I've been reading these forums for a couple of months now and I feel...

Too many people on this forum have forgotten or worse, do not care what a RPG is. A role playing game. For a story to be told and players to live vicariously through new, strange or already existing personas. A good group of players and a good GM can easily overcome any poor rules, or choices. Those of you who look for specific weakness in the mechanics are useful in BETAs like this, as you find the holes and problems in concepts, but do not forgot that you are not the target customer or common player. The average GM makes a story and wants to tell it, using the tools and narrative in the book to assist. Players use the book and rules to help guide them on character creation and advancement. Players (or worse) GMs who try to break a game to min/max a character will ruin the whole experience and quickly find themselves bored or not enjoying a game, about story, intrigue, betrayal and the grim dark universe that is 40k.

I am not defending the old or new BETA concepts, I am glad FFG is giving its public this much attention, but I fear the loudest and often (my opinion) the worst representation of the gaming community are being heard above the masses.

I have read dozens of 20+ page threads about people cursing at each other and getting into political and economic debates about the 40k universe and how it should be represented by our current real world systems. If this seems normal or completely okay with you, I'm writing to the wrong audience.

I want people who are game breakers playing and breaking this game in BETA to help polish the game and make it better. But I fear that FFG might be listening to the wrong people, instead of who will actually be buying and playing this game, not overtaxing it for a couple weeks and then leaving it for the next edition of whatever comes out.

Basically, I fear this game is becoming too large and complex for no apparent reason, other to appease people who want more specific rules for just about everything. My best example of this is DH1.0 no expansion, no supplements, is a perfectly functional game. There are loose interpretations and poor wording in areas yes, but anything game breaking? Not a thing. Why? Because it was purposefully left customizable and the whole system is built around a solid, effective and easily adjustable mechanic. 1d100.

I am not making excusing for sloppy game rules or poorly thought out ideas, but I am saying that most of the complaining or griping about mundane mechanics like the acquisition system (which I hate but accept) are simply rules lawyers who either refuse to understand that nothing is in stone or simply want things to be their way, because it appeases them.

I am very disappointed in this overall community.

Just my two cents.

I kinda agree with you. People tend to forget that being a playtester isn't the same as getting a say in designing the game.

Monte Cook made a very good article about playtesting on his blog some time ago. I'd recommend everyone willing to participate actively in Round Two to give it a read.

As one of your so-called "worst representation" I disagree with you in most of your points.

Furthermore, I do not think it is possible to define the "RPG-player".

There are RPG-players who love narrative-heavy play with light rules, but there are others who like clearly defined detailed rules and a solid framework to go with.

The "cursing" as you call it, is a discussion between different kinds of players, which shows this diversity.

Even inside most groups, this diversity between players exist - and you know what - it is usually a good thing.

If you are easily satisfied with a few core rules and a solid scenario - fine. That saves you a lot of money. You do not even need a rulebook at all maybe - just tell a story and skip the unnecessary dice rolls.

I myself prefer a heavily ruled out book with a lot of interesting supplements.

If I dont like a rule, I can still skipp it, but I am always happy if I do not have to houserule something which is missing.

My 3 cents on this.

While I do agree with your general point, I find the premise, that "OK" is good enough because we as players can self-adjust, to be ridiculous.

A self-contained ruleset should not be published with the intent that "Eh, they'll work out the kinks themselves" . It's simply not feasible.

Beta-testing exists to kick and beat on a system to see if it breaks. That's the whole point of a Beta-test. In actual play, you can self-regulate, you can say "Well this doesn't make sense, let's do it this way" on the fly. But a Beta-test exists to, to as to a great degree as possible, make that unnecessary and the game fully playable, whether you "aim to break it" or just do so by accident, or not.

You should be able to pick a game up and "just play", without homebrewing. Homebrewing is inherent. It's just there. You can homebrew anything. I can homebrew for Monopoly , if I want to.

