Agreed Angel..and Yes i have played recon and GURPS ( years ago..wasnt that fond of them ) And definitely FASA had some horrid editing ( numerous errors in every book ) but i still enjoyed the original Battletech system ( albeit with a few tweaks ) but nothing rulebreaking or anything..their system was fairly simple to work with after trying it a bit...but ive gotta say that DH and RT have been my personal favorites for the last few years since a close gamer buddy of mine introduced them to me.
A Request for FF Writers and Product Designers Re 40K RPGs: Less Adventures and More Sourcebooks/Consolidation
borithan said:
Obviously the rules are very similar, and it could be described as one rules system (ie using almost identical rules to achieve similar things). However they are separate games.
But that's just it. Even by your own examples, they're not separate games, they're a growing number of ways to approach the same game. Different focus catering to different playstyles, but just the one game.
Don't get me wrong here, I'll never be an advocate for setting-agnostic systems like GURPS. I have not been and won't be trying to argue that, say, WFRP and 40K should share the same system.
But let's go back to your examples for a second. If you really really want me to, I can go look up multiple examples of Inquisitors and Acolytes commanding up to and including entire battlefleets and PDFs, and at least one example of an Inquisitor with a Rogue Trader Charter, in the DH material. This crossover between material that several of you guys are pretending really hard doesn't exist and doesn't regularly and naturally occur when playing one of the lines, quite obviously does exist. Even the guys responsible for keeping the lines separate can't manage to do it.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Actually, it's the stance taken during all development work for any 40kRP projects - they're separate lines - at least in my experience. That you choose to mix-and-match is fine - I do in my own home games - but it's not the way the games are written or developed.
That's a great argument for nothing at all. If you wanted to make it sound like a good idea - which I agree it is - you should have explained why (to preserve the focus and playstyle emphasised by each line). It's also entirely besides the point.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I use the Dark Heresy material only. Now, what difference will it make to me whether the different lines are fully or partially compatible?
Let's assume instead that I use material from all the lines. Now what difference will it make to me whether the lines are fully or partially compatible?
If your first answer is "none" and your second answer is "if they're not fully compatible buying the material doesn't save you anywhere near all the work you paid to avoid", you've won an internet.
The last answer is kind of key to this discussion: customers aren't buying stuff to have to make a pile of houserulings. They buy stuff to avoid having to do that sort of thing. It might be called Book of Judgement, but what FFG is selling me isn't so much a book on the Adeptus Arbites as the promise to save me from having to write it. But as it is, I'm having to re-write fairly significant chunks of it, so they haven't really delivered.
I'm not suggesting that the lines should be consolidated. I'm perfectly happy with multiple lines with different emphasis and playstyles. It seems like a good way to cater to a larger playerbase. But the dismemberment of the underlying 40K system is no good for anyone. If it does anything at all, it is to lock people into one line, or persuade them the price-to-work-saved ratio is too low to keep on buying the published material. Neither of those would seem to be desirable for anyone involved.
Besides all that, a truly unified system would make it possible to publish an errata'ed, fluff-free master rules compendium every few years. That in itself is incredibly valuable. We don't actually use the rules very much during play, but man... Writing the massively abridged version of the current armylists, missions and rules into one master document for our WH40K games have saved us hours beyond counting. At some point, you need to consider playability.
Simsum said:
Besides all that, a truly unified system would make it possible to publish an errata'ed, fluff-free master rules compendium every few years. That in itself is incredibly valuable. We don't actually use the rules very much during play, but man... Writing the massively abridged version of the current armylists, missions and rules into one master document for our WH40K games have saved us hours beyond counting. At some point, you need to consider playability.
Yeah... I don't see that being a good idea, especially the 'fluff-free' part. I don't see GW ever agreeing to it either.
BYE
Simsum said:
But that's just it. Even by your own examples, they're not separate games, they're a growing number of ways to approach the same game. Different focus catering to different playstyles, but just the one game.
Don't get me wrong here, I'll never be an advocate for setting-agnostic systems like GURPS. I have not been and won't be trying to argue that, say, WFRP and 40K should share the same system.
But let's go back to your examples for a second. If you really really want me to, I can go look up multiple examples of Inquisitors and Acolytes commanding up to and including entire battlefleets and PDFs, and at least one example of an Inquisitor with a Rogue Trader Charter, in the DH material. This crossover between material that several of you guys are pretending really hard doesn't exist and doesn't regularly and naturally occur when playing one of the lines, quite obviously does exist. Even the guys responsible for keeping the lines separate can't manage to do it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that I use the Dark Heresy material only. Now, what difference will it make to me whether the different lines are fully or partially compatible?
