D&D4E didn't die because of 'marketing' or failed web support, it died because the changes made to the system- while possibly good ideas in and of themselves- were not what the fan base wanted from a game called 'Dungeons and Dragons'. Re-working combat to incorporate World of Warcraft -style 'Roles' dictated by character class (rather than player intent) was just not popular. It may play smoother than 3/3.5, but at the price of removing one of the key elements of D&D : the ability to completely define what kind of a character you are playing, rather than being forced into a video-game archetype.

DM: "Okay, Joe, you want to play a Fighter? That means your official Role in combat is Meatshield for the spellcasters-"

Joe: "What? No- I was picturing my character as a duelist-type. You know, a charismatic swashbuckler..."

DM: [flips through rulebook] "No, sorry, that's not a Role, and combat is based entirely on fulfilling these established Roles. Now, Steve, you want to play a Cleric? That automatically makes you the party Leader."

Steve: [spit-take] " Huh? I was planning on playing my character as a parody of a televangelist- a smarmy weasel that everyone hates, who only pays lip-service to his faith while actually being obsessed with his own personal wealth."

DM: "No, that's not going to work with your class's Role. So, Janet, you want to play a Wizard? Are you a Blast Mage or Crowd Control?"

Janet: "Um... Seeker of ancient knowledge...?"

DM: [pause] " Blast Mage or Crowd Control ?"

I've played D&D off and on since the Gygaxian days of yore, and absolutely nothing about the 4E changes appealed to me. That doesn't mean that 4E doesn't work or isn't sound game design, it means that if you don't appeal to your core fanbase, those things become irrelevant.

Much of the debate as to whether the current 2e rules are successful come down to personal preference, and much of that personal preference comes down to whether you like the idea of change or not.

I don't think it's really an accurate analysis of the problem. Personally, I'd give up on backwards compatibility without much fuss if it meant playing a better, slicker game. The problem is, instead of that, I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game. Exact opposite of "better, slicker game" if you ask me, and they still expected I give up backwards compatibility for that. No can do, sir, I'm not giving up everything for nothing.

If FFG comes up with a new engine that I find good, I'll gladly play it, even if it means my previous collection of 1e books become nothing more than shelf decoration. Since they don't seem to be up to the task, I'd much rather play the game I know is good for me and my group.

It is your opinion that 2e is worse; it is not empirically worse than 1e. That is exactly what I said. I didn't say anything about backwards compatibility (incidentally, I think the argument for backwards compatibility is a fallacious cop-out).

It is your opinion that 2e is worse; it is not empirically worse than 1e. That is exactly what I said. I didn't say anything about backwards compatibility (incidentally, I think the argument for backwards compatibility is a fallacious cop-out).

I'm not sure you're right about that. To me, empirically in this context means the system provides a better or worse framework for the various elements that make up the intended scope of the system.

I don't think it can be honestly argued that WFRP and its derivatives aren't primarily a framework for combat. And while I think DH2's design is conceptually better for running skirmish combat, I don't think the DH2.3b RAW is. And it really comes down to wonky fire rates and too many book look-ups.

However, the advertised scope of the game is horror, intrigue, investigation and action, and I very much think DH2.3b RAW does intrigue & investigation a great deal better than the WRFP derivatives.

So.. Empirically better, I think, is a very real thing. But which wins comes down to playstyle. And OW most definitely is a vastly more polished system than DH2.3b - which, of course is perfectly understandable given that DH2.3b is the first generation of its system, while OW is the 7th generation of its system. And it has to be said DH2.3b has surprisingly few rough edges for a 1st generation system. It's almost as polished as D&D4e was (which you can love or hate or be indifferent about, but you can't argue it doesn't do what it intended extremely well).

Maybe I should've said objectively , rather than empirically. My fault.

If these forums have taught me one thing (they haven't), it's that the success of the 2e ruleset vs the 1e ruleset is entirely dependent on the perception and opinion of the players. I'm not sure a new ruleset could ever be objectively better, only subjectively.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

I'm sorry, I didn't really mean to split heairs. I guess what I was trying to say is exactly what you just did say: player preference.

- Which I'm assuming has almost everything to do with playstyle. Our group does do skirmish combat (complete with custom terrain and minis made for the occasions), but primarily our games consist of a whole lot of in-character talking & emo drama stuff. So for us, DH2.3b is... Not as much of an improvement as we'd hoped, but certainly a noticeable improvement over the old system.

