Radwraith said:

What is your security clearance citizen? Knowledge of the 'Emperor' and pop culture based forum-poster-dating techniques is classified BLUE. Please report to the nearest termination booth to discuss.

I love that game and sometimes run a session to give our Dark Heresy GM a break. I really like the new(ish) anniversary edition and the one-roll mechanic which leaves even more time for the players to frak each other over... ooop, I mean serve The Computer.

macd21 said:

signoftheserpent 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.

andrewm9 said:

Steve Jackson Games?

Also, I do find it ironic that the person who's complaining about the spelling and grammar problems failed to properly spell check their complaint. I'm not flaming, I just find it amusing.

signoftheserpent said:

Sorry, but no. I've done some proofreading myself and I know a professional copyeditor and let me tell you there's every excuse. It doesn't matter if you are an English speaking writer, you'll probably make mistakes. And good spelling isn't the most important factor when determining whether you'll hire a writer - seriously, professional writers can have awful spelling and grammar. In the case of FFG I imagine they look for people who know the setting and can come up with good material - interesting antagonists, good stats, cool adventures etc. Good spelling is preferable, but even the best writer will make mistakes.

And that, of course is where the proofreaders come in. But it's a case of you get what you pay for. Even a decent proofreader is expensive, really good ones are very expensive. And to do their job properly they need to go over the document multiple times (getting paid every time). And they'll still probably miss a few mistakes.

A company with a release schedule as fast as FFG's can't really afford that. Are they cutting corners? Sure. But to be honest it's not really worth their time or money to 'concentrate on fewer books of better quality'. Why? Because they won't sell many more copies. The spelling mistakes are annoying... but people keep buying their books. Not enough customers refuse to buy their books due to the poor editing. Improving the quality would cost them more than they would gain.

andrewm9 said:

There are a few. A lot of the smaller companies might only release a single book in a year. That leaves them with more time for editing. They can hire a single good proofreader to go through the book multiple times, or (as is most often the case) the regular staff can go over it themselves (generally with 'labour of love' companies that aren't doing it for the money, so the staff will do the proofreading for free.

H.B.M.C. said:

No they are not. They're four distinct, but entirely and very, very closely connected focuses of play and play style within one game.

I won't dispute that the product line has been dismembered. That much you're quite obviously correct about, or this topic would have never been started. But in so far as one has to buy any of the books, one can easily find oneself needing to try to stitch together the separated parts. Unsurprisingly, seeing as it is one game.

A rules unification is a perfectly sensible thing to ask for. The entire point of buying a rules system and/or extensions to it, is to avoid having to design a unified rules system oneself. Or at least, that's what most paying customers pay to get. But what we get is a deliberately de-unified rules system. It's very much a "we break it, you buy it" situation, and while I can think of a few ways it makes sense for FFG, I cannot for the life of me think of a single reason why any unaffiliated sane person would want their game system de-unified.

Further, a single source of rules for common activities in-setting activities, whatever the focus and play style, is not just a good idea. It's a reasonable expectation. You can't honestly tell me you would pick up the D&D PHB and DMG expecting not to find the basic rules for city adventures and wilderness exploration. Sure, a comprehensive guide to city and wilderness generation is above and beyond what you'd expect to find in the core rules. But the basic rules systems for all of those thing are not "optional extras for people who base their whole campaign on that sort of thing". They're common in-setting occurrences that will come up several times during a typical campaign.

I have zero problem with dividing up the fluff and ease of use stuff (like massive amounts of ships, space marine appropriate enemies, myriad mystery cults and whatever) in separate mystery, entrepreneur, hack'n'slash and webedifferent lines, as long as they're all kept fully compatible. Because the dividing lines FFG draws are unlikely to be an exact match with the dividing lines anyone else who ever have, currently do, and ever will role play in the setting using FFGs stuff.

The intro adventure in the core Dark Heresy rulebook features warp travel, planetfall in a spacecraft capable of atmospheric flight, and a drive across a wasteland. And yet the rulebook has no actual rules for any of these evidently common activities. Neither does the rest of this - according to you, Efidm - stand-alone game system. Rogue Trader does, of course, but in Dark Heresy anything that even smells of vehicle is freeform role playing only.

TL;DR you astound me, and not in a good way.

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. The new rules produced for later series are not erratas for the earlier ones (people can use them as such if they want, but that is not the official approach). Rogue Trader through Black Crusade are not 40k RPG editions 2-4 (though it could be argued that Black Crusade does indeed use the 2nd edition of the 40k RPG rules system, but as yet the earlier games are not using that 2nd edition). No product of any other line is needed to play the other systems, though people obviously and understandably do, as certain elements are still missing from the other games (such as the lack of vehicle rules in Dark Heresy).

