You still get the issue that if you go random and get something they are not happy with, you in turn may not be happy with how little they are willing to put into the game. I don't want a player's buy-in to be affected by randomness, just like I don't want a player to decide what his character will do by random roll (like "I roll 1d5 to see if I give a ****.").
new armor types a bit OP?
So in essence, your issue is with people who cannot stand to play it exactly the way they want, not the game itself.
Daisuke said:
Mk's I-III are left off the table because they are so rare that the majority of space marines will never see one in their entire lifetime, even if they survive for quite a few centuries. Not to mention the fact that the Thunder is practically only good as a museum piece; what with the fact that it had no environmental seals, no life support systems, no power to the legs, more oft than not the legs didn't even have armour plating, probably no mag-boots either. All three of them are also so old that even if suits of them were found, there is likely no one in the Imperium who even knows how to repair or maintain them.
Now, none of these things are true of the Errant, and its rarity is reflected quite well by the table. There is a one in ten chance of getting it. Like I was iterating for Sanguinary Priest, a player has a greater chance of getting an Aquila armour than any other on the table.
On the subject of the Corvus armour, two Armour Histories don't necessarily mean it is going to be more powerful than any other suit. If the histories are being rolled for, a player could get something that serves no purpose for their character, or worse they could get something that is completely counter-intuitive.
I'm willing to agree with the +/- 2 fudging rule on the Aquila, just because it's throwing a bone to folks who might feel a bit sour about not having much luck with the random generation method.
Again, all of this is quite academic, however. If the GM does not wish the players to have any armour other than a MK VII or wants the players to have to earn a different MK, that is their perogative. A GM can veto some, all, or none of the rules for the players' use at his or her discretion.
Perhaps I worded that poorly. I've no problem with the eldest marks of power armour being off the table and thought Errant should have been kept out as well. I think a 10% chance isn't exactly rare, uncommon perhaps. It simply seems too easy to pick up what is described as armour usually reserved for command positions.
Fair enough on the armour histories but overall the results tend to be positive (if not necessarily suiting the characters' tastes).
At least one player seemed vaguely interested so he'll have a look over the relevant section in RoB before the next game.
HappyDaze said:
You still get the issue that if you go random and get something they are not happy with, you in turn may not be happy with how little they are willing to put into the game. I don't want a player's buy-in to be affected by randomness, just like I don't want a player to decide what his character will do by random roll (like "I roll 1d5 to see if I give a ****.").
If a player looses interest in the game because he didn't get exactly the result that he wanted in a 'polishing' part of character generation, then you're better off without them anyway, IMO; because they're a jerk. YMMV, but gamers who sulk about this kind of thing need to learn what 'roleplaying' is and/or get a life.
HappyDaze said:
Tarquin Faquar said:
I have to say that the reason there is the tables for random armor and histories just for that reason. For it to be random.
What you consider a feature, i consider a bug. I don't like randomness in character creation, and for Deathwatch characters, the Armour History is still a part of character creation. Beyond that, a player can rationalize anything if he wants it bad enough, and he'll not bother to try to do so with something he doesn't want.
So, I take it you do not have your players roll their stats, and instead use the points method?
Having a random rolled chart is in no way "a bug". Its simply a difference in preference with how games rules work. Case in point, some people love the WotC method (all points based, no randomness) and some prefer a more traditional style (which is what this is). There is nothing that stops you from allowing your players to pick their history, just like there is nothing that stops you from using a points-based method for stats instead of rolling.
For me as a GM, I tend to do a mix. For Deathwatch my players rolled stats randomly per the rules. For their PA histories I let them roll twice and pick one of the two results. If they could give me a REALLY compelling reason for a particular one, then I'd let them pick it. For my Dark Heresy game they rolled random stats, but I let them pick most of the other things.
The 40KRPG system is built to have a level of randomness in it, if you don't like that, then you don't have to use it. However the default method of playing the game will likely always include random rolls for stuff.
Also, as far as the MK8 armour. I simply said it wasn't available as I think it would be far too rare. I let them pick MK4-7 as normal. Now granted, I gave them this choice before RoB came out and we just used the same rules for all of them. Once RoB was out we went back and made the changes for each player if they didn't take MK7.
DW marines will be in command positions, or at least on the fast track to them, in their respective Chapters. Mk 8 armor shouldn't be out of place for these types of characters.