Also, a lot of us, I think, are simply driven by the idea that we want to make things better, regardless of whether anything already works or not. While "If it's not broken, don't fix it" is an axiom, finding broken things within a machine, or spit-polishing whatever you can find, is practically human nature to some, depending on personality type .

I'm the kind of person that will sometimes argue over something just because it's an interesting subject, or perhaps I'll take a stance I'm not even sure I can defend yet, just so I can work out a stance on that subject by being challenged. I'm the kind of person that enjoys prodding and kicking on mechanics until they yield , and I'm the kind of person that, while playing any kind of CRPG, somehow ends up finding every single game-breaking bug because I run around checking everything like I'm playing Maximum Autist Challenge 2000 .

And I think that there's a lot of people like that on the boards, that are willing to discuss specifics of just about everything, examining individual components and trying to reach a general consensus on how to work out this rule better, or how to rephrase that thing there so it makes sense. "Is this working correctly?" probably amounts to a good 30% of all threads, especially if you don't count the threads not dealing with rules at all, such as fluff threads.

Thankfully, most people don't hold grudges on the boards, and once you're past one subject, you move on to the next, and maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but if you don't, it's probably not a matter of principle, but simply a base difference of viewpoints.

My fear is practically the same as yours; that the basic system will lend itself to feature- or complexity-bloat. Lots of specific rules for specific circumstances are good, as long as those circumstances are general; Vehicles, for example, I'd like rules for. Specific rules for specific vehicles..? Not so much.

Regrettably, I already feel DH2 going in this direction, and interestingly, it started already with the later Only War supplements, with DH2 wanting you to have a specific Talent just to do Overwatch. You've basically "rulesified" the simple concept of looking in a general direction and shoot the bad guys when they appear.

I know I harp on the Overwatch-thing, but it really irks me and is symptomatic of a direction I hate.

This is reminiscent of the Talents introduced in Hammer of the Emperor, where Persuasive Charm allows someone to do Charm-tests to get a bonus on Acquisitions checks, by charming (but not in a gay way) the regimental quartermaster(s). Why does this require a rule, a separate Talent? I thought things like that was the reason we had the Charm skill!

While it's infeasible to have Beta-tests for every supplement, this is just the kind of thing players could've seen and thrown in the face of the developers and gone "What the hell is this ****?" . And they should've. Not sure if they would've, but they should've.

Beta-tests exists to kick things while they're down and argue vocally over a thousand and one things. I'm not sure that a decision to revamp the whole thing this far along in development is good, and they might end up pleasing nobody. But yeah.

If I dont like a rule, I can still skipp it, but I am always happy if I do not have to houserule something which is missing.

This is exactly what you're supposed to not do when testing any system.

Imagine if you were testing a piece of software, found a bug, but didn't submit it because you found a workaround. That's the antithesis of helpful testing. The whole point of testing is to test the system as written in order to discover what does and doesn't work.

If I dont like a rule, I can still skipp it, but I am always happy if I do not have to houserule something which is missing.

This is exactly what you're supposed to not do when testing any system.

Imagine if you were testing a piece of software, found a bug, but didn't submit it because you found a workaround. That's the antithesis of helpful testing. The whole point of testing is to test the system as written in order to discover what does and doesn't work.

I didnt mean it that way.

What I meant was, that if I do not like the flavour of a rule (which still might make sense) or I prefer to make somethjing simpler as I prefer a smoother flow over heavy rule, I might be skipping a rule - not because it might be a bad rule itself.

In my oppinion something as "too much rules" doesnt exist per se. I think for every major thing, a rule should be listed - even if its only optional. Thats why I buy a RULE-book.

Thats just my oppinion on this issue - I know that others have a different view towards this.

I think fluff is also important, but something I also may get from novels, Codices, Online pages, Dark Heresy SUpplements with fluff orientation and my own imagination.

From a core rule book, I primarily expect rules.

I'm just curious - is anyone familiar with how the Pathfinder beta worked. It's widely regarded as a successful beta. Did the process run differently or did the people have a different attitude then what's been happening here?

