ak-73 said:

If having stuff to buy later on is really that important, then just play a tactical *as* a devestator. Requisition a heavy weapon and you're good.

Once again (and see above) we are not using the phrase 'well rounded' to define roleplaying and personality, we are using it to describe a skill-set. Characterisation and roleplaying have no part in this debate.

And once again: There are all the options to deepen specialisations at high ranks that I outlined and mentioned before, that you've not mentioned or commented on. There's a dozen pages of Distinctions to work towards in a far more interesting manner than simply sitting on a growing pile of XP.

If your group all feel the same way and also don't consider the Distinctions a long-term goal and are desperate to move a shooty talent or dream up a new uber one, then that's fine. But I personally don't really see the need, because I don't think that you're seeing the options that you already have.

ak-73 said:

Taking a threatening tone with me isn't likely to change my mind. I don't respond to that kind of behaviour. You're constantly assuming things about my own play-style, yet I'm not taking a threatening tone with you. So please desist, because it makes me assume that you're a jerk who is trying to bully me.

Once again, you're confusing roleplaying character development with mechanical 'rounding out' and development. We've now defined the scope further, to prevent more confusion.

And even though it's not overly relevant; from a writer's perspective; a character putting an extra bullet in the bad guys before they drop is still not development of character, even from an emotional perspective. It's why Drizzt's 'double low parry' thing is so often cited as laughably bad 'development'. The Punisher becoming 'more hateful' could be represented by roleplay or even buying the 'hate: whoever' talent, but the idea that it's represented by buying 'mighty shot' is quite a bizarre idea. If he gets over his angst and hatred, would you cross the talent off?

As E6 uses 3.5 it's a free/brainstorm product and freely available via a google search, so there's nothing to buy. Why do you assume it's not a commercial success? Traveller did pretty well, despite having no XP system, after all.

To some, adding a strong extra level 8 talent is 'motivation'. Whereas I'm making the point that some of us frankly see such things as a tax. For you it opens options, whereas many gamers see the reverse. For you it adds something to the game, to some of us it actually detracts from the game. There are already tons of options available to make rank 8 characters better, yet they fail to gain any kind of recognition. Moving a talent from level 6 to level 8 also strikes me as simply a bit pointless. Once again: There are two types of gaming mentality at work here. some people don't like crocks of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Siranui said:

I'm not sure why you represent ak-73's views as singular or narrowly applicable while you propose that you are speaking for a wider portion ("many gamers" and "some of us") of the gaming base. You should really stick to the singular (like "seems to me") more often so you don't sound like you're trying to draw support from others that may or may not really agree with you.

Hmm. I dunno what you guys are getting so worked up about. I just make a character I like fluff-wise and don't worry about how well he'll do in combat/tech-use/sneaking/whatever. It really does not bother me if I have a lot of combat talents throughout the ranks or a lot of non-combat skills/talents.

I play to roleplay, not rollplay.

SubtleCadaver said:

There is a 'play' in 'roleplay' though. Some people don't seem to make not much of the fact that they are playing a game. If it wasn't for nice mechanics, one might as well play diceless, if portraying a character is one's only interest. Having a nice set of skills and talents allows a player to have his PC do fancy stuff which, you "role-players" out there will have to note is part of the fun for many gamers.

And that's why I said originally that from a gaming perspective not having much shooting/heavy weapons related talents at high ranks for the Dev is less than ideal.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I wasn't taking either side. I just can't see how both of you seem to get so worked up over it.

As far as internet debates go, this seems to be one of the more civil ones.

Alex

@Happy: I'm not. I think that's a bit of perception bias there, seeing as I speak about both 'camps' of thought in broad terms. I even opened with 'to some'. Attacking my prose or style of debate though isn't exactly adding anything to the conversation.

SubtleCadaver said:

I'm not worked up. I'm just stating my point. I've said before that neither opinion is 'wrong' or 'right', it's just preference. And it's a good idea to aim mechanics and system design at as broad a base of players as possible.

The only thing that's aggravating is being told what I 'better not' think by someone the other side of the planet.

Siranui said:

What's funny in that context is that you think you can detect a threatening tone by the words from someone over the side of the planet.