Random generated characters are the ones I have the most fun playing because I don't know where they are going. I don't dislike point buy systems such as Hero/Champions, but I haven't found point buy in any other system to be anything more than an exercise in power building. That's just my experience.
4E's point buy and system setup lends itself to making stereotypes not characters. There is no point in spending any points you don't have to on anything but half the stats. Generally only 2 out of 6 stats matter, and if you don't maximize your stats your SoL.
Siranui said:
HappyDaze said:
You still get the issue that if you go random and get something they are not happy with, you in turn may not be happy with how little they are willing to put into the game. I don't want a player's buy-in to be affected by randomness, just like I don't want a player to decide what his character will do by random roll (like "I roll 1d5 to see if I give a ****.").
If a player looses interest in the game because he didn't get exactly the result that he wanted in a 'polishing' part of character generation, then you're better off without them anyway, IMO; because they're a jerk. YMMV, but gamers who sulk about this kind of thing need to learn what 'roleplaying' is and/or get a life.
To a certain extend I agree, but certain PA histories can have a significant impact to a character's concept either beneficial or detrimental. And from a fluff perspective, theoretically this suid of PA is what the Marine started with, so if it's a loud clankly suit that helps with command, wouldn't it be more likely that the marine inside of it would've avoided stealth specialties since his armor actively fights him? Would you really kick a guy out of your group because they came up with concept A and their random roll blocked them from doing this?
But then again, the +1/-1 system should mitigate most of that.
Charmander said:
Siranui said:
HappyDaze said:
You still get the issue that if you go random and get something they are not happy with, you in turn may not be happy with how little they are willing to put into the game. I don't want a player's buy-in to be affected by randomness, just like I don't want a player to decide what his character will do by random roll (like "I roll 1d5 to see if I give a ****.").
If a player looses interest in the game because he didn't get exactly the result that he wanted in a 'polishing' part of character generation, then you're better off without them anyway, IMO; because they're a jerk. YMMV, but gamers who sulk about this kind of thing need to learn what 'roleplaying' is and/or get a life.
To a certain extend I agree, but certain PA histories can have a significant impact to a character's concept either beneficial or detrimental. And from a fluff perspective, theoretically this suid of PA is what the Marine started with, so if it's a loud clankly suit that helps with command, wouldn't it be more likely that the marine inside of it would've avoided stealth specialties since his armor actively fights him? Would you really kick a guy out of your group because they came up with concept A and their random roll blocked them from doing this?
But then again, the +1/-1 system should mitigate most of that.
Nothing prevents the DM from modifying/adjusting the bonus and drawbacks.
On the other hand I had a sneaky RT with a wrothfull ship was nice to see the machine vs owner conflict and the mechanicus trying to convince the spirit machine.
Not to get too ranty, but what I love about RPGs is that they are unbalanced, much like the (pseudo) reality they attempt to depict. Wargames and boardgames need a bit of abstraction to be playable, while RPGs should endeavor to add a bit of "realism" (a strange term to use when dealing with sci-fi/fantasy worlds).
Mk VIII armor is better, 'cause it's the latest suit of armor. FFG tried to balance it by making it a roll, but I just let my PCs pick. Again, not to be preachy, but RPGs are really a matter of trust between the players and the GM with final responsibility for "balance" being on the GM. I understand if you have a group of people who don't mind taking advantage of certain rules (nothing wrong with that so long as people are having fun).
So yeah, you're right, the armor types can be a bit "OP" but they're definitely manageable.
I do understand the criticism. It does make Mark VII a bit redundant (random roll aside). However, I do agree that 1) RPGs shouldn't really be "balanced" as such. If something is better than it should be better. 2) I don't think it is overpowered. Histories are semi-randomly chosen. Some of the histories are exceptionally useful. If you could choose them (as a player in one the games I am in thinks you should be able to, so you have more control over the character you want to be), especially in the case of multiple histories, you could create some horribly powerful combinations. However, as it is random you cannot choose an "uber" combination (lucky dice rolls aside). We changed our armours when the new book came out. The first one was not terribly thematic (it was the move and fire one, while I am a sneaky character), but useful. What I have got since is... pretty much irrelevant. The only thing I got that mattered to me was that I got the beaky helmet I wanted (Mark 5 armour with Mark 6 Helmet and Right Arm), and thats because 1) I am Raven Guard and 2) I have always preferred the beaky helmets. The other ability was ("if shiny get an extra AP").