CPS, I understand that you like that the rules support the ability to play unsanctioned psykers. The system gives you the freedom to play one with any character combination that doesn't include AAT. The problem myself and other people have is that the current rules take away the freedom to play a sanctioned psyker from non-AAT backgrounds, something which is also more common in the fluff working for the inquisition than unsanctioned psykers are.

I'm perfectly fine having the freedom to play an unsanctioned psyker. I just want more freedom for playing a sanctioned one. In this case I think you would maximize choices by making psyker ONLY be an elite advance, same as untouchables. Make it cost 200 or 300 xp and be sanctioned by default. For 100xp less, the psyker doesn't start off sanctioned. Rework the mystic role around a bit to make it a viable choice for anyone. Now you suddenly have opened up a lot more options for players wanting to play psyker characters during character creation.

Doesn't this proposal just complicate a system that is being handled elegantly?

CPS, I understand that you like that the rules support the ability to play unsanctioned psykers. The system gives you the freedom to play one with any character combination that doesn't include AAT. The problem myself and other people have is that the current rules take away the freedom to play a sanctioned psyker from non-AAT backgrounds, something which is also more common in the fluff working for the inquisition than unsanctioned psykers are.

I'm perfectly fine having the freedom to play an unsanctioned psyker. I just want more freedom for playing a sanctioned one. In this case I think you would maximize choices by making psyker ONLY be an elite advance, same as untouchables. Make it cost 200 or 300 xp and be sanctioned by default. For 100xp less, the psyker doesn't start off sanctioned. Rework the mystic role around a bit to make it a viable choice for anyone. Now you suddenly have opened up a lot more options for players wanting to play psyker characters during character creation.

I understand your position, and I actually empathize with it. All the way back in the original beta I suggested moving Sanctioned to its own elite advance and making it free for AAT. The trait is worth about 400XP, but maybe make it cheap, or even free, to any psyker who wants it. I think that's a more elegant way of handling the issue of the restrictions in choice in order to play a sanctioned psyker.

I just want to throw this out there, but as far as the fluff goes all Sanctioned Psykers operating in the Imperium are members of the AAT. Heck, the AAT are the ones responsible for the recruitment, sanctioning, and training of Psykers, no other organisation is authorised by the High Lords of Terra to do this. The often quoted example of Imperial Guard Psykers are just members of the Astra Telepathica attached to a guardsman regiment.

In the 40k setting there is no such thing as a Sanctioned Psyker that doesn't work for (or in the case of those now belonging to the Inquisition; used to work for) the Adeptus Astra Telepathica.

This literally does not matter. We're talking about the mechanics of character creation. Those mechanics can have narrative consequences, but limiting player choices to satisfy some need to fall in line with the norm of the setting is folly.

CPS, I understand that you like that the rules support the ability to play unsanctioned psykers. The system gives you the freedom to play one with any character combination that doesn't include AAT. The problem myself and other people have is that the current rules take away the freedom to play a sanctioned psyker from non-AAT backgrounds, something which is also more common in the fluff working for the inquisition than unsanctioned psykers are.

I'm perfectly fine having the freedom to play an unsanctioned psyker. I just want more freedom for playing a sanctioned one. In this case I think you would maximize choices by making psyker ONLY be an elite advance, same as untouchables. Make it cost 200 or 300 xp and be sanctioned by default. For 100xp less, the psyker doesn't start off sanctioned. Rework the mystic role around a bit to make it a viable choice for anyone. Now you suddenly have opened up a lot more options for players wanting to play psyker characters during character creation.

I understand your position, and I actually empathize with it. All the way back in the original beta I suggested moving Sanctioned to its own elite advance and making it free for AAT. The trait is worth about 400XP, but maybe make it cheap, or even free, to any psyker who wants it. I think that's a more elegant way of handling the issue of the restrictions in choice in order to play a sanctioned psyker.

I just want to throw this out there, but as far as the fluff goes all Sanctioned Psykers operating in the Imperium are members of the AAT. Heck, the AAT are the ones responsible for the recruitment, sanctioning, and training of Psykers, no other organisation is authorised by the High Lords of Terra to do this. The often quoted example of Imperial Guard Psykers are just members of the Astra Telepathica attached to a guardsman regiment.

