AluminiumWolf said:

This is foolishness. Look at the orkish invasion of Rynn's World. A stray defense missile blows up the Crimson Fists' fortress-monastery, killing hundreds of SMs in one hit. Each is a hero even if they're not all named characters. That's not grim and gritty?

In a certain DH module the acolytes, despite all odds, fight and vanquish a powerful daemon using a Titan. That's not epic? In another, they prevent the return of a Warp-obsessed, time-tinkering monster genius Rogue Trader who could plunge the sector into darkness. That's not epic?

Kshatriya said:

If it is supposed to generate epic boss battles, people seem to think it doesn't work. If it is supposed to be fast and furious there is a lot of cruft that does little but slow the game down and make balance more difficult, largely because the game is working outside the systems comfort zone.

--

Let us try multiquote again.

Kshatriya said:

Well, it depends how it happens.

Surely you can't deny there is a strong (or at least vocal) school of thought that says you are playing WFRP/Dark Heresy wrong if the PCs are not constantly put upon losers who never catch a break.

And they do write to it. The WFRP adventure Barony of the Damned is possibly the greatest expression of the meme, with PCs bouncing from humiliation to humiliation and if they are lucky they get out of the adventure only slightly worse than they started it.

This is what people mean when they say Grim and Gritty, or is at least how it seems to get read. It is like Dungeons and Dragons only you suck at everything.

And, I feel the rules went a long way to creating this perspective. Characters are likely to get amusingly mutilated and fail most of the skill rolls they attempt, leading to a sort of farce feel to the proceedings.

Needless to say, this is totally not what I want from a 40k game, my tastes in which tend more towards channeling Marneus Calgar or The Emperor himself.

So all in all, I don't want what WFRP is selling, and even if I did there are better systems for running it.

I think you have a few fallacies there.

AluminiumWolf said:

I don't think I have seen many people who have complained about boss fights not being attrition battles. I think combat is overall quite fast.

AluminiumWolf said:

First of all, Level 1 D&D 3.X PCs are no better than rank 1 DH PCs. Secondly, rank 1 DW PCs are awefully good. DW isn't gritty in that sense. DW is gritty in the sense of the stuff you can throw at PCs and watch them still get away with it. You can easily throw them in an "Aliens"-like scenario and watch them walk away from it with some wounds but pretty much alive. You can put them through horror trips and master it. That's how Astartes are different. To them, life isn't an uphill struggle. They are usually in control until s** hits the fan, at which point their training, gear and genes have prepared them for accomplishing the impossible.

AluminiumWolf said:

Marines do get mutilated, it's part of their way of life and occasionally a badge of honour/courage (occasionally of incompetence). But chopped of limbs can be attached again. If that doesn't work, they get bionic replacements and don't give a ****.

Secondly, Marines don't fail most skill rolls they take. Several factors:
1. Superior characteristics.
2. Unlike in most other games, most tests aren't +0 by default. +0 in 40K RP is what -20 would be in most other systems: Challenging.
3. The name of the game in at least DH is: accumulating positive modifiers. That's where IHB comes in because in there you have skill uses that can be used in preparation for other skill uses. Also you get gear like Stummers to buff skills. And then there a circumstantial modifiers, like taking extra time for a search or whatever. Part of being a good DH gamer is mastering the challenge of acquiring bonuses to skill checks. This doesn't translate entirely like that into DW but is still true. See Stummer.

Also as a GM I don't even have my players roll tests for which they would have to roll in DH. Wanna climb that rough hill? Sure, you're up there. The action focusses on the difficult stuff, the tactics, the major challenges. Astartes master the mundane effortlessly. A 2nd edition should stress this point in the GM section. Astartes don't need to roll for mundane or easy stuff, except occasionally when the GM is in the mood to remind the players that their chars are very, very good but still mortal and imperfect.

AluminiumWolf said:

Since your tastes represent a minority from my perspective, you'll have to roll your own, I fear.

Alex

+++++I don't think I have seen many people who have complained about boss fights not being attrition battles.+++++

There is the guy who made this thread for one. There is me for two. There is anyone who has complained about waxing a boss in one turn for three...

+++++First of all, Level 1 D&D 3.X PCs are no better than rank 1 DH PCs.+++++

But they get better much faster, and more recent versions of the rules front load hitpoints for just this reason.