I'm not really surprised if groups like ours is a tiny minority, though. The old system is very, very combat-centric, so it seems natural most groups would have playstyles where skirmish combat is front & centre.

It is your opinion that 2e is worse; it is not empirically worse than 1e. That is exactly what I said. I didn't say anything about backwards compatibility (incidentally, I think the argument for backwards compatibility is a fallacious cop-out).

You claimed that whether people liked 2e or not depended on whether they liked change or not. That's false.

I like change. I don't like overly exacting combat engines that require constantly looking up charts, nor percentile systems where values go beyond 100, nor systems that suggest building encounters based on challenge rating... you get the idea. Change would be fine, if it weren't change for the worse.

It is not change for the worse - it is change which goes against your taste.

I for myself consider it as change for the better.

I guess there are a lot of oppinions regarding this issue - objectivity is not possible.

This just proves my point, Gaunt - it doesn't matter whether we like or dislike change in general, it matters what we think about the particular changes presented.

"I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game."

~Morangias

This is gold. Pure gold.

The absolute last thing I need out of a new set of rules is a yawning empty chasm of support material presaging a entirely new setting- this is what DH2e offers without backward compatibility. Sure, I can use the DH1e setting, but then what's the point of even buying the 2e rules set? New rules? Then the 2e setting is of little use. If I bought 2e for the setting alone? One way or the other, +/-50% of the 2e core is money tossed straight in the trash. This is why forumites such as Adeptus-B, Radwraith, and myself are displeased with the Beta as it was presented. FFG flatly stated it would not be compatible with any previous 40K RPG lines. Period. I have absolutely no motivation to run a campaign using a solitary source book that's mostly rules mechanics.

At this point, I honestly don't care what the 2e rules look like. But if FFG are going to publish a completely new game engine, might I suggest they also release more than just a GM screen? Seriously; reused artwork and reprinted tables...on a screen. For crap sake, what GM absolutely needs a screen? New GMs. That's it. Meanwhile, long-time GMs get dork all for adversaries and other setting support material. Remember how long it took for Creatures Anathema to release? And it was as organized as an epilepsy rave.

FFG need to be, and should already have been, looking beyond the release of Dark Heresy: Second Edition. But their appointed play testers have let them down. Hard. I wonder if they really pushed the system to breaking point- within twelve hours the Beta reveals glaring issues with RoA and RoF, cumbersome table-heavy wound tracking, and some of the same fundamental glitches from DH1e- or if they just had a merry time playing one character, maybe two, throughout an entire campaign and feeling fluffy for getting to see the king's new clothing before anyone else?

That's what most angers me. I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

"I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game."

~Morangias

This is gold. Pure gold.

Sometimes, I'm being overly dramatic, but that's basically how I feel about the now-defunct 2e. It felt dated and ugly, built upon design principles straight from the first decade of D&D.

"I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game."

~Morangias

This is gold. Pure gold.

Sometimes, I'm being overly dramatic, but that's basically how I feel about the now-defunct 2e. It felt dated and ugly, built upon design principles straight from the first decade of D&D.

Which is ironic considering DH1 was essentially a port of the tabletop game to a d100 system (mechanically, anyway).

"I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game."

~Morangias

This is gold. Pure gold.

Sometimes, I'm being overly dramatic, but that's basically how I feel about the now-defunct 2e. It felt dated and ugly, built upon design principles straight from the first decade of D&D.

Which is ironic considering DH1 was essentially a port of the tabletop game to a d100 system (mechanically, anyway).

I'm well aware. I've been playing GW's percentile system when it still had guidelines for converting TT stats into RPG stats, and when wizards had to budget magic points.

In fact, it's part of the reason I'm so outraged at the proposed 2e rules - somehow, they managed to make them feel more dated than something first introduced in 1986 as direct extension of the TT wargame.

What's really ironic is how you call people cheering for 1e "grognards" when what they protest against is the most grognard-y ruleset seen in decades.

Chill out broham, I was calling the "change for the sake of change, change is bad" crowd grognards. I was just pointing out the humor in that DH2 seems unable to escape its roots. I'd love for DH2 to take more cues from more modern games.

FFG need to be, and should already have been, looking beyond the release of Dark Heresy: Second Edition. But their appointed play testers have let them down. Hard. I wonder if they really pushed the system to breaking point- within twelve hours the Beta reveals glaring issues with RoA and RoF, cumbersome table-heavy wound tracking, and some of the same fundamental glitches from DH1e- or if they just had a merry time playing one character, maybe two, throughout an entire campaign and feeling fluffy for getting to see the king's new clothing before anyone else?