In the 40k setting there is no such thing as a Sanctioned Psyker that doesn't work for (or in the case of those now belonging to the Inquisition; used to work for) the Adeptus Astra Telepathica.

This literally does not matter. We're talking about the mechanics of character creation. Those mechanics can have narrative consequences, but limiting player choices to satisfy some need to fall in line with the norm of the setting is folly.

Well, my thoughts go absolutely opposite to yours.

In an RPG, you have to fit the rules to the setting, not the setting to the rules.

So you're totally okay mechanically punishing players who want to play a particular kind of character you think doesn't line up with the setting somehow. A character type that exists in the setting and is a primary subject of a lot of the lore.

Tell me how this makes sense.

But the argument could be made that, given most of their time has been spent on the field fighting alongside an IG regiment, the IG background suits better than the Telepathica one.

I'm a fan of this approach because it opens up a lot more variety for Psyker characters.

Yeah, like the sanctioned psykers are gonna be mucking around in the trenches and carrying heavy loads. The AAT background with Peer (Imperial Guard) and a suitable backstory suits them just fine, they don't need mechanical differences for being in the proximity of Guardsmen for long periods of time any more than a tech-priest attached to the Guard would.

But the argument could be made that, given most of their time has been spent on the field fighting alongside an IG regiment, the IG background suits better than the Telepathica one.

I'm a fan of this approach because it opens up a lot more variety for Psyker characters.

Yeah, like the sanctioned psykers are gonna be mucking around in the trenches and carrying heavy loads. The AAT background with Peer (Imperial Guard) and a suitable backstory suits them just fine, they don't need mechanical differences for being in the proximity of Guardsmen for long periods of time any more than a tech-priest attached to the Guard would.

That is a good point.

So you're totally okay mechanically punishing players who want to play a particular kind of character you think doesn't line up with the setting somehow. A character type that exists in the setting and is a primary subject of a lot of the lore.

Well, I for one am perfectly OK with mechanically punishing* players who insist on making their character that unique snowflake** and thus reject a stereotype*** based on the education that is most likely to serve them/society the best, and which would have been given to 95%+ of all their peers. There is a price to be paid for being different, and this is a good candidate.

* Punishing is not a good choice of word here. You may feel you are being punished, but really you're just paying the price of admission.

** F*** but I've seen too many of these. Badly imagined, badly written, going agains the grain and yet insisting that they should loose nothing mechanically "because my choice is just as valid as everyone elses!". Wake up and smell the soy-caff! I may agree personally that you choice should be perfectly valid, but your character lives in a totalitarian, fascist theocracy. Being different hurts !

*** Why is something a stereotype? Because it works ! I've by now seen so many annoying unique snowflake PCs that the "rebel" has become the norm. If you're a PC, appearantly following the stereotype makes you the rebel.

EDIT: OK, that got a tad more vitriolic than intended. Some of this come from campaigns played a decade before DH1 was released or more. That doesn't change the point though.

So you're totally okay mechanically punishing players who want to play a particular kind of character you think doesn't line up with the setting somehow. A character type that exists in the setting and is a primary subject of a lot of the lore.

Well, I for one am perfectly OK with mechanically punishing* players who insist on making their character that unique snowflake** and thus reject a stereotype*** based on the education that is most likely to serve them/society the best, and which would have been given to 95%+ of all their peers. There is a price to be paid for being different, and this is a good candidate.

* Punishing is not a good choice of word here. You may feel you are being punished, but really you're just paying the price of admission.

** F*** but I've seen too many of these. Badly imagined, badly written, going agains the grain and yet insisting that they should loose nothing mechanically "because my choice is just as valid as everyone elses!". Wake up and smell the soy-caff! I may agree personally that you choice should be perfectly valid, but your character lives in a totalitarian, fascist theocracy. Being different hurts !

*** Why is something a stereotype? Because it works ! I've by now seen so many annoying unique snowflake PCs that the "rebel" has become the norm. If you're a PC, appearantly following the stereotype makes you the rebel.

EDIT: OK, that got a tad more vitriolic than intended. Some of this come from campaigns played a decade before DH1 was released or more. That doesn't change the point though.