+++++Secondly, Marines don't fail most skill rolls they take. Several factors:
2. Unlike in most other games, most tests aren't +0 by default. +0 in 40K RP is what -20 would be in most other systems: Challenging.
3. The name of the game in at least DH is: accumulating positive modifiers. That's where IHB comes in because in there you have skill uses that can be used in preparation for other skill uses. Also you get gear like Stummers to buff skills. And then there a circumstantial modifiers, like taking extra time for a search or whatever. Part of being a good DH gamer is mastering the challenge of acquiring bonuses to skill checks. This doesn't translate entirely like that into DW but is still true. See Stummer.

Also as a GM I don't even have my players roll tests for which they would have to roll in DH. Wanna climb that rough hill? Sure, you're up there. The action focusses on the difficult stuff, the tactics, the major challenges. Astartes master the mundane effortlessly. A 2nd edition should stress this point in the GM section. Astartes don't need to roll for mundane or easy stuff, except occasionally when the GM is in the mood to remind the players that their chars are very, very good but still mortal and imperfect.+++++

This is just excuses for a borked system. GMs ALWAYS mostly call for unmodified rolls, hunting for modifiers is an aftermarket hack to fix to low base chances, and not having someone roll because the dice say they will fail, is just... an excuse for a broken system.

No. First of all I would handle it the same in D&D and every other system. If you keep having your players roll for mundane tasks, they'll fail those tests infrequently but repeatedly. That is not good enough for Astartes. They need to fail mundane skill checks rarely, as mentioned.

As for modifying skill checks, you are also wrong. Very much so. A GM who doesn't regularly modify skill tests, is a lazy GM. A bad, bad GM. Part of GMing is to 1. consider what an average commoner (or basic trained practitioner or whatever) would have as a skill, then 2. to consider what chance he should have at succeeding in taking the present test under given circumstances. 3. The difference shall be applied as modifier to the PCs skill test (ensuring that no circumstances get factored in twice, for example if a players says: "But my narthecium gives me +20 to this test!").

Which is part of the reason why d100 systems are superior to all others - easy handling due to direct percentage manipulation.

+++++Since your tastes represent a minority from my perspective, you'll have to roll your own, I fear.+++++

As ever, I believe my way would be more popular. How about we try it!

Many people believe their way would be more popular. If you are thoroughly convinced of yours, try to get a license from GW. Although FFG probably holds an exclusive license. Well, I think unless you have more compelling argument than that presented so far, you'll probably have a rocky road ahead of you.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Guess I've always played with lazy GMs.

The default is pretty much always 'give me a roll'. If the roll is good, something desirable happens. If the roll is a failure, something bad happens.

WFRP generates more fails than successes.

Part of the reason I am so keen to see the back of the WFRP system is that it does generate failure. If, for instance, the core mechanic was changed to D100+skill, so ranging generating a success total from 1 to inifinity instead of 30% pass 70% fail. No mention of failure baked in to the system. We are instead measuring how much success is generated.

You wouldn't then need fear characters making rolls less they fail them, for example.

AluminiumWolf said:

Possibly, yes.

AluminiumWolf said:

Yeah, that sounds lazy. In some system you don't quite get away with that. For example, if you reach to reach a difficulty number with your test (D&D 3.x, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, etc.). In those cases you need to think of the appropriate target number of have to calculate it by the rules. Unless you are a lazy GM and have your players roll all test versus 18 or whatever.

AluminiumWolf said:

So you want us to use the Rolemaster system? There's plenty of room for spectacular failure in that, in no small part due to low-open ended (which could be dropped I suppose). It's pretty much the same as it is now though, the only real advantage is that it makes opposed tests easier. No need to check for DoS, you has the higher modified total wins. If you want marines to fail less, you need to give them better stats, I suppose. Although tests should normally be in the 30 to 70% range.

The main thing remains: if you don't want a PC to fail a test, don't have the player roll but announce the result just like that. Reserve tests for the important stuff where you as GM are willing to have things hang in the balance and be decided on a die roll. Under such circumstances 30-70% chances are best, no matter if the PCs are lowly rank 1 Acolytes or high and mighty rank 8 Astartes. Your job as a GM is to generate circumstances that warrant a 30-70% chance for PCs of the given power level (fighting squirrels for rank 1 Acolytes, facing of Abbaddon and his gang for rank 8 Deathwatch PCs).