Hmm... I agree though. There's always an issue with mechanics that let you do stuff - if you have to have a mechanic to do cool thing X, then it gives you a great niche/reward. However, that means there's less flexibility at play time for what player's can do. There's no easy answer for a lot of these questions.

In my oppinion something as "too much rules" doesnt exist per se. I think for every major thing, a rule should be listed - even if its only optional. Thats why I buy a RULE-book.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to minor combat skirmishes taking two sessions. There needs to be a fine balance between rules and abstraction, you can't write rules for every minor little thing. I mean sure, optional rules are a viable solution here, but the thing is, you get to the point where half the book is optional rules, and it's just a mess, plus a massive drain on developer time.

I'd rather not have DH turn into GURPS, essentially. I don't think every possible scenario should be covered by a rule, I think the rules provided should be flexible and widely applicable enough to cover most possible scenarios.

In my oppinion something as "too much rules" doesnt exist per se. I think for every major thing, a rule should be listed - even if its only optional. Thats why I buy a RULE-book.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to minor combat skirmishes taking two sessions. There needs to be a fine balance between rules and abstraction, you can't write rules for every minor little thing. I mean sure, optional rules are a viable solution here, but the thing is, you get to the point where half the book is optional rules, and it's just a mess, plus a massive drain on developer time.

I'd rather not have DH turn into GURPS, essentially. I don't think every possible scenario should be covered by a rule, I think the rules provided should be flexible and widely applicable enough to cover most possible scenarios.

I said every MAJOR, not EVERY.

I want a rule for grappling, not a rule for kicking-enemies-into-the-right-knee-to-make them-lose-balance.

I want a rule for sneak attacks, not a rule for pushing-my-dagger-exactly-at-his-right-eye-while-laughing-in-a-mean-way.

I want a rule for range modifiers, not a rule for influence-of-wind-speed-and-direction-on-bullets.

You literally said ""too much rules" doesnt exist", which gave a completely different impression to what you're saying now.

I also said "I think for every major thing, a rule should be listed"

Anyway - sorry if I made a wrong impression.

I would like to see common things covered in rules.

The perception what is "common" of course differs from group to group and person to person.

One-time actions which occur only every 10th game dont need a rule. But some things (as said grappling) is of regular use in my groups, especially if a target has to be captured alive.

I'm just curious - is anyone familiar with how the Pathfinder beta worked. It's widely regarded as a successful beta. Did the process run differently or did the people have a different attitude then what's been happening here?

I heard a lot about Paizo ignoring problems players had. People were like, "Hey fighters still suck and here's some math to prove why," which was completely ignored. Fighters are a trap class in Pathfinder, a pre-existing problem that wasn't addressed at all.

What Paizo was successful at doing was drumming up fan support from all the people who felt 'betrayed' by WotC. They have an exceptional PR department.

What any of this has to do with DH2 is a mystery.

QFTW from the Monte Cook Article:

" 2. Feedback, not opinions. This is a tricky one for people to understand. If you give me a piece of coconut cream pie to see what I think, and my reply is, “I don’t like coconut,”I’ve given you an opinion, not feedback. It’s honest, but it doesn’t help you with your pie at all."

Yeah.

I heard a lot about Paizo ignoring problems players had. People were like, "Hey fighters still suck and here's some math to prove why," which was completely ignored. Fighters are a trap class in Pathfinder, a pre-existing problem that wasn't addressed at all.

As an occasional player of Pathfinder and a poster on Paizo's boards, I can attest to that. There's like a million threads with solid arguments as to why Fighters, Monks and Rogues (and some other, but these three have it the hardest) are seriously borked, and they're either ignored or get a response along the lines of "we're satisfied with how the class works currently, and don't intend to change anything about it anytime soon".