I feel the same way Tenebrae. The world (especially 40k Universe) typically doesn't like nor accepts those that go against the grain. Most of those that are successful at going against the grain accept the consequences. They are also typically frowned upon, considered rebels and outcasts. I warn all of my players about this ahead of time. Those that specialize too much tend to have their weaknesses exploited. Life isn't always fair, especially in the 40K Universe.

Of course, this is subject to preference but it is how I imagine the setting. A Guardsman is a Guardsman is a Guardsman. Without considering special regiment types, they are all taught the same skills and talents for the most part. I would also estimate that a Guardsman would NOT consider an AAT trained psyker a "Guardsman" even though they may wear the uniform.

Special snowflake Mary Sues are a problem with the player, not the rules of the game. Or perhaps they're a problem with the GM, who reacts with hatred toward anything that doesn't fit his perception of make believe space magicians.

"Cost of admission" essentially means you have to pay for your fun. Like being a fighter in 3.5 D&D. Want to do anything more interesting than standard attacks? Hope you're okay paying for a half dozen feats to make what you want to do even remotely viable at the expense of other interesting feats. Not good design.

DH1 had a passage somewhere that said player characters are selected to work for the Inquisition precisely because they do not fit the mold of the average Imperial citizen. Your arguments for conformity go entirely against the whole core concept of RPGs - that the player characters are exceptional.

I have no personal problem with players that make super specialized characters but if they have lack certain skills in other important areas, they can expect not to be useful in those situations. It's not about GM hatred or conforming to a certain mold because of the GM. It's just the nature of the campaign world.

It all depends on how the campaign world is envisioned by GMs and players. It's the same thing as allowing or disallowing Xeno characters.

Special snowflake Mary Sues are a problem with the player, not the rules of the game. Or perhaps they're a problem with the GM, who reacts with hatred toward anything that doesn't fit his perception of make believe space magicians.

I've GMed for far too many of them. I even used to like them. Until I realized what the problem about them was.

"Cost of admission" essentially means you have to pay for your fun. Like being a fighter in 3.5 D&D. Want to do anything more interesting than standard attacks? Hope you're okay paying for a half dozen feats to make what you want to do even remotely viable at the expense of other interesting feats. Not good design.

That PCs are inately special is ... not a core concept. Some games have this - Exalted, mentioned above have this very strongly, in some of it's versions, but it's by no means universal. D&D does this as well, to the point of (to me) breaking it's own setting.

Another school of thought - the other school of thought if you will - is that PCs are exceptional not because of what they have but what they do with it. Not what they can do, but what they use those skills more.

This is rather like how Space Marines are boring. Space Marines aren't heroes. Why?

They know no fear. In some versions of the fluff, they have literally had that part of the brain removed. But fearlessness doesn't make you a hero, indeed it fundamentally diminishes your potential for epicness.

Feeling fear and overcomming it - now that's the mark of a hero!

I'm for one that advocates a balanced warband. Each character relying upon each other to get accomplish a mission and stay alive. This group dynamic encourages and depends upon cooperation between characters. This is why I agree with Tenebrae. All characters from different professions should not have the option to all be the same.

I'm for one that advocates a balanced warband. Each character relying upon each other to get accomplish a mission and stay alive. This group dynamic encourages and depends upon cooperation between characters. This is why I agree with Tenebrae. All characters from different professions should not have the option to all be the same.

What an empty platitude.

Let's clarify that we're talking about the character creation system. The mechanics by which a player defines the character they will play.

Not their personality, not their backstory, not even how they fit in to the rest of the group. This is the system to create a character within the mechanics of the game. All of that other stuff is outside of that. If you've got players creating characters that do not mesh well with the group or the GM's game, your problem is not the character creation system - it is the player.

Why should players be restricted from playing character archetypes that exist both as concepts in the source fiction and in the character creation rules as they currently are?

Your arguments for conformity go entirely against the whole core concept of RPGs - that the player characters are exceptional.

That PCs are inately special is ... not a core concept . Some games have this - Exalted, mentioned above have this very strongly, in some of it's versions, but it's by no means universal. D&D does this as well, to the point of (to me) breaking it's own setting.

Another school of thought - the other school of thought if you will - is that PCs are exceptional not because of what they have but what they do with it. Not what they can do, but what they use those skills more.