Alex

Charmander said:

I only meant that in the DnD world there are so many supplements out there that the munchkin gamer can get their AC so high the GM can't hit them. Eventually, the GM gets frustrated enough you hear the "I hit you X times." I've seen that before and inwardly chuckle. But you are correct, that can happen in any game in any system so using that as a DnD example was erroneous.

This last week a small mini campaign we ran ended with a TPK from our GM. A combination of 1 bad tactic, and everyone rushing forward while in Solo Mode so they can be the über character with the first kill ended up watching our entire team being killed one at a time in about 8 turns against a sizable but doable force of Khornate Berzerkers. Not to mention some horrible horrible dice rolls that would not change. Using a Storm Bolter with Hellfire rounds and rolling a 75 to hit which missed so a reroll becomes a 00 was par for the course.

In the end we killed 1 possessed.

Lucrosium Malice said:

Quite true, power creep is the bane of many a GM...

Lucrosium Malice said:

Ah, been there, seen that before...

Re AK's comment: "The main thing remains: if you don't want a PC to fail a test, don't have the player roll but announce the result just like that."

This, a thousand times this. Reserve the skill checks for things where failure has a real impact. If a player is simply powering up the guncutter you don't have to make a tech use roll unless you as the GM want something bad to happen when and if the player fails the roll. Customize your encounters for your players to their given 'chance' of success!

Whew!! This is a mighty thread!

Sooooo.....Aluminium Wolf, are you a gm or a player? And, to the point, how have you altered the system to fit your style of play? Did you pump-up wounds for pc's and critters? modify the crits? jack-up armour values? What steps have you taken to give your DeathWatch games the epic feel you desire? [in our group, when i want them to feel uber-goony, i give em peons/hordes to mash thru...then i hit them with the thunder hammer of master-tier goodness]

[and why, oh why, do you insist on mispelling 'aluminum'? ]

Zappiel said:

Say it with a british accent and it becomes more amusing. Al-lou-min-eee-um...like la-bore-a-tree. Chip chap chip!

Charmander said:

They complain about us misspelling words by not having extra U's in them, then they go and add extra vowels to pronunciations.

To each his own.

Yeah...(but i'm one of those people that adds the 'u'! geah! man am i conflicted!)

But, to Aluminium Wolf: I am being serious, I am not being an a$$ when I pose my question (make no mistake, i like yer opinions, and how u sometimes argue using pix - i suspect yer an old grumbler like me, and the world needs more grognards). Or are you just a player who's stuck playing a gm's game that doesn't fully turn yer crank? (been there, done that)

(Now, having said i like yer opinions, wolf, don't think for one second that i like the d'n d style of rpg, nor WoW neither, cause them just ain't cricket in my book)

The main thing is that I spent a LOT of gaming time with GURPS, thinking that what I wanted was a realistic system where one bullet could really kill a man.

It turns out that this is not at all what I actually like. The gaming wasn't itself bad, but the combat sucked. No one really understood the rules, and we never played by them anyway. I wanted cool gunfights, but what I was getting was some half hearted fumbling with the automatic fire rules and six months of in game hospitalisation.

I was then exposed to combat systems that vaguely work. DnD and Video Games, but mostly Heroquest (the Glorantha roleplaying game), which is pretty much just a genericised attrition game.

And these are so much more satisfying than GURPs or Call of Cthulhu. You can have action scenes that are fun to play out! Heroquest could do with a few more rules maybe, but at least everyone understood all the rules and fights play out in about the right time.

(This also mirrors a change in my boardgaming tastes, which went from dying of boredom trying to play Third Reich and Empires in Arms to games I actually understand and enjoy like Wings of War or Settlers of Catan)

So I dunno. It isn't the twentieth century any more. We have rafts of systems that work better, from RPGs to euro board games to video games. Why are we not learning from them?

Basically, I consider a game that 'works' to be one where everyone playing understands the rules well enough that they are fighting the opposition rather than the rules. If you are wading through rules you are not sure of and don't know the implications of the game isn't working.

Charmander said:

I rather think the Americans are funny. Now say after me: Potassium, Sodium, Radium, Aluminium.

Alex

AluminiumWolf said:

Try Memoir' 44. It's a fun WW2 boardgame that you can actually play in a decent amount of time and that you leave without a headache, unless you play several battles in a row.

AluminiumWolf said:

Because it's pretty much all old wine in new skins anyway. Even 40K RP is more or less a case of D&D goes CoC d100 (with some other stuff mixed in).