A similar (though less closely related) example would be DnD 3.5 and the pre-saga edition WotC Star Wars Roleplaying Game. They both used the same rules system (d20), but they were different games. You were not expected to own anything of one series in order to use any item from the other, and they had elements not present in the other game (vehicles in Star Wars, for example). Now, the 40k RPG system is different as the various games are much closer in intention, ie, they are set in the same world and things follow the same general rules while as DnD and Star Wars are very different settings, just used the same rules. However, the same thing applies. Just because something is done differently in one game doesn't mean it applies to the others using the same game system, at least until an errata makes a similar change to the other game. It wouldn't even work, particularly with Black Crusade, as each is built with different presumptions in mind. As you said, the introductory Dark Heresy adventure had warp-flight, a landing and then driving a vehicle. Now, apart from the last one, there were no rules really required as none of it is carried out by the players. Now, planetfall might sometime come up with players, but in a Dark heresy game the players are never going to be responsible for deep space flight and warp travel. It might feature, but it will always be something for the GM to decide, ie, backdrop. No rules for deep-space flight are required for Dark Heresy. Rogue Trader, on the other hand, requires it to be part of the core rules, as it is an essential part of the game.

Not that I couldn't be convinced to the idea of a core rulebook with all the "basic" rules elements. However, I know that any such project would be based on the Black Crusade rules, and frankly I am not keen on that (not being massively happy with a number of the various changes done by that game).

Simsum said:

Nice to know you can reply without making it personal. Classy.

They are separate games. They share common elements, but they are not the same game(s). One does not need to buy any book from any other line to play any one game from the four different games. Nor is one ever required (by reference within a book) to buy a book from any other line to play any particular game. Sharing rules does not make them the same game (40K 2nd Ed, WFB 4th, 5th and I think 6th Ed, Necromunda and Mordheim all shared a common rule base - they were all different games).

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

I'm going to have to 100% back HMBC on this one - The games have seperate core rulebooks featuring different character creation, items and game mechanics. They have different settings that, while connected to others, are entirely standalone without GM intervention. The supplements are also published for each individual game line and not as '40k RPG supplements' that can be used however you want. The levels of play between systems vary greatly, items keep getting new stats published because of the power-creep, mechanics get dropped/re-written/added into the game.

I really don't see how anyone can ignore this simple truth. It'd be like complaining about WOTC's OpenGameLicense d20 system and how different games for it modify things. All of the 40k RPG line can trace its lineage back to the BRP system javascript:void(0);/*1329832695298*/ so ultimately that's the core mechanic FFG are working around, not some mystical central 40k RPG line people on here seem to think exists.

H.B.M.C. said:

Dismission not "concession" but whatever floats your boat...and it truly is your boat and yours alone.

Mostly because the consolidation I spoke of is across the SAME system in the SAME games...

Once again a simple example: Rogue Trader has a section with Ships, components, and rules, Into the Storm has a section with Ships, components, and rules, Battlefleet Koronus has a section with Ships, components, and rules. Why not one book for ships for the entire system in one spot?

And as for the mixing of systems. Apparently the sections in the begining of each main rulebook for the 3 latter games (that use the same system at heart) was overlooked. You know...page 34 of Rogue Trade that says the only key differences are THEME related.

But if you want to run your campaign based off of only using the main rulebooks and no mixing that's your perogative...and only yours. Just don't tell others what to do when it's truly yours alone. It's condescending...and misinformed.

ratrimble 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.

Which is what I've been trying to say all along. Thank you Nathan.

Four different games, all viewed as different games by the people writing them. They just share a common base rule-set.

BYE

Rugby Union and Rugby League look the same to most people, and they share many rules. But they are definitely not the same game.

Same with 40K RPGs. Four different games, with four different names. If they were the same game then many of the threads in this forum would be moot becausethere wouldn't be any compatibility issues.

I'd say the majority of the lines are a success, bought most of them and have been doing so for 3yrs after something of a RPG hiatus where a lot of my favourite games like Shadowrun & D&D got steadily worse development to the point of being insufferable, dull or horrible in some form or another. As an overall product it has gone from strength to strength over the years to the current incarnation of Black Crusade which is quite a good product. Looking around the rest of the market, there's not an awful lot out there to make an otherwise jaded gamer/GM part with my cash, that I couldnt pick out of the half-tonne of RPG's collected over 20-25yrs by 5-6 gamers, that hasn't been done in some way before. Plenty of them have a LOT of malfunctions!

That isn't to say there's been some FFG hiccups and often hilarious errors along the way, (which I've been known to point out with my usual punch in the balls bluntness) but hope its been absorbed on some level and I completely understand pressure in a workplace to deliver a result in what is a tight period of time. Going back 3, 4, 5... many years in the past and reviewing what I've made as far as fan-written game stuff goes, they're fairly terrible from a professional level even after having my less illiterate friends go over them before inflicting them on anyone else. But they play ok, they run ok, mostly work and you learn as you go, so they get cut a break just like anyone else in a constantly evolving product line as long as it improves. Which at least in my opinion it is.