'You better not make any assumptions about the things I like in my games either.' That can be taken as threatening but does not have to be. That you did read it in that light and with that tone actually says more about you than it does say about me. Just something for you to ponder.

On to the point.

Siranui said:

I stand to my above comment about you better not make any assumptions about my play-style. From the other side of the planet. So no desistance from me there, sorry.

Siranui said:

Fallacy. You're assuming (once again wrongly if I may point out) that I asserted that his vengefulness in combat leads to his improved combat abilities. What I actually was stating was that picking an additional combat talent could be seen as "indicative" of his being driven by hatred between scenarios, leading him to training like a madmen, still improving on his already formidable abilities.

And in such a manner selection of skills/talents and character development are intertwined.

Siranui said:

Well, in the version of Traveller I have I can improve my skills though. Harnmaster and CoC don't have XP either but still there is skill progression. The point is that a system in which a wizard can learn new spells after rank X only but non-class related stuff isn't a system that I would expect to be a commercial smash hit.

Siranui said:

If I was to publish a commercial RPG, to be honest, I would consider them a fringe group. Of course if I was to publish an RPG I might target fringe groups but nonetheless.

Siranui said:

Crocks of gold like a single heavy weapon talent for the Devastator? Seriously?

Anyway, there is arguing about taste. Some people consider the whole specialty system artificial and limiting and prefer the ability to unrestrained character building, especially people who are used to point-buy systems. Shadowrun, GURPS, etc. They are unlikely to have a game designer tell them what they can or what they can't do with characters. I would assume that to those people your outlook seems to be extremely limiting.

Alex

Sorry I couldn't stand all the debate over how rpg's should be played so I only got to like page 4. sorry if this has been said

but Umbranus. if you don't want Eye of Vengeance till rank 8, don't buy it till rank 8 its as simple as that. If you want more talents at rank 8 then talk to your GM. If you want step aside as an elite advance ask your GM if your assault marine can teach you the finer points of dodging during a few sparring sessions.

When someone repeatedly tells me that 'I'd better not' think things, it comes over as threatening. You can attempt to convince me of things, but telling someone what they can or 'better not' think is intrinsically aggressive. If that's not the case: No problem. If it is: Please stop it, because it's not achieving anything. You seem to be very concerned about me assuming things about your play-style, but make no end of assumptions about my own. If you don't like me to assume things about you, please bear the reverse in mind.

The Punisher debate is moot, seeing as we're talking about rounding out of skill-sets, not characterisation. Sure: You can express 300 hours of rage-filled practice on the shooting range as characterisation if you like and if you want to define 'mighty shot' in that sense. But being better at fighting doesn't -to my mind- deepen the character particularly well in most narratives. Not without great context anyway. I didn't think Rocky was cooler after a training montage.

I was referring to the original version of Traveller of the early 80s, which was completely lacking in any form of XP system. It's been changed since then. I must say that I wouldn't rush out to buy a game where characters don't get better, either. However, I dislike games where characters only get better at killing things, or where if I don't spend 80% of my XP in the pre-defined area of 'killing things' I'm basically crippling my character and halving their life expectancy. I think it's kinda pointless, because the better you get, the bigger the threats the GM puts you against anyway. I understand that a lot of people enjoy defeating increasing threats, but my personal kick from most games is in spending xp and developing a cool character. For some, XP is there to help them defeat threats, while for others threats are be defeated to get XP.

Maybe a level 8 talent isn't a crock of gold. So -as has been suggested- move another talent to level 8. You still haven't commented about the idea that distinctions are something to work towards, nor spoken about buying up stats or missing things such as Astartes Weapon Specialisation for a variety of weapons. Do you not see Distinctions as high-end options to work towards? Surely these are even better than simple mechanical options that you get for having a fat pile of spent XP, because attaining them is by GM fiat, and they need 'in character' work, rather than the simple accumulation of numbers?

My point is -essentially- that some people like salty dishes and some people don't. FFG has delivered us a banquet where some dishes are salty, and some aren't. So - in theory - if we pick the right dishes in consideration of our taste, we can all be happy. Before we rush to pour salt (even a dash!) onto all the remaining dishes, it's worth the consideration that some people may not enjoy it as much afterwards. And it's worth considering that there's that pepper-pot of Distinctions there for seasoning, too.

