tables, more of a purchase the effect and then come up with your own fluff. For example, a positive selection might be +10 bonus to [Choice of Skill] Tests or +5 bonus to [Choice of Characteristic] Tests. Some negative ones might exist that allow an additional positive to be selected.

In my games, I have players choose a history they specifically don't want, and treat it as if it does not exist on the table. I also encourage having no two of the same history in the kill team, allowing characters to ignore histories that have already been chosen (except if doing so is more harmful to the character).

I think its exceedingly hard to weight the usefulness of each history, as it changes by specialty, and even within that, some players might value different stats/effects over others. And certainly, just letting them pick is kind of.... I dunno. Limiting the list is probably the best way to do it. And I've had particularly good luck with just removing one history (all my players have gotten something thats in their top 1-2 picks for histories).

Personally, I'm ok with random, as it only lends itself to a +/- 5% difference in characters most of the time. Worst case I give a free 5% boost, or in extreme cases just let the player take a max roll in some certain stat if they just rolled terrible (read as in they got an average of < 7 for their stats). Rerolling is also of course an option

I may just have each the player select five histories from among all four tables (including the original table in the core and the three in RoB) to create a personal mini-table where 1d5 is rolled to see which one (or more for some models of power armour) the player gets.

Not fully balanced, but it should work out OK and it'll be much easier than fully reworking this part of the system.

With such random rolls I give the players usually a veto option. If the result is such that they feel it contradicts with their character. Of course it sould be flufwise, not because the stats do are no good.

Also if someone has a very nice roleplay story behind why he should have a certain baground for his army I will usually allow it. Especially if the armour creates a weakness or adds drama to the character.

The 'fudge' option of -/+1 seems to always be enough to get something that even if it wasn't THE ONE that you really wanted, was still certainly something that you wanted. Only the sulkiest of players surely would find something to complain about given the +/-1 option.

You can always say: "Don't like the option, well just record an empty space instead'. Or stop players from spending that characteristic re-roll until they've done armour, and allowing it to be used on armour instead of a characteristic.

I find your lack of fate in the sacred and sanctified power armors of the astartes is an heresy! Each and every power armor is a master piece and should be respected.

Where words that an assault brother would fancy another armor because is was a venerable devastator used it to slay countless of Xenos defending a chapter banner? You initiates do not deserve to feel the blessing of the power armor of the astartes and should only look at them through the eyes of serfs of the chapter!

Chaplain!!!! those acolyte need chastening!

Now you dare disrespect the holy tradition of random armor assignment? Why would you only wish to play min max marines?

Is there no faith in your role play techniques?

crisaron said:

I like you. I'm friending you.

Another possible option here is allowing your player to his history, but you retain two caveats:

1. It all has to be justified by a realistic (such as it exists for a game about genetically modified superhumans) and fluffy story
2. The GM always retains veto power if he suspects the rules are being abused (too much cheese)

First of all, I totally agree with you about random rolling. Point Buy-system is superior in almost every way.
Roleplaying games have evolved enough these days that even this game should've included a Point-Buy
option on every step. To be totally honest: this system and its too many mechanics is - atleast to me -
munchkin heaven. It smells of Dungeons & Dragons-like maxing out goals for all characters.

I don't like levels either.......................... Ok, this was a long shot from this topic - but I had to say it!

dracopticon said:

There's nothing more munchkin that points-buy, though. It allows the creation of a 'honed' character. Randomisation stands in the way of that. DW generates random stats in a random order. Imagine how much worse it would be if every BA AM could simply choose to put 20 points in to have a WS of 50.

Every system can be min-maxxed and munchkined. But the worst causes are points buy and flaws that provide additional build points. Neither is present in DW.

That is why i'm changing the rolls for characteristics with a hybrid of the point buy system and rolling.

The players get 50 points to distribute amongst their stat, with no more than 10 points put into one stat. Then they add d10 to each stat, with one re-roll possible.

I havent'tried this out yet, but I will implement this next time one of my players need to make a new character.

I still wouldn't allow them to cherry pick their armour history though.

Siranui said:

One way of alleviating that effect is to have the "Good Stuff" pickable/point buy and then randomize the "Bad Stuff". But one superimportant rule of having a point buy is to also have a continuing discussion with the GM about what is allowed/not allowed and what is fluff/not fluff. It all boils down to the question: is the GM also a munchkin?

If the point buy system is allowed total free reign for the players, then YES I totally agree with you Siranui, it would be chaos and maxing without restraint.
But as I say, with the ever-present views and rulings of a good planning GM it can make the characters into the space marines we recognize.

Point buy is after all the way of getting the bulding blocks for the dream character instead of random sh*t that is lightyears from what you, as a player, had in mind.

One other BIG question is this: what is more important in the long run, the generation and table rolling for the character or the choices/effects of adventuring/roleplaying that your character makes during the game itself? I'd say the latter.

Well, obviously the second. Nobody would debate that.