This is rather like how Space Marines are boring. Space Marines aren't heroes. Why?

They know no fear. In some versions of the fluff, they have literally had that part of the brain removed. But fearlessness doesn't make you a hero, indeed it fundamentally diminishes your potential for epicness.

Feeling fear and overcomming it - now that's the mark of a hero!

Chapter 2 of the new PDF, literally the first sentence:

Players in Dark Heresy take on the role of unique and exceptional individuals plucked from across the galaxy to become Acolytes in the service of an Inquisitor.

Unique and exceptional. Not the norm.

Later:

[The player characters] only common aspect is that they have drawn the attention of an Inquisitor, who believes their unique abilities can aid him in fighting the foes of Mankind

You're wrong on this one.

-----

I maintain that feat taxes are a bad design. If you want to do cool thing X, your feats are pretty much laid out for you in order to main cool thing X a viable option. Where feats were a cool opportunity to customize your character, they instead become perfunctory. "Even level attained, time to take Improved Cool Thing X." It is the illusion of choice.

I am curious on your opinions on feat traps (Toughness, for example).

It's up to the GM and players to determine what the norm is. It's pretty easy to place restrictions on the current character creation rules if need be.

I am curious on your opinions on feat traps (Toughness, for example).

Me? I read D&D 3.5 and decided I could be bothered to waste my time with such a poor design over all. Not when their are so many better systems out there. D&D is generally rather poorly designed, I was simply pointing out that the bit you were complaining about wasn't actually bad, considering their aims and priorities.

I want DH2 to be significantly better than that.

This literally does not matter. We're talking about the mechanics of character creation. Those mechanics can have narrative consequences, but limiting player choices to satisfy some need to fall in line with the norm of the setting is folly.

I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't agree with you here; ignoring (or even contradicting) the setting when creating mechanics just leads to a generic system with no real ties to its source material. In the end it doesn't really matter because individual GMs have free reign to do whatever they want regardless of what FFG publishes, but I feel if someone's going to pay money for a 40k RPG then it should at least reflect established 40k lore.

This literally does not matter. We're talking about the mechanics of character creation. Those mechanics can have narrative consequences, but limiting player choices to satisfy some need to fall in line with the norm of the setting is folly.

I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't agree with you here; ignoring (or even contradicting) the setting when creating mechanics just leads to a generic system with no real ties to its source material. In the end it doesn't really matter because individual GMs have free reign to do whatever they want regardless of what FFG publishes, but I feel if someone's going to pay money for a 40k RPG then it should at least reflect established 40k lore.

Explain to me the leap from "do not contradict the lore" to "player should not be allowed to play unsanctioned psykers without GM houserules." We're not talking about horned dragon people here, guys. None of this is that far out there.

The rules should be as open and inclusive as possible so that players can play any kind of character they want. If GMs want to ban or punish players for choosing any particular kind of character, they're free to do that. Don't bake that into the rules. There are already warnings about the narrative consequences of being unsanctioned. Leave it at that.

I'm guessing you meant "playing a non-AAT Sanctioned Psyker without houserules", right?

All I can really do is repeat what I've said about all Sanctionees being members of the Adeptus Astra Telepathica, and then possibly make an analogy to a Deathwatch player wanting to be a Black Templar Librarian, but I get the feeling that isn't really going to help either of us come to any sort of agreement on this subject. Agree to disagree for now?

Hello again, gentlemen!

Sorry for my prolonged absence, but now I'm back at the office and can resume being a lousy professional.

So, I noticed that the theme evolved a lot from where I last participated in it, but I'd like to comment on three posts that sum it up, IMHO:

Well, I for one am perfectly OK with mechanically punishing* players who insist on making their character that unique snowflake** and thus reject a stereotype*** based on the education that is most likely to serve them/society the best, and which would have been given to 95%+ of all their peers. There is a price to be paid for being different, and this is a good candidate.

So you're totally okay mechanically punishing players who want to play a particular kind of character you think doesn't line up with the setting somehow. A character type that exists in the setting and is a primary subject of a lot of the lore.

* Punishing is not a good choice of word here. You may feel you are being punished, but really you're just paying the price of admission.