If playing 40K table-top has taught us anything: Americans don't like to lose, and we will break a rules system faster than you can yell "'Murica!" Tell us to break something and we'll break it. And we'll do it within hours. It's my opinion FFG might have saved themselves- and everyone who paid for the Beta- months of wasted excitement if they'd actually had it play-tested by people intent on "breaking" it.

That's what most angers me. I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

Thank you for essentially insulting probably one of the hardest working groups of the development process, which includes myself and several writers for the 40k line, and many of the people who have been most vocal during the beta period.

And then you went and brought nationalist rubbish into it. That's impressive.

And by impressive, I'm being sarcastic, since you don't know how the playtesting operates, what problems we pointed out, if changes were made, and if they were, what they were, and imply that Americans are better than other people.

So yes, excuse me for thinking you are talking out of your rear.

Chill out broham, I was calling the "change for the sake of change, change is bad" crowd grognards. I was just pointing out the humor in that DH2 seems unable to escape its roots. I'd love for DH2 to take more cues from more modern games.

I guess I misunderstood you, sorry if you took my response personally. Yeah, the situation is pretty ludicrous.

That's what most angers me. I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

Seconding MILLANDSON's anger at your posting. Had you ever considered that the alpha playtesters had broken the ruleset and had reported it to FFG, but FFG hadn't done anything about it?

"I was offered something that looked like FFG found it scribbled on the napkins of a deceased Rolemaster writer and hastily put together into a semblance of a game."

~Morangias

This is gold. Pure gold.

The absolute last thing I need out of a new set of rules is a yawning empty chasm of support material presaging a entirely new setting- this is what DH2e offers without backward compatibility. Sure, I can use the DH1e setting, but then what's the point of even buying the 2e rules set? New rules? Then the 2e setting is of little use. If I bought 2e for the setting alone? One way or the other, +/-50% of the 2e core is money tossed straight in the trash. This is why forumites such as Adeptus-B, Radwraith, and myself are displeased with the Beta as it was presented. FFG flatly stated it would not be compatible with any previous 40K RPG lines. Period. I have absolutely no motivation to run a campaign using a solitary source book that's mostly rules mechanics.

At this point, I honestly don't care what the 2e rules look like. But if FFG are going to publish a completely new game engine, might I suggest they also release more than just a GM screen? Seriously; reused artwork and reprinted tables...on a screen. For crap sake, what GM absolutely needs a screen? New GMs. That's it. Meanwhile, long-time GMs get dork all for adversaries and other setting support material. Remember how long it took for Creatures Anathema to release? And it was as organized as an epilepsy rave.

FFG need to be, and should already have been, looking beyond the release of Dark Heresy: Second Edition. But their appointed play testers have let them down. Hard. I wonder if they really pushed the system to breaking point- within twelve hours the Beta reveals glaring issues with RoA and RoF, cumbersome table-heavy wound tracking, and some of the same fundamental glitches from DH1e- or if they just had a merry time playing one character, maybe two, throughout an entire campaign and feeling fluffy for getting to see the king's new clothing before anyone else?

If playing 40K table-top has taught us anything: Americans don't like to lose, and we will break a rules system faster than you can yell "'Murica!" Tell us to break something and we'll break it. And we'll do it within hours. It's my opinion FFG might have saved themselves- and everyone who paid for the Beta- months of wasted excitement if they'd actually had it play-tested by people intent on "breaking" it.

That's what most angers me. I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

Ahh an exert from Brother Orpheo's new book '**** I Don't Know About'

That's what most angers me. I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

Seconding MILLANDSON's anger at your posting. Had you ever considered that the alpha playtesters had broken the ruleset and had reported it to FFG, but FFG hadn't done anything about it?

+1

Having corresponded with some of the alpha playtest early in the Beta I was left with very strong impression that there were issues, including some very fundamental ones, which had been allowed forward into the Beta. Much as I disliked the original Beta (and I really loathed it) I have no doubt at all that the pre-Beta playtesters did an excellent job with what they were given. I personally suspect that the current revamp is the result (directly or indirectly) of a combination of original and Beta playtest responses.

Personally, I think the above insult represents this thread going that one step too far.

Having corresponded with some of the alpha playtest early in the Beta I was left with very strong impression that there were issues, including some very fundamental ones, which had been allowed forward into the Beta. Much as I disliked the original Beta (and I really loathed it) I have no doubt at all that the pre-Beta playtesters did an excellent job with what they were given. I personally suspect that the current revamp is the result (directly or indirectly) of a combination of original and Beta playtest responses.