I've heard it was somewhat different with the beta of core rules (where, according to my anecdotal knowledge, lot of playtesters ensured that the dominance of casters remains an undisputed thing by screaming bloody murder at first drafts of martial classes for being "overpowered"), but at this point, they're running very straightforward playtests - they may fix a bug someone finds, or adjust a modifier here and there, but won't make too big changes to what they came up with, no matter the feedback.

Quite the polar opposite of what we have here with DH2.

Olifant man. You missing great point in your opinion. Beta testing is hard work, and actualy its good payment too. Right now WE ARE PAYING for betatesting. It makes us not only testers, but customers at the same time. So each and every one of us have every right to say, if he dislike some rule or change or mechanics. Just becouse in extrem it means - i dont like this and i wont by rulebook when you release it.

A totaly agree with Gaunt in that aspect what if there are good rules in book its always better then making house rules. Becouse if you already have a house rule on most part of rule book - you dont need it at all.

Thought i realy disagree with Gaunt wich parts should be changed. All what i tried to do makes wound system total disaster, old crit tables were in use only 3-4 time per session and were realy exiting, now watching in tables after every second attack is realy annoing and take too much time. Its if i dont mentioning what lifetime of average npc became too long for realy entertain, and most time became boring. Intresting but not actualy usable rules for social interraction. Poore armory, and unbalanced AP system. All this make me think i realy dont want to buy booke in this way.

I've been reading these forums for a couple of months now and I feel...

Too many people on this forum have forgotten or worse, do not care what a RPG is. A role playing game. For a story to be told and players to live vicariously through new, strange or already existing personas. A good group of players and a good GM can easily overcome any poor rules, or choices. Those of you who look for specific weakness in the mechanics are useful in BETAs like this, as you find the holes and problems in concepts, but do not forgot that you are not the target customer or common player. The average GM makes a story and wants to tell it, using the tools and narrative in the book to assist. Players use the book and rules to help guide them on character creation and advancement. Players (or worse) GMs who try to break a game to min/max a character will ruin the whole experience and quickly find themselves bored or not enjoying a game, about story, intrigue, betrayal and the grim dark universe that is 40k.

I am not defending the old or new BETA concepts, I am glad FFG is giving its public this much attention, but I fear the loudest and often (my opinion) the worst representation of the gaming community are being heard above the masses.

I have read dozens of 20+ page threads about people cursing at each other and getting into political and economic debates about the 40k universe and how it should be represented by our current real world systems. If this seems normal or completely okay with you, I'm writing to the wrong audience.

I want people who are game breakers playing and breaking this game in BETA to help polish the game and make it better. But I fear that FFG might be listening to the wrong people, instead of who will actually be buying and playing this game, not overtaxing it for a couple weeks and then leaving it for the next edition of whatever comes out.

Basically, I fear this game is becoming too large and complex for no apparent reason, other to appease people who want more specific rules for just about everything. My best example of this is DH1.0 no expansion, no supplements, is a perfectly functional game. There are loose interpretations and poor wording in areas yes, but anything game breaking? Not a thing. Why? Because it was purposefully left customizable and the whole system is built around a solid, effective and easily adjustable mechanic. 1d100.

I am not making excusing for sloppy game rules or poorly thought out ideas, but I am saying that most of the complaining or griping about mundane mechanics like the acquisition system (which I hate but accept) are simply rules lawyers who either refuse to understand that nothing is in stone or simply want things to be their way, because it appeases them.

I am very disappointed in this overall community.

Just my two cents.

Here it is folks, we can stop the beta test now. The entire process is redundant; GMs will just make up their own game, anyway.

Seriously, though, I had a good laugh at your post, Olifant. It seems that since FFG announced they were going back to the drawing board with 2e, the forums have slowed down and I haven't been able to enjoy trawling through the "complaining or griping about mundane mechanics". Of course, I'm a masochist, so make of that what you will.