** F*** but I've seen too many of these. Badly imagined, badly written, going agains the grain and yet insisting that they should loose nothing mechanically "because my choice is just as valid as everyone elses!". Wake up and smell the soy-caff! I may agree personally that you choice should be perfectly valid, but your character lives in a totalitarian, fascist theocracy. Being different hurts !

*** Why is something a stereotype? Because it works ! I've by now seen so many annoying unique snowflake PCs that the "rebel" has become the norm. If you're a PC, appearantly following the stereotype makes you the rebel.

EDIT: OK, that got a tad more vitriolic than intended. Some of this come from campaigns played a decade before DH1 was released or more. That doesn't change the point though.

I quoted this just because I loved the critique on the "unique snowflakes". Fortunately I play with an older, more mature group and haven't seen players like that for years (as I believe is the case for most of us here), but I know precisely what you mean!

I don't agree very much with the third asterisk, and wouldn't agree with your statement as it originally was written, but when you changed it from "punishing" to "having a cost", it became great.

The second asterisk in particular is great. Of course you can be different. But in a stratified, discriminating society like the Imperium, there will be a cost for it. Many players, usually but not only beginners, have some difficulty understanding that they can be unique, interesting characters without being totally far out übermensch. Your Hive World Adeptus Arbites can be as interesting, if not more so, than the Half-Eldar Daemonhost played by another character.

Explain to me the leap from "do not contradict the lore" to "player should not be allowed to play unsanctioned psykers without GM houserules." We're not talking about horned dragon people here, guys. None of this is that far out there.

The rules should be as open and inclusive as possible so that players can play any kind of character they want. If GMs want to ban or punish players for choosing any particular kind of character, they're free to do that. Don't bake that into the rules. There are already warnings about the narrative consequences of being unsanctioned. Leave it at that.

I'm guessing you meant "playing a non-AAT Sanctioned Psyker without houserules", right?

All I can really do is repeat what I've said about all Sanctionees being members of the Adeptus Astra Telepathica, and then possibly make an analogy to a Deathwatch player wanting to be a Black Templar Librarian, but I get the feeling that isn't really going to help either of us come to any sort of agreement on this subject. Agree to disagree for now?

I would say that those two posts sum up the discussion.

I particularly not only have nothing against having my players using unsanctioned Psykers, I even mentioned in this very topic that it will be one of the basis for my next campaign!

But the problem is, in the WH40K universe, there are no Sanctioned Psykers from outside the AAT, as it is the very organization that Sanctions Psykers! And let us remember that it is not a process that takes a week or two. It takes years, most times decades, to be apprehended, taken to Earth and Sanctioned.

You may have been serving the Arbites, Mechanicus or Ministorum before that, but I would say it is pretty much impossible to have something that you define more then the time you were with the AAT if you are Sanctioned.

Again, we are playing this game because we - love / like / have a codependent relationship with - the WH40K universe.

And the rules are made to serve the setting, not the other way around.

So your position is, essentially, that in order to be a Sanctioned Psyker, one must choose the AAT background. Period.

So the system we have now is fine?

So your position is, essentially, that in order to be a Sanctioned Psyker, one must choose the AAT background. Period.

So the system we have now is fine?

We need a Talent that makes the Psyker Bound because Bound =/= Sanctioned, but all psykers start as Unbound. Other than that, i would say that it is fine.

So your position is, essentially, that in order to be a Sanctioned Psyker, one must choose the AAT background. Period.

So the system we have now is fine?

In this specific point, certainly.

So your position is, essentially, that in order to be a Sanctioned Psyker, one must choose the AAT background. Period.

So the system we have now is fine?

We need a Talent that makes the Psyker Bound because Bound =/= Sanctioned, but all psykers start as Unbound. Other than that, i would say that it is fine.

AtoMaki, I'm not sure about this, but aren't only Astropaths bound?

At least for Psykers not bound to daemons or other nasty options like that?

AtoMaki, I'm not sure about this, but aren't only Astropaths bound?

Nope. A Bound psyker is anyone who has firm control over his psychic abilities. A rogue psyker with strong self-discipline is also a Bound psyker though he isn't Sanctioned. A Space Marine Librarian is also a Bound but he isn't Sanctioned. Most Xeno psykers (like the Eldar) are also Bound but not Sanctioned.