Hmm- that's an interesting theory; FFG needed the negative feedback from the Beta to convince them that problems pointed out by the Alpha playtesters were actual problems. Could be- and if so, that's an incredibly inefficient way to develop a game...

Having corresponded with some of the alpha playtest early in the Beta I was left with very strong impression that there were issues, including some very fundamental ones, which had been allowed forward into the Beta. Much as I disliked the original Beta (and I really loathed it) I have no doubt at all that the pre-Beta playtesters did an excellent job with what they were given. I personally suspect that the current revamp is the result (directly or indirectly) of a combination of original and Beta playtest responses.

Hmm- that's an interesting theory; FFG needed the negative feedback from the Beta to convince them that problems pointed out by the Alpha playtesters were actual problems. Could be- and if so, that's an incredibly inefficient way to develop a game...

Most likely, someone was pushing his ideas despite negative feedback, until he eventually caved in under the mass of open-beta feedback and the suddenly real threat of the game flopping.

That's of course assuming your theory is right. I have to say, I'd really love to know the whole story behind this edition one day, as what's happened to it so far is probably the weirdest thing I've ever heard of when it comes to game development.

To be honest, what I don't understand is why they started the alpha/beta with these major changes in rules mechanics to begin with???

In the first official news about DH 2.0 it is described:

• that the original DH is a great game and the rule system a terrific achievement.
• As the oldest of the line it needed updating and refreshing to bring it in line with recent games.
• They have no plans on launching new editions of the other lines.
• They are really pleased with the success and positive feedback from OW
• ... and hope to support that other lines for many years.

Source: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4265

So yeah that sounds for me that they did not see any reason for changing the core system, just getting it on the level of OW.

It seems that the execution of the alpha/beta differed fundamentally from the concept to begin with. So we have ambiguous signals, leading to tensions between participants on all levels.

It also demonstrates the core question: Update or New System?

You can't do both, I am a fan of the update idea, that is what I always hoped for and if the developer is satisfied with the success of the 40k line, especially OW, than why risking a radical change?

Frankly, that announcement was pure marketspeak. Of course they were planning to eventually update all lines, because there's no point whatsoever in not doing that. It's just, there's no point in announcing it outright either, as it would hurt the sales of whatever books they still plan to sell.

And, if DH2 flopped for some reason while other 1e games kept selling decently, they still have the options open, either continuing 1e support of other games or proposing a completely different new core engine in future RT2 or what have you, while still leaving the options open with other games. Repeat until they run out of 1e games.

Having corresponded with some of the alpha playtest early in the Beta I was left with very strong impression that there were issues, including some very fundamental ones, which had been allowed forward into the Beta. Much as I disliked the original Beta (and I really loathed it) I have no doubt at all that the pre-Beta playtesters did an excellent job with what they were given. I personally suspect that the current revamp is the result (directly or indirectly) of a combination of original and Beta playtest responses.

Hmm- that's an interesting theory; FFG needed the negative feedback from the Beta to convince them that problems pointed out by the Alpha playtesters were actual problems. Could be- and if so, that's an incredibly inefficient way to develop a game...

That's overstating my point by a considerable degree. We don't know what changed between the Alpha and Beta playtests or do what degree. If I were FFG, I would have addressed what I perceived to be the most significant problems presented by the Alpha playtesters first. Issues perceived as less serious, or for which I wanted a boarder base of opinion, I would have left in place, even though the Alpha playtesters had commented on them, for the Beta test. That is what I suspect happened.

It is interesting to see how such a simple point, ie: "the alpha system offered was an interesting idea, but completely broken, so the broken parts were tossed in a deep garbage bin in the Eye of Terror and we are doing not only what our consumer base desires but a working product, compatible with our previous work" became a 19 pages long argument.

If anything, I would just like to point out to FFG that it took them a long time for them to notice this but congratulate them for having the humility and insight to do so. All of my players, as well as me have release a long sigh of relief and are looking forward to seeing the "DH 2 2.0", so to speak.

I believe it went this long for lack of a new pdf for us to point our techpriests and adepts at for them to analyze. Regarding all this matter, I have learned to just agree with Morangias as a voice of common sense.

The Emperor protects.

I don't believe they play-tested anything. I think they just played.

This is my opinion, and I stand beside it.

If anyone takes insult from it, methinks they protest too loudly.