Let's assume instead that I use material from all the lines. Now what difference will it make to me whether the lines are fully or partially compatible?
If your first answer is "none" and your second answer is "if they're not fully compatible buying the material doesn't save you anywhere near all the work you paid to avoid", you've won an internet.
The last answer is kind of key to this discussion: customers aren't buying stuff to have to make a pile of houserulings. They buy stuff to avoid having to do that sort of thing. It might be called Book of Judgement, but what FFG is selling me isn't so much a book on the Adeptus Arbites as the promise to save me from having to write it. But as it is, I'm having to re-write fairly significant chunks of it, so they haven't really delivered.
I'm not suggesting that the lines should be consolidated. I'm perfectly happy with multiple lines with different emphasis and playstyles. It seems like a good way to cater to a larger playerbase. But the dismemberment of the underlying 40K system is no good for anyone. If it does anything at all, it is to lock people into one line, or persuade them the price-to-work-saved ratio is too low to keep on buying the published material. Neither of those would seem to be desirable for anyone involved.
Besides all that, a truly unified system would make it possible to publish an errata'ed, fluff-free master rules compendium every few years. That in itself is incredibly valuable. We don't actually use the rules very much during play, but man... Writing the massively abridged version of the current armylists, missions and rules into one master document for our WH40K games have saved us hours beyond counting. At some point, you need to consider playability.
They are not the same game. They use the same core rules, but they are not really totally compatible. Useful as a reference, a guide, or a starting point, yes, but not properly compatible. Ok, I could accept Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy are largely compatible (though there are various mechanical tweaks done in RT, and then of course the entirely different psyker system), in that most material produced so far does in fact seem to be entirely compatible with the other (barring psychics). Stats are used the same way, seem to be built on the same scale, talents are largely identical (barring a few added for RT). I would happily use things from both. However, Deathwatch stepped away from that, and I personally don't regard the material generally to be compatible with the earlier games. Not so much in the core rules, but in the scale of things. For example, the weapon damages were off-kilter with the earlier games (and I do not really accept the "Astartes Weapon" thing. I didn't agree with such a thing in the first place, but earlier material had lower damages for Astartes grade gear), largely for mechanical reasons (ie, the way hordes worked required a reliable damage dealt, so they produced that). The updated weapon stats are still only "optional" (even though the latest book used both in different places. Argh!). This muddle with weapon damages meant that after the main rulebook the enemies were being built with the Deathwatch damages in mind. This, in my mind, doesn't really make them compatible (at least without careful thought and tweaking) with the earlier lines. Minor Daemons of Chaos, for example, have different stats largely in order to make them a viable enemy for Space Marines. Black Crusade brings the 2nd edition of the core rules into play, and consequently changes various things, meaning material produced for that isn't entirely compatible with any of the previous books (it at the very least requires some not too difficult conversions, but some items would require very careful thought even then).
I don't mind setting agnostic systems myself. I just tend to think that a system built for a setting will tend to better represent it than a generic one will. I quite like the look of GURPS, but I wouldn't use it for a specific setting, but rather use it for those types of game that the core mechanics are based around, ie one at least largely grounded in real life. The work to make it properly model a specific setting just isn't worth it in my mind.
Inquisitors commanding PDFs and fleets, yes. Acolytes? Not sure I could ever have that sit well with me. Ok, troops on a very local scale, but not starships and the like. Anyway, even if that is the case, they are almost always not going to be personally directing the vessels themselves. They will have requested the help, which would then be carried out by the various forces (troops on a local scale excluding, which I can see being personally directed by Inquisitors and the like). And, ok, we have a RT who is an Inquisitor in the background. So? The character creation system for the two systems don't allow that to happen, and Ascension level Dark Heresy characters don't drop well into RT. I know from personal experience. Dark Heresy characters tend to be noticeably more capable in their specific field than an allegedly comparable RT character. RT characters tend to be better all rounders at the early stages of their career, due to their higher base stats, but often cheaper cost of various Dark Heresy advances means that as you get on that gap closes and then the Dark Heresy character tends to overtake. While the stats are built the same way, so the weapons, gear and enemy write ups tend to be compatible, I am not convinced that PCs from the two games are really compatible (and not just because the games have different play styles, but because character building has different presumptions of advancement in mind).
