I have been playing different role playing systems for most of my life... and I often find myself attracted to games that breathe character development depth into the role playing experience. How does Dark Heresy fare compared to more mainstay systems... as well as more obscure titles you have played? I have Grimm and find it interesting, but I feel the system is more atmosphere than depth. Is Dark Heresy similar, or does it push some limits?

I find DH to have plenty of character creating depth. One light flip through the Skills and Talents sections of the core book and think "That's not all that prolific", but it's really quite sufficient. Granted there aren't a ton of skills and talents like you might find in some games, but the skills here lend themselves to many robust combinations. On top of that you get more interesting stuff with each of the published books. Each book has a different thrust, but so far each has had some manner of new options for characters.

Take the Inquisitor's Handbook and it's special talent packages and advances. They are both functionally and RP rich. I play a Metallican Gunslinger, he's great. Most chars in this universe start as people (with few combat skills and more interaction ones) and grow into combatants. That can lead to the "whiff factor" discussed so heavily in DH forums, but that's another discussion. The Gunslinger comes into the game with basically only combat skills and no interaction ones. While the other chars are people becoming warriors, he's a warrior who's becoming a person. That's both functionally rich and wonderful to roleplay. There aren't many RPGs with that kind of subtle depth in character creation, let alone development.

Also, keep in mind the rule immortalized in print in DHs own GMing section: feel fre to fiddle with whatever you want. Is there a skill/talent in someone else's tree that you really want or do you want to mix up your own tree a little? Bargain with your GM. Trade money, fate points, extra XP or even skills or talents for the changes you want. This game encourages house rules and tweaks. Why else would there be a forum dedicated to them? In a game as open as that there is never any reason to fear that your character options are too shallow.

I think they're great. Make of them what you want.

Thank you for your input. The system you describe sounds very flexible and supportive of character development in the role playing sense. Most are mechanical character developmental systems, so that might be rather intriguing. Thanks for taking your time to give a little insight for an outsider trying to decide if he wants to pick up the game.

My pleasure.

Hope you get into it and enjoy it as much as we do.

The Dark Heresy character generation system is certainly not as flexible as others, but at the same time they tend to keep the characters focused on what the game is itself trying to achieve in terms of background. At least RAW. There are a number of little twiddles that can be made to take it beyond RAW and make it far more "flexible," but there we go.

If I were forced to play Dark Heresy I probably wouldn't have that much problem with it as long as I was allowed to use the options from the Inquisitor's Handbook. I would, however, be most certainly trying to push the GM into accepting "player bribes" to add some additional interest to the character, but that's not necessarily a bad thing and, indeed, I personally tend to allow that even in the more flexible systems!

Kage

There is the fiction, too. I am overloading with game ideas from my present reading of the Ravenor trilogy. Ravenor's team are like a set of rich, detailed character templates for the game. And the world descriptions lend depth as well, for potential background. I am frankly amazed that this setting and its potential have grown out of the miniatures game. It appears to be incredibly diverse and creative, far beyond space marines and cyberpunk (which I had assumed was all it was). Yes, it has incredible depth for characters, stories, background, and so on...a treasure chest for roleplaying, indeed.

DH still uses a "Templated" character career system, which is a pro in some sense that they do tend to be fair and 'theoretically equal' to other careers as well as filling a niche in the group dynamic. But if you want a smiling assassin, warrior poet gaurdsman or brute scientist you have to fudge a few things to get it to work outside the norm, that isnt too hard to do with just changing a few primary stat increases, character backgrounds, contacts during creations and buying elite advances later on which are outside your career scope.

Personally I prefer a much more open system of careers but its not inflexible here.

The rest, same as any other RPG, give me a page on where your character came from, their dreams and goals in life.

Yes, that's how the fiction helps IMO. You can see the 'bones', the game stats and so on but Ravenor and I'd guess Eisenhorn and the other fiction are rich with ideas for giving life and variety. I've rarely seen fiction support a game like this so well. I mean, in Ravenor you have several characters who are either basic guardsman or assassin characters but are very different from each other. The actual mechanics are fairly restrictive or so I have read in reviews (don't have the game yet) but it looks easy to differentiate for the depth, variety and flavor. Hardly cookie cutter characters from what I can see. (I looked at the previews here, and the Guardsman template looks like it could form the basis of several of the characters in Ravenor).

I'll agree that on the surface the system is rather constrictive for characters, at least at first glance.

Then you see that each "class" has at least two different paths to follow, and each of those paths usually has two completely different focuses in each class, and you begin to see some light in the character creation.

Then you start understanding the system behind advanced picks and adding in things from the Inqusitors Handbook, and you realize its much more flexible then before even before house-ruling anything.

Add in some fiddling which the creators not only suggest but encourage and you get a highly flexible system.