I don't see anything in the OP that is constructive to either the Beta testing process in general, or others' criticisms and suggestions. Overall, I'd have to say it is the worst post on these forums. Of course people are going to get emotionally invested in the beta test, of course people are going to have opinions and defend them. This is what half a decade of playing traditional RPGs does to a person. In fact, you've done it with your own hypocritical post.

I am very disappointed in your post Olifant. Maybe you should play more RPGs before posting like that

Alright new plan, lets just let whatever we want in the game, don't worry about what that encourages within the game or how one player is infinitely better than another. It's all up to the GM to decide anyway right.

I mean look how rock solid the rules were in Dark Heresy 1e that never caused a problem. I thought it was perfectly fine for one player to start with a needle rifle with 1000 thrones and the guy next to him to be unable to afford both shoes and bread in return for zero extra abilities. That work out fine, its not like as a GM I had to do a **** load of backwork to get it to the point where one guy is not randomly crippled for the rest of the game right?

Why would you bother to try and improve a game right? Thats just dumb guys seriously. Testing stuff? Thats not what REAL RPGs are like.

Have you listened to yourself at all? Have you got zero self awareness?

Your saying its a good idea to not worry about the rules of a system. How I, and virtually everyone goes about using a system is they look at it and try and figure out what they need to do to get it to work the way they specifically want. The less they need to change the better. Its never going to be perfect but if all I need to do is change up a few costs for things that is infinitely better than having careers just fail to function within the confines of the game because some moron on the forums decided that wasn't what REAL RPGs were about.

Alright new plan, lets just let whatever we want in the game, don't worry about what that encourages within the game or how one player is infinitely better than another. It's all up to the GM to decide anyway right.

I mean look how rock solid the rules were in Dark Heresy 1e that never caused a problem. I thought it was perfectly fine for one player to start with a needle rifle with 1000 thrones and the guy next to him to be unable to afford both shoes and bread in return for zero extra abilities. That work out fine, its not like as a GM I had to do a **** load of backwork to get it to the point where one guy is not randomly crippled for the rest of the game right?

Why would you bother to try and improve a game right? Thats just dumb guys seriously. Testing stuff? Thats not what REAL RPGs are like.

Have you listened to yourself at all? Have you got zero self awareness?

Your saying its a good idea to not worry about the rules of a system. How I, and virtually everyone goes about using a system is they look at it and try and figure out what they need to do to get it to work the way they specifically want. The less they need to change the better. Its never going to be perfect but if all I need to do is change up a few costs for things that is infinitely better than having careers just fail to function within the confines of the game because some moron on the forums decided that wasn't what REAL RPGs were about.

Right said !

But...ahm...Kincom...your avatar...it is...well, how do I put this...a COW ?!

QFTW from the Monte Cook Article:

" 2. Feedback, not opinions. This is a tricky one for people to understand. If you give me a piece of coconut cream pie to see what I think, and my reply is, “I don’t like coconut,”I’ve given you an opinion, not feedback. It’s honest, but it doesn’t help you with your pie at all."

Yeah.

As the guy who linked the article, I probably should have mentioned that due to a different methodology of playtesting proposed by FFG, opinions do matter more than Monte gives them credit for, at least on the developers' side.

An open beta in which anyone can participate and which presents the playtesters with like 90% complete draft of the projected book is part playtest, part publicity stunt (and since FFG is charging for the beta rules, something of a preorder/money run as well). Opinions expressed may not matter much on the designers' side, but they certainly do matter for the people in charge of money, and with such a formula, the beta process can take both into account.

This doesn't change the fact that this board is 90% noise, 10% relevant feedback, and that it'd be nice if we could change that for round two.

I agree with you, but you can always give constructive feedback along with your opinion. Something along the lines of."I don't like having to refer to thirty pages (intentional hyperbole) of crit tables. Here's why: blah blah blah. If I had to play a game with umpteen pages of crit tables, here is what I'd prefer: blah."

That's helpful.