Just as a random aside: I have to say, the Rak'Gul (or whatever they are called) from the new RT bestiary seem to fit better as Deathwatch level enemies than RT ones. Frankly RT already had bit too much of a problem of damages building up (due to access to better gear) while protection didn't really improve much (often anything short of power armour provided next to no protection). This just seems to be taking this further... yeek those things are nasty.
Argh! Double post.
Simsum said:
The last answer is kind of key to this discussion: customers aren't buying stuff to have to make a pile of houserulings. They buy stuff to avoid having to do that sort of thing. It might be called Book of Judgement, but what FFG is selling me isn't so much a book on the Adeptus Arbites as the promise to save me from having to write it. But as it is, I'm having to re-write fairly significant chunks of it, so they haven't really delivered.
I'm not suggesting that the lines should be consolidated. I'm perfectly happy with multiple lines with different emphasis and playstyles. It seems like a good way to cater to a larger playerbase. But the dismemberment of the underlying 40K system is no good for anyone. If it does anything at all, it is to lock people into one line, or persuade them the price-to-work-saved ratio is too low to keep on buying the published material. Neither of those would seem to be desirable for anyone involved.
Except that every supplement to date categorically states on the back that it requires a SPECIFIC core book to be used. If a book contains information usable in another game, then hooray what a bonus for you! The books are written with a certain product line in mind, crossover is incidental to the final product and only really occurs where it has to based on the setting (for example Daemon Hunter pretty much had to include the Grey Knights).
I don't know of any games designer and writer saying to themselves 'hmm, if i write this book to save my players having to think then they'll buy it instead of house-ruling". Rather the opposite in fact - they will want to answer the questions the supplement sets out to (sought after enemies, fleshed out groups and characters) but at the same time will leave you with so many more questions that, guess what, they've got your money AND set themselves up for yet more niche supplements.
It's a business at the end of the day. There may be individual writers and contributors who love the setting and the hobby but ultimately if the books don't balance it won't get made. 4 systems = 4 x Profit.
andrewm9 said:
In my experience, no game company does a very good job of editing. Find me any company smaller than WotC, whose game material isn't rife with editing mistakes.
Posthuman Studios, Catalyst Game Labs, White Wolf, Chaosium, and Evil Hat Productions to name five. I'm incredibly happy I've found the 40K setting from FFG in the last few years. But I would be a lot happier if they would address the editing problems. The company's size does not have a direct correlation to limits on the quality of editing. At least three of those listed companies are very likely smaller than FFG. They don't suffer the same editing (or layout) issues.
Dread Moores said:
Posthuman Studios, Catalyst Game Labs, White Wolf, Chaosium, and Evil Hat Productions to name five.
Umm, some of those are known to have particularly bad editing problems....
Well, to be fair, I haven't looked over White Wolf material in a few years. And once certain personnel left, CGL's editing certainly went downhill. I haven't run into the big cut and paste errors with the others though, that I have with FFG.
Dread Moores said:
Well, to be fair, I haven't looked over White Wolf material in a few years. And once certain personnel left, CGL's editing certainly went downhill. I haven't run into the big cut and paste errors with the others though, that I have with FFG.
Well, White Wolf have had poor editing for years. As it happens I'm reading Fall of the Camarilla at the moment and the page I'm on right now has incomplete sentences and as you've noted CGL's has been rubbish for a while (even worse than FFG's in many cases). The others probably anywhere near as bad... but the thing is you aren't comparing like with like. There's a big difference between companies that publish a tiny handful of books every year and companies that release a new product every month (or more).
RPG companies tend to come in three rough categories:
1. WotC - kind of a category all on its own. Has a rapid release schedule, but makes enough money to have good editing.
2. The Big Dogs (WW, FFG, CGL, maybe a few others) - companies big enough to have a lot of releases, but not enough money to afford good editing
3. Small players (everybody else) - not much money, but very few releases allowing for better editing (also usually 'labour of love' companies, so staff more willing to edit for free/next to nothing)
macd21 said:
The others probably anywhere near as bad... but the thing is you aren't comparing like with like.
No, I wasn't. The post I responded to was looking for companies smaller than WoTC with good editing. Each of the companies I named fit that criteria (with the exceptions for WW and CGL, as I mentioned).
The copy/paste issues (particularly with BC) are the things that really bug me. If FFG can get them out of the mix, most of the editing issues I've found are minor enough to ignore.