The problem with DH is that in the beginning one character from any given class is going to look pretty much like another character from the same class. Beginning Scum A looks very similiar to Beginning Scum B for example. Once you get some exp under your belt, pick a few skills with advance picks, start plotting which path you want to go down later on and start heading for that, by the "end" of Dark Heresy Scum A could be quite different then Scum B.

Personally, I find the DH character creation to be rather stifling, the mechanics of it do not really promote creating 'characterful' characters. I haven't played the most recent edition of D&D, but I'd rate its ability to imbue character on par with 3rd ed. That Weapon skill and Ballistic skill are in the main stat line and there is only one social stat (Fellowship) should give you an idea as to what the system focuses on.

That being said, I run a role-heavy, roll-lite game of DH very successfully (admitedly after making my own Char gen system).

In looking around the web for info on 40K I've found several places where it is suggested starting with around 7500 extra experience takes care of that problem. Wouldn't it be better to start with the similar, fairly weak characters so as to get used to the system? Or maybe with some lesser amount? How much if any would you give if you were just starting a game (GM or play), as I am? What would be a fair compromise?

It's obvious I wouldn't be starting with Nayl, on what the Guardsman preview gives.

wolfie said:

What is your intended alcolytes targets to be? DH can be very unforgiving to characters, unless you're shot in the head in which case you live? *shrug* We started out at the beginning the book suggested, ran a few of the designer created scenerios, then ran a few custom created ones and while we got our heads around the system, and got a few abilities under our belts, we died quite a bit. Well died, were instantly corrupted into mutants, blew up city blocks with very bad psy rolls, and since we were using basic no-frills weapons still, we weren't doing a lot of damage yet.

Pskers especially can be very, very unforgiving as very starter characters, since as they grow they quickly incure madness and corruption until they get a few skills that come much later in their carreer, unless you take the right homeworlds and backgrounds.

Honestly by maybe 1000 exp we started to hold our own, and lately our characters have enough background skills under them with enough attributes that we can at least survive with minimal corruption and insanity, and now that we're much higher then that we're doing "okay". We still die a bit, and still retire quite a few players due to insanity or corruption, but its not as common as it once was. Course that may be because we know have better understanding of the system, we don't throw Psy powers around like a D&D mage tossing magic, and we know when to run like hell, and when to stand and fight, and when to call in the Guard to do our fighting for us. Also with increased exp comes better abilities to actually investigate, instead of just being the right arm of the Inquisitor and shooting what she points us at. So its not just combat related.

Also, quite a bit of the "power" we have can't be translated into exp. Our Inquisitor trusts us enough now that we can use some of her authority if necessary (since we rarely use it, and never abuse it). While that kind of power (ie the ability to call in said Guard to wipe our an entire city block) can't be measured with exp, it's very nice to have.

Also, DH is very gear dependant during battles. Bolters are very nice to have (even if my character doesn't use one), as is better armor. So while you may have the skill for a bolter, if your GM doesn't give you access to bolters yet, well you're behind the 8-ball on combat damage.

Depending on the power level your GM wants to start, I'd suggest starting out between 1000 and 1500 exp points. Oh, one more thing, my GM tossed out the concept that spending exp on attributes effects what tier you are. Our GM only uses skill spent exp to determine tier. He figures that not having access to the better skills of the higher tier is balancing enough.

Thanks. Hopefully I'll be playing, but I'll pass that along. 7500 sounded too high to me.

The game sounds promising to me. My favorite game, and most GMed one, is Stormbringer. You had to think, use tactics and deal with foes more powerful than yourself most of the time, much as DH sounds to me. It took me a while to learn how to run scenarios without killing PCs left and right in that one too, and the players to work the game. It would be fun to be on the other side of the screen in a game like this.

First thing I do when I get the book will be trying to make a young Nayl or Kara, of course. I'm not sure if a young Patience is even doable, with that little to work with. And then my character. I think the game will have the depth to do what I want and then some.

Agmar_Strick said:

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I'm confused. You seem to be a serious roleplayer and there are precious few of us in the world, as it is. That's why I'm confused, I've never relied on stat mechanics to build my RP. You make of a char what you want to make of him. The stats will come along on their own. That's the whole point of roleplaying: you create and develop a character, not the dice.

I don't think that overall disatisfaction with one or more aspects of a system is really indicative of anything other than... a little bit of dissatisfaction. Just something that, if you select to use that system, you're going to have to work around so that it is more in keeping with what you or your group wants out of a game. For example, if I were to use Dark Heresy there are two bits of the system that my own preferences would mean that I would have to change before I was satisfied:

Character Generation and XP/Advancement

My own personal bias is such that I don't really like level-based systems (even though Dark Heresy hides it quite well and it isn't really that invasive), nor class-based systems (though in this case it reinforces the "medieval" feel of the game, if you like that particular type of setting). Again, I wish to make it clear that my dislike in no way implies that Dark Heresy is bad, nor that I just don't "get it" (two of the common counter-arguments if you present a critique of the system), just that it isn't for me. As with Agmar_Strick I find the character generation system a bit too cloying for my tastes, thus I would want a point-buy system, an expansion of the skills, and a move away from the "Talent-Powers."