I just don't like points-buy, though. I have seen far too many Lo5R/Con-X/3.5 characters rolling straight out of the cloning vats, configured to maximum levels of optimisation. Random rolling doesn't give you what you want, and that's great: You have to adapt your idea or work towards your goals in game-time. You don't get to start with a 'finished product'. Random characters always seem more rounded and believable to me.

I don't think you have to have random rolls for armour history, especially if you've got a good group that enjoys roleplaying and makes interesting choices. Sometimes those choices will be optimal, sometimes not; it's the concept behind the choice that is significant, not the choice itself. If you have a player who is obviously only interested in minmaxing, maybe put the reins on them. If you've got a player who's written an interesting history for his armour that includes some optimal feature, let him have it.

A lot of times GM's get hung up on "but that's what the book says!" and overlook the far more important questions: "Will this be more fun for the player?" and "Will this choice harm the game?" If they answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No" respectively, let the player do what he wants. You'll have plenty of time to whale on him later, and cause the player much more anguish when a genestealer rakes huge slashes in his cherished armour.

A lot of the fluff and fiction indicates that power armour selection is not a process of "Here you go. Next!" for marines, but often more of a ritual event in which different suits are tried out to find the perfect match for the wearer. In that case, it makes sense that a marine would choose a suit of armour (or be chosen by said suit) that compliments his talents. In fact, their bolt guns are selected the same way, but having a whole separate slew of tables for boltgun history would just be ponderous (and they don't tend to vary that much anyway, mechanically speaking).

if it is just for story, by all means give them the fluff you want but don't give bonus by the dozen...

All astartes armors (except maybe a new suit of Mk8) have been through countless battles and fought with many brothers, the precise history rolled is one that may have marked the armor then others but all types of brothers have been through them/it so any fluff veteran or neophite can have worn the armor and may still need to be respected.

etc.

Siranui said:

Yep. Like always, it's ones own experiences with rules or gaming situations that decide what you want in the end. It's sometimes hard to mix that with others views though. I've found that talking about what players want in advance of starting the actual rolling and trying to read up on the background fluff for the PC is what solves those problems. But the discussion also have to continue through the whole generation andeven through out the character evolution during the game itself.

My answer to the original posters question:

I guess it depends on what you are trying to run. Are you trying to run a combat system where people can see what Space Marines can do, or are you trying to run a role playing game where more than their physical stats actually matter? Points buy can show the combat abilities of a Marine well, and give you an idea of what the 'top end' of the system could be like. But if you are running a role playing game where you encourage your players to actually get into the genre and characters, then you really SHOULD stick to the randomization. It almost forces them to react to situations differently than what Rambo would...and find ways around their own weaknesses just as much as find them in their enemies.

For me, it's randomization all the way.

I think how RT has ruled it at some points it's cool:

You roll random for something, and if you don't like what you get you can pay XP to choose instead.
The same principle was used in RoB with the Ritual Fighter.

That way you benefit from being not so picky but you can be if you want.

I would handle it this way:

• Roll for MK of Armour. If it's ok for you, fine. Else pay 500 XP to choose one.
• Roll for History. If it's ok, fine. Else pay 200 XP.
• Second History, the same except: If you paid to choose Nr1, this time it costs 300 XP.
• Third History: (I Think there was one with 3 rolls): If you've chosen 1 and 2 this costs 500 XP. If you already spent all your starting XP on the MK roll and the first two histories: Tough luck, you're too picky.

That said: It can be cool to have something you would not have chosen. But it can be a mayor pain in the a** if you get something totally contrary to what you like.
And the new History tables have one big flaw in my opinion: There is not one history per result on the dice roll.
For example there is

• 6: History x
• 7/8 History y
• 9 History z

If you roll a 7, as I understand the rules, you can choose rolls 6, 7 and 8. But 7 and 8 are the same so you can only choose between two alternatives.
It should either be stated, that the +-1 is entries not roll numbers or there should be 10 enries on each history table.

Because yes, there are rolls where I would, if I rolled it either beg my GM to just let me have no "bonus" at all before I have to have one of the two I may choose from. Or I would just play a scout and never ever wear PA.

How about letting players make up their own armour Histories, but *you* choose the bonus that's associated with it?

That way they get creative control, but don't get to min-max?

Umbranus said:

I believe there is a pay to choose option in the Rites of Battle book. For a certain XP you can choose another history for your armor. So I think it's already covered. :-)

Chastity said:

Quite. It means that not everyone has the history that grants another fate point, for a start.

Although what power armour a character is issued is -to me- rather outside the character's control, so is something -even in a 'co-operative' game that I'd be leery of letting characters simply pick.

I believe Ritual Fighter is a pay OR roll thing. You don't get to roll, decide you don't like your roll, and then pay to choose it. That's just blatently a bit munchkin.

Bobfather1980 said:

Perhaps I've missed it. Or you're speaking of the deed that let's you choose an additional history, wich is not the same at all.
First you may only have one deed and second you would still be stuck with some negative history if you rolled it up.