Self-explained What do you think about this? What line do you think Dark Heresy lean more?

I think it hard to say how the game in itself is leaning; the modules I've see seem pretty gamist but I know that I as an GM and a player take things more towards simulationism.

It would be better if it is planned like WFRP gamist/narrativist it much more fits to the setting and the atmosphere in my opinion

I wouldn't call it any of them really. It isn't really a narrative game. Combat was clearly designed with a board and pieces in mind (though FFG has moved away from that with the later games in the series and in many of the published adventures). I wouldn't call it gamist either, unlike WFRP 3rd edition ("I am activating my reputation!" I enjoy WFRP 3rd, but it certainly isn't simulationist). However, the system is not "realistic" enough for me to treat it as "simulationist" (For example, if the GM insisted on rolls for every skill someone who is meant to be competent would still fail nearly 50% of the time on the easiest of tasks). Instead I would call it "representational", in that a certain stat, skill, damage etc, is meant to represent something, and so things can be quite easily understood if you realise that relationship (ie 50+ in a stat is a BIG deal, an average guy is about 25-30 etc).

I meant 2nd edition of WFRP it has many mechanics to be played as a narrative game.

I would treat WFRP 2nd as the same as Dark Heresy. Almost all games can be played narratively, but some require it more than others, and on the spectrum, I would treat WFRP 2nd and Dark Heresy as less so (there are too many rules for me to consider it a naturally narrative game). However, neither are gamist (which in my mind means the mechanics are foremost and what exactly they represent can be a bit unclear, ala WFRP 3rd. Fine if the mechanics are interesting, like they are in WFRP 3rd, but it sometimes the disconnect from reality can get a bit extreme and end up spoiling the mood).

Simulationist with a dash of narrativism. The system is a fairly comprehensive mechanical representation of the in-game reality, and offers a very few ways to modify or override the system for narrative purposes. It's not a brutally crunchy simulationist system, but that's a plus as far as I'm concerned.

I hardly think a game where one can be shot in the leg all day long and then suddenly take a minor hit to your skull and have your head explode in a shower of gore is simulationist.

To explain the above example, imagine taking all damage to the right leg, up to about 7 crit damage, followed by like an attack that inflicts 2 more wounds to the head. Its nearly comical. Sure, I'm bad off because my leg is shot off, but my skull shouldn't explode when tapped.

As others, the game is what the GM makes it. Its a mix of the above, but maximizes none of them. Which is a good thing if you ask me.

KommissarK said:

Note to self: The humies weakness are a combination of blows to the legs and then a quick flick to the noggin.

I've always been fond of simulationist ideals only when it enhances the story telling aspect of the game. (Imagine, a mass reactive rocket grenade inches deep in the chest cavity foe…) Then I give my player a paper cut and I say "it's worse than that!" It really drives the point home.

(also great example kommissark)

Well, since GNS Theory has been largely Superseded by The Big Theory, these questions always amuse me.

OK, so, taking the question on face value, DH is clearly a Gamist/Narrative game that makes little attempt at simulation.

Gamist (Very Strong)

The game is almost entirely focussed on combat, and on the steady advancement through 'winning' vs progressively more dangerous foes. The level based progression also encourages and supports this gamist approach allowing the players to measure their 'success' by mechanical advancement up the levels, which open up more options.

Narrative (Average)

The gamist core is shrouded in the narrative cloak of character classes that encourage the development of focussed motives based on one of the various 'divisions' within the game (AdMech, Arbites, etc.)

The game also tends to put forwards a fair amount of story and character progression.

Simulationist (None to speak of)

DH makes almost no attempt to simulate the world of 40k. From details as simple as the undesirability of boltguns compared to autoguns, through to a complete lack of detail or structures around the reality of Imperial life, or details of the Imperial Creed, etc. DH does not in any way provide a simulation.

Luddite said:

I am not sure I totally agree with this assessment. Most of the rules deal with combat (which is not unusual. It is often one of the most complicted sections of any but the most abstract ruleset), but there is no suggestion that most of your game should necessarily be combat. There are also quite specific rules for adjudicating things such as social interactions, research, and more fiddly details for uses of skills when you have the Inquisitor's handbook. This doesn't mean that people necessarily use them, but they are there. And while there are "levels", which unlock further choices about what you can select, they don't tell you much useful about the relative capabilities of the characters. A Rank 6 Adept who has bought massive intelligence and perception advances, alongside lots of lore and social skills, could be utterly useless in combat compared to a rank 3 guy who has a combat career and has focussed on combat stuff. Higher ranks will have more abilities available to them, but they can often still be threatened by the same things that were a threat to them when they started (Power Armour and absurd Toughness aside).

Narrative: Looking at that definition, any one game could be highly narrative while another could be almost entirely non-narrative. However, yes, I think I agree that the base presumptions imply that there is some "narrative" style to the gameplay.

Simulationist: It makes almost no attempt to simulate the World of 40k? I will accept the rules are not attempting to provide discretely special rules for certain things (the system itself doesn't have to be a 40k rule set). However, it does get certain things very right: As counter to your boltgun example: Boltguns are the realm of very wealthy or powerful individuals… or those willing to cripple themselves financially for the status of owning one. For the average guy an autogun is a better choice (though you are right in that there are very few mechanical incentives for preferring a bolter to other allegedly "inferior" weapons). There are rules dealing with insanity and corruption, rather important elements to the themes of Dark Heresy (though I guess this could be regarded as more "narrativist") As far as details of reality of Imperial Life, or details of the Imperial Creed: It would be hard to do that in anything but the broadest strokes (which it provides as background information, without any rules structures for it). The Imperium and the Imperial Creed is too wildly varied.

I would say the game has elements of all 3. Looking at the definition on Wikipedia I think the one it is best tailored for is actually the narrative approach (though the game can be played in a much more linear way than that definition suggests). The whole "rank" thing is not so much a system ala D&D levels, but a structure to show how characters should develop (though the weapon talents I will accept are approached a bit in this manner). Many of the top rank talents are there as they are powerful, and are meant to be the kind of traits only incredibly experienced (or deranged) people would have. For example, Fearless is not at high ranks because it is a "supa-awesome elite ability!" (which I would see as a more "gamist" reasoning) but because only the most hardened servants of the Emperor can truely be classed as "fearless." Usually because they are so insane by that point that they don't care, but hey…