Unless they start releasing the WH40K gameline with cards and MMO-esque powers, in which case I might have to kill someone.

N0-1_H3r3, M.B.M.C and MKX - all long contributing members of these forums (i'm too modest to put myself up there too, but i guess i have been posting on here a long time) so it's good to see some unity of thought from the old-timers for once.
One setting, One core mechanic, Four product lines, Countless fans.

In all my years of gaming across numerous systems ( original classic D&D through 3.5, MERP, Shadowrun,Palladium.Rifts,Traveller,D20/modern/fantasy, etc..and a few others ) There is only ONE system that ever made a unified ruleset for their entire compliment of games..thats Palladium..You can cross directly over to ANY of their worlds/realms with only a minor alteration ( between hit points and SDC/MDC and thats basically IT ). BUT thats because most all of the books had the same core of designers( Kevin Siembeda to name one )

I love the palladium system for its universal flexibility BUT..it is rules heavy in combat sequence..takes awhile to get a round done...THATS where i adore FFGs DH and RT setup ( havent done much with DW since i dont have the books as yet ) The combat sequence is streamlined compared to any D20 system ive see yet...

As for proofreading...HEY FFG..ill do it for you..checking 3+ times if you want..only gotta pay me ONE time for each book...dont care...simple minor/moderate fee and i get to keep the single copy for myself..I would glady do it...and id guarantee no misspellings in the final copy or it is done free..(used to work with newspaper crew as one of the writers/editors years ago before i joined military ).

As for consolidating the materials..i would enjoy having that...For weapons we have the Macharian Handbook outlining pretty much ALL the weapons etc listed in all the current books..available from Dark Reign site..very professional quality ( kudos to the creator ) and there is the Apocryphy vehicles book as well ( also available on the Dark Reign site )

One thing i learned a long time ago is fan made stuff ( when done with care and common sense ) usually takes care of all the "in between" issues that crop up...like cross-system tables etc..etc..as your asking for...inevitably someone gets tired of all the hunting and sits down with the time and drive to just create a supplement of their own for it that is willing to put it out there for all the rest of us gamers to use and enjoy

Much thanks to all those who have taken the time and effort to create supplements/tables etc and posted them for all to use and enjoy in the gaming community..Your work IS appreciated ( even if it doesnt show sometimes..lol )

Anyway thats my 2 cents worth..lol

Cobramax76 said:

Might I suggest you send them your CV (via snail-mail)?

EDIT: Actually scratch that, send them your resume via [email protected]

I have a full-time job, am trying to do research to write articles, and have a family. I don't have time to make adventures. I want more of those.

Cobramax76 said:

What about Silhouette and GURPS?

bogi_khaosa said:

Personally, I'd like more pure sourcebooks, but bogi_Khaosa makes a fair point.

It's a shame the forum software doesn't seem to allow users to vote/create polls. It would be interesting to know what the forumites think of the current book balance.

All those in favour of some sort of polling software on the forum, just vote on the following...oh...hang on...

Cobramax76 said:

Actually the new World of Darkness system is amazing for compatibility. The core book allows you to play mortal characters in a gritty, realistic setting. then you just plug-in the source books you want to use. for example if you want vampires and mages in your system, just use those and ignore werewolves etc. Unified resistance characteristics 4tw.

yes, an inherently logical and coherent 2.0 for DH .. WITH INDEXES/INDICES OR HOWEVER YOU SPELL THAT IN ENGLISH!

thank you

Kasatka said:

Kasatka said:

It might sound strange, but I'm not in favour of unifying the different systems. I don't see the point.

The rules should reflect the setting and the theme. It's a matter of perspective. I admit, one of my groups uses the Black Crusade combat rules, but that's it.

Dark Heresy is about horror, mystery, investigation. It's about a bunch of outsiders doing the dirty work in very unorthodox ways. Hence psyking is **** dangerous. Everything is. They get crazy, they get corrupted. And when they die, it won't be glorious. Therefore I have no use for profit factor, cohesion, renown, fettered powers or any that, it's just not what Dark Heresy is about.

Yes, you can have a troupe that consists of a Space Marine, a Rogue Trader, an Assassin and a Cleric. But what kind of a story would you want to tell with that? A one-shot adventure, ok, because it's funny. But seriously...

I don't care for system unification because the system are not meant to be unified. Same goes for the World of Darkness by the way.

Cobramax76 said:

wrong there is a game that Palladium publishes that is not part of the unified ruleset, Recon.

But as for FFG editing, I remember FASA back in the day had some horrible editing too

SJG GURPS tried real hard but "real world" data modern screwed with game knowledge