AluminiumWolf said:

GURPS does work and has simple enough basic rules. The problem with GURPS is rather the myriad of things that can be tacked onto the simplicistic core. And CoC is a bad example for a system that doesn't work or isn't understood by everyone after 1 or 2 sessions.

Alex

Aluminium, I think the thing seems to be that you don't enjoy the lethal system, don't find combat satisfying, and don't understand why everyone doesn't agree with you. While others do enjoy the lethality/grittiness of the system, feel it's appropriate even on an Astartes level, and don't like the idea of converting to a "super attrition" model like d&d.

I don't think you're going to get anyone to change their minds nor are you going to change your mind, nor is it likely that FFG will wholly abandon its system and convert it to d&d-type damage rules, so I'm not sure what the continuing point is.

ak-73 said:

While I am not familiar with Memoir' 44 specifically, I suspect that much of my problem with Deathwatch comes from wanting a 'Euro' game, when Deathwatch is firmly an 'Ameritrash' game.

:-)

Being German and growing up with euro games, I don't see how this concept translates from boardgames to rpgs.

Alex

Focus on core strategy and tactics over simulationist widgets. Thats kind of the split right? (All right, to me the split is 'games that work' vs. 'games that you never finish because it takes so long to set up', but conceptually ...)

How I'd do a 'German' style realistic combat game would be to try to cut it down to a core of cover, suppression and flanking. So long as you are behind cover you are safe from attack. But you can be suppressed and unable to move. And you can then be flanked. So the play area is a network of chest high walls, and gameplay consists of putting enough firepower points on to an opponent to suppress and fix them so they can be flanked and finished.

(Kind like a board game version of Full Spectrum Warrior or Brothers In Arms)

And of course everyone gets a wooden pawn as their mans.

:-)

interesting...will hafta ponder before a more fullsome reply...

AluminiumWolf said:

I have never played a Euro RPG that featured such. Name me one.

AluminiumWolf said:

Oh the irony. That is a simulationist widget approach. Non-simulationist RPGs don't try to translate real-world basic military tactics into mechanics (although they will be reflected in the mechanics to some degree). Instead they are trying to model classic Hollywood action movies, more or less.

It's like GTA not being a driving simulation. It is much closer to an action movie.

AluminiumWolf said:

Yeah but the nids don't care so much about cover and many cultist hordes don't either. Actually in many instances Astartes don't care either.

Alex

Wall of text incoming:

After reading much of the back and forth I thought I should chime in with a different look at it. First and foremost, I don't think there is anything necessarily "wrong" with Deathwatch. After all, it's about big **** heroes doing big **** things and I think the core rulebook reflects that marvelously. However, as was addressed before, it becomes a question of tone and playability. If you want a game that reads like a Matt Ward codex, go ahead and play with the core book rules. The convenient, albeit imperfect, solution of using the Black Crusade combat or talent rules (one that I myself subscribe to, though I keep the original Deathwatch skills for greater differentiation between marines) helps a lot for people that want the quick, lethal, gritty carnage we imagine the table-top to be. The FAQ'd weapons become a must in this case however and I highly suggest them.

Really, what I wanted to address is that a lot of these problems seem like they can stem from the GM level. I'm up front with my players that I'm going to go for the throat and they should do the same. I instill the idea that the universe is kill or be killed and they're okay with that. If they make it through the mission with less than 5 wounds I've done my job as a GM. Even better they take some critical damage and need some augmetics. Such is the life of an Astartes. Further, it leads to wonderfully memorable scenarios. I had a Space Wolf Tactical Marine get his leg blown off by an errant grenade. The techmarine and Devastators had their hands full so it was up the Ultramarine, with whom he had cultivated quite the rivalry, to be his crutch. Bolters in their free hands they limped to the extraction point, fending off Plague Marines the whole way. Along the way, the Iron Hand Devastator ended up losing his non-augmetic arm and had to abandon his master-crafted plasma gun and actually resorted to beating an enemy to death with his armored and amputated arm. (Don't underestimate impromptu weapons) The mission was a horrible failure, but I had never been prouder of them as a GM.

TL;DR: The lethality is an asset, it's a feature not a problem. Utilize it properly and it becomes glorious, it forces your players to think tactically and challenge both you and themselves with problem solving. Combat can be the dungeon puzzle in Deathwatch as long as you plan it right. But don't neglect the out of combat things either, Astartes are closer to semi-ignorant Warrior Monks not just Warriors.