Shadowrun et al might have a loose framework for character progression, but nor does it have a gazillion combat 'feats' that all competent combatants 'require'. Or it didn't last time I saw an edition, anyway. As I recall, you run out of 'killy' stuff to buy fairly quickly and hit increasingly diminishing returns. To me that's a more acceptable choice: Increase combat ability very marginally for a fat pile of XP due to drastically escalating cost, or buy five other skills that are relevant to the character. As for GURPS... You better not assume things about GURPS players...

Siranui said:

I think you're right that it's semantics, but I think it's quite important semantics, because people often *do* use "well rounded" to mean "has a bunch of eclectic skills that I picked up for ZOMG ROLEPLAYING" (again, I don't think that's how you're using it here).

I more or less agree that a "well rounded" marine should be able to do all the things you describe, where we disagree is in how those things should be parceled out in play. Pretty much all the things on your list are things which I feel should be covered by the bog standard abilities that everybody gets handed out to them purely for playing a Space Marine (and indeed to a large extent they are - most of the skills you reference are things which Marines do start with as standard). Again, I think this is a fairly subtle playstyle difference but I absolutely hate having to explicitly spend points on things which I think should be part of the "default" package for my character, because there's always something you miss out (this is particularly bad in games where skill points are harshly rationed). Nothing annoys me more than finding out that my character can't do something because I didn't realize I had to spend points on it.

I agree; although thankfully DW is generally pretty good at handing out starting skills that cover 'being a soldier 101'. Far better than -say- DH, where a starting Guardsman can barely tie his own shoelaces, let alone read a map. Character gen leaves you with a fair number of 'blanks' that feel like they need filling with some urgency to reflect what they character 'should' know, but 1000xp or thereabouts fills most of those gaps nicely.

This is off topic but ak-73 posted earlier "....Contact FFG, maybe they'll revise this, just like they revised many other such nonsensical advance set-ups. (The highlight for me being the Watch Captain and the Command skill.)" I've been looking and in the living errata there are no changes to Watch Captain or Command skill and would really like to know the changes or any other changes I might have missed. Sorry I didn't use the quote system, I'm new to the forums and don't know how.

Brother Titus said:

I was referring to the highlight among the nonsensical advances was giving the Watch Captain Command skill advances. To my knowledge it has not been pulled yet. Again I would advise you guys to contact FFG with the Rules Questions link at the bottom of the page and post the replies you get in the errata thread.

Alex

Siranui said:

You can perceive my words as intrinsically aggressive as you want but it does not mean your interpretation has any merit or clout. Which assumptions about your play-style have I made in which context?

Siranui said:

300 hours of rage-filled practice would be part of the characterisation. And I might consider so, yes. And the being better at fighting would be the result of exploring the character's lust for vengeance.

Siranui said:

Marc Miller's doesn't have XP either. But you can still improve skills.

Siranui said:

As if that wasn't more a question of game-mastering rather than game design.

Siranui said:

Then I'll explain to you: if I get much better than the other players, chances are that I will be handle the enemies the GM throws at us with more ease. I just have to take care to not get so good that he starts specifically targeting me. It's always about inner-party balance.

Siranui said:

It's both. Among other things.

Siranui said:

They are not guaranteed and don't have a rank requirement. Different thing.

Siranui said:

You can do that on your way to Rank 8. :-)

Siranui said:

I did say so early in the thread if you recall.

Siranui said:

Distinctions may be in-mission personal goals. High level advances are campaign-level goals for players.

Siranui said:

This kind of talk is getting to spicey for me. Also I don't think a game designer should work like that: he should either pursue his own vision and implement it across all specialties or he should do some contemplating on customer's desires and implement what he thinks they want to see in his game.

Siranui said:

The point is that characters in SR and GURPS can spend their points to build their PC anyway they want without a game designer telling them: "You are a Rank 8 Devastator now, no more heavy weapons-related talents for you." Diminishing returns good and fine but they are still returns and I can choose to have them if I want to.

Siranui said:

According to your own logic you have just been threatening me.

Anyway If I have said anything erroneous about GURPS, feel free to correct me in here.

Alex