Psykers

I would dramatically change the psyker system to move away from the, "Ooops, missie, my head has blown off!" approach. Again, not saying that it is bad, but it just doesn't gel with my reading or interpretation of psykers. Thus, something more insidious rather than punitive...

There are other little tweaks, but those are the primary systemic ones.

With all that said, I of course realise that the "flavour" of RPs's are primarily brought to the game by the cooperative narrative of the players and the GM.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I think we both know, however, that an "insidious" drawback mechanic for psykers is as much, if not more, of a pain to implement than a risk-based one. With a risk-based system, as DH currently has, the risk involved is variously viewed by different parts of the playerbase as too great for psykers be practical, just right, or too small to be a sufficient balance against the psyker's potency - this depends entirely on who you ask.

An Insidious mechanic - however it might be implemented - has an additional problem. If the threat is too subtle, then the player might well be able to overlook it entirely when it comes to actually using his powers... in which case, it acts as no deterrent whatsoever against using his powers.

It's one thing to muse about it and prefer the notion of it... but I don't see it being particularly practical to implement.

4th ed DnD has much less char customization (3.5 was a better sys for this, not to say that 4ed totaly sucks but it doesnt feel like DnD to me) the feats and magic items are very weak and boring. this was the intent of the creators, they wanted the characters natural abilities to be the focus and not gear quest. the result being the choices you make when intially creating you pc are the things that define your charater forever more. its kind of the opposite of DH and most other rpgs where you steadely work towards what you want your character to be. and yes at first glance the character developement in DH looks very linear and shallow especially when compared to WHFRP but if you look at all of the additional stuff (elite advances, ect) and look closer at the paths, there is a great deal of diversity.

Having played both :

IMHO 4th Ed is a well designed and constructed Board Game with some elements of roleplaying (although its often fun to roleplay in board games)

Dark Heresy has a lovely enveloping background and sets you up to allow both heavy combat or heavy social interraction (depending on your GM's/players style) - however I would very much agree that it does need a bit of tweeking in the Char Gen area (the weakest element for me in terms of system) to allow for the more imagintive and interesting character types- but it can be tweeked.................oh yes

(I don't like class / level based systems so a bit bias there)

N0-1_H3r3 said:

First, I think that it is important to recognise that both a system that might be considered "indisidious" and Dark Heresy's punitive system are both "risk-based." It is just in the latter the risk is in rolling the dice and have it come up as Psychic Phenomenon (then Perils), while in the "insidious" approach the risk is in pushing abilities too far and allowing ones soul to be "corrupted."

The only difficulty with any psyker system is in scaling it from the background, which allows huge variation in ability. This maybe why Dark Heresy didn't even bother to address this situation, and why when it has been done by the fans the idea of "Grade" is predicated upon efficacy rather than anything else. If one were to remove the background issues, then it only really becomes an issue of just how "powerful" you want psykers to become.

I was, however, amused to see the "risk" in Dark Heresy's system represented over on Dark Reign:

Mordheim: It happened in my group yesterday.

The PCs were fighting some guards before a men entrance when the psyker decided that he needed some "oomph" to his psychic power. A Peril of the Warp happened and the psyker was possessed by a daemon and he turned into an unbound daemonhost.

Luckily for the PCs five Ultramarines were nearby and they immediately fired their bolters at the psyker. His body was blown to pieces by the bolter shells and the unclean spirit was sent back into the Warp.

The psyker was a new PC that the player had just created and he got to play his PC for barely 2 hours.

Did my players object or threw [sic] a hissy-fit? Hell No! They all had great fun, even th eplayer of the psyker. He knew he was playing with fire when he used the extra Warp Dice to increase his power. But nexgt time I think he will be more careful...

The risk in an "insidious" system would be that they would have "Tainted" their soul, which would have a number of effects depending on the context within which the power was used, the amount of power that was used, and so forth. The effects of "mis-use" of their powers could be Psychic Phenomenon-like (a "calamity"), "illuminating" their soul in the warp thereby attracting the gradual malefic attentions of the denizens of the warp (or even inviting possession if the use of power has contined unabted), mutation and insanity, but also the potential of increasing their power, etc.

In fact, other than the potential of losing a character after only 2 hours, the punitive and the "insidious" system that I'm thinking about share many of the same effects (if the latter is more book-keeping heavy than the former).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

So, logically, you have to make it have a narrative and mechanical impact. So, rather than being instantly turned into a daemonhost because of the Dice Gods (or would that be Die Gods? ), it might be the threat of insanity and mutation, or even the long-term threat of being possessed, turned into Chaos Spawn, and so forth.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I don't see why that is necessarily true, especially since I have that form of system, but there we go.

Erm, but that seems to be increasingly OffT, though... Or maybe not?

Kage