I'm sure I'm not alone here, but as someone who owns the core books for DH, RT, and BC and all of the supplements for those systems (well, I did skip the Chaos Commandment), I am in fact a member of the target consumer audience. I don't own Deathwatch, Only War, or anything for either of those systems because they don't appeal to me (although I appreciate the evolution of the ruleset). I am selective with my dollars.

But even if this was someone's first introduction to DH, if that person bothered to pay a $20 entrance fee just to beta test an unfinished project, that person is by definition not just a consumer (by virtue of purchasing a product) but one who likely cares a good deal about the quality of the finished project.

Everyone here who bought the Beta pdf is invested in the outcome - whether they loved the original beta or hated it. The people most likely to introduce their friends to the new system. Dismissing them as not typical of consumers or representative of who will be buying the game is missing the boat by a wide margin.

QFTW from the Monte Cook Article:

" 2. Feedback, not opinions. This is a tricky one for people to understand. If you give me a piece of coconut cream pie to see what I think, and my reply is, “I don’t like coconut,”I’ve given you an opinion, not feedback. It’s honest, but it doesn’t help you with your pie at all."

Yeah.

As the guy who linked the article, I probably should have mentioned that due to a different methodology of playtesting proposed by FFG, opinions do matter more than Monte gives them credit for, at least on the developers' side.

An open beta in which anyone can participate and which presents the playtesters with like 90% complete draft of the projected book is part playtest, part publicity stunt (and since FFG is charging for the beta rules, something of a preorder/money run as well). Opinions expressed may not matter much on the designers' side, but they certainly do matter for the people in charge of money, and with such a formula, the beta process can take both into account.

This doesn't change the fact that this board is 90% noise, 10% relevant feedback, and that it'd be nice if we could change that for round two.

I agree that consumer opinion is more valuable than Monte Cook allows. He was part of the 'first generation' of RPG designers, a group who saw themselves as an elite group, and the consumers of their games as ignorant peasants. Hence, the attitude of designers in the '80s was very much "We know what's best for you- now shut up and give us your money!" That worked for a while, when there were only a handful of RPGs on the market. But now, with the multitude of choices available, game designers that adopt the old-fashioned attitude of "Just find the technical flaws, and leave the real decisions to your betters" are courting disaster...

In other words, the question is not just "Does my idea work?" but "Is my idea what the target audience wants?"

QFTW from the Monte Cook Article:

" 2. Feedback, not opinions. This is a tricky one for people to understand. If you give me a piece of coconut cream pie to see what I think, and my reply is, “I don’t like coconut,”I’ve given you an opinion, not feedback. It’s honest, but it doesn’t help you with your pie at all."

Yeah.

As the guy who linked the article, I probably should have mentioned that due to a different methodology of playtesting proposed by FFG, opinions do matter more than Monte gives them credit for, at least on the developers' side.

An open beta in which anyone can participate and which presents the playtesters with like 90% complete draft of the projected book is part playtest, part publicity stunt (and since FFG is charging for the beta rules, something of a preorder/money run as well). Opinions expressed may not matter much on the designers' side, but they certainly do matter for the people in charge of money, and with such a formula, the beta process can take both into account.

This doesn't change the fact that this board is 90% noise, 10% relevant feedback, and that it'd be nice if we could change that for round two.

I agree that consumer opinion is more valuable than Monte Cook allows. He was part of the 'first generation' of RPG designers, a group who saw themselves as an elite group, and the consumers of their games as ignorant peasants. Hence, the attitude of designers in the '80s was very much "We know what's best for you- now shut up and give us your money!" That worked for a while, when there were only a handful of RPGs on the market. But now, with the multitude of choices available, game designers that adopt the old-fashioned attitude of "Just find the technical flaws, and leave the real decisions to your betters" are courting disaster...

In other words, the question is not just "Does my idea work?" but "Is my idea what the target audience wants?"

Note, Monte's comment on consumer opinion was in a very specific context of a very specific (closed) playtest. I don't know what's his general stance on such matters, but it's actually impossible to infer from this particular article of his.