I see where you're coming from, but I really do feel like some effort should be made to make all options equally enticing from a mechanical standpoint and a fluff one. People shouldn't feel like they're gimping themselves by choosing the option that suits their character best.

I see where you're coming from, but I really do feel like some effort should be made to make all options equally enticing from a mechanical standpoint and a fluff one. People shouldn't feel like they're gimping themselves by choosing the option that suits their character best.

Yep. This. Even one player can ruin the party with a better combo of Aptitudes. The guy with the good Aptitudes takes the front seat in the adventure as he will have all the nice abilities while the others slowly fall behind because they couldn't afford those abilities at the same level.

It's probably worth rebalancing Aptitudes, really. They're not exactly designed with Dark Heresy in mind in the first place.

I started a thred on that. So far no love.

Currently all adepts are weaklings, with no option to be any different from each other.

This is not even remotely true. The Administratum Background gives you one of the seven Aptitudes for your character. An Administratum Warrior is going to be a lot different from an Administratum Sage.

Currently all adepts are weaklings, with no option to be any different from each other.

This is not even remotely true. The Administratum Background gives you one of the seven Aptitudes for your character. An Administratum Warrior is going to be a lot different from an Administratum Sage.

I think he meant the classic Adept "role" and not the Background. An Administratum Warrior is not an Adept but some sort of chamber enforcer or bodyguard for the officials (the real Adepts who are Sages or maybe Seekers).

Or an adept clerk buried in paperwork so long he is Tired Of Dealing With This **** and brings a gun into work one day.

Or an adept clerk buried in paperwork so long he is Tired Of Dealing With This **** and brings a gun into work one day.

They call those "Postal adepts"

To begin with, let me say I just love this topic.

It's just what we need, with direct, concise suggestions to improve character creation.

I particularly agree with the concern regarding Fate Points. I see no sense for rolling it. What I do in my campaigns is give all players the same number of Fate Points, three or four, depending on the campaign.

I would say that an interesting idea would be having the GM adjudicate a number from 2 to 5 for all players, depending on how "cinematographic" the campaign will be.

I don't like very much the idea of different characters starting with a different amount of FPs, as Fate is not something you choose or defined by which planet you come from. Fate is more of a "destiny pool", so to speak.

That is why I disagree with Elior, when he argued that Shrine Worlders should have more FPS. What they have is faith, not Fate.

Apart from that, I would say that I agree wholeheartedly with your initial post, except for the part regarding psykers.

I think that the system with Sanctioning as an origin and Mystic as a "class" works perfectly, at least thematically.

I can see the logic behind wanting shrine worlders to have more fate. It makes some sense. But in this case, I think it's WELL worth letting gameplay take precedence over fluff. No one likes being the guy who starts with two less fate points than everyone else. It's not fun. Fun is important.

I can see the logic behind wanting shrine worlders to have more fate. It makes some sense. But in this case, I think it's WELL worth letting gameplay take precedence over fluff. No one likes being the guy who starts with two less fate points than everyone else. It's not fun. Fun is important.

Tom, not only I agree, I would say that fun is the most important thing in RPG.

this is why I believe in giving all players the same initial amount of FPs is an idea that could work very well.

What do you think?

I can see the logic behind wanting shrine worlders to have more fate. It makes some sense. But in this case, I think it's WELL worth letting gameplay take precedence over fluff. No one likes being the guy who starts with two less fate points than everyone else. It's not fun. Fun is important.

Tom, not only I agree, I would say that fun is the most important thing in RPG.

this is why I believe in giving all players the same initial amount of FPs is an idea that could work very well.

What do you think?

The Gm could allow the group to roll once and apply the results to all characters as appropriate. Maybe?

I can see the logic behind wanting shrine worlders to have more fate. It makes some sense. But in this case, I think it's WELL worth letting gameplay take precedence over fluff. No one likes being the guy who starts with two less fate points than everyone else. It's not fun. Fun is important.

Tom, not only I agree, I would say that fun is the most important thing in RPG.

this is why I believe in giving all players the same initial amount of FPs is an idea that could work very well.

What do you think?

The Gm could allow the group to roll once and apply the results to all characters as appropriate. Maybe?

Why, though?

What does the randomness of starting fate points add to the game?

Grognards love random stats.

In seriousness, one argument I can see is that you may forgo a background with more fate points in order to take a background that is more interesting, gives you access to some unique ability, or has some other mechanical offset. Whether this exists in practice is a matter of debate.

I can see the logic behind wanting shrine worlders to have more fate. It makes some sense. But in this case, I think it's WELL worth letting gameplay take precedence over fluff. No one likes being the guy who starts with two less fate points than everyone else. It's not fun. Fun is important.

Tom, not only I agree, I would say that fun is the most important thing in RPG.

this is why I believe in giving all players the same initial amount of FPs is an idea that could work very well.

What do you think?

The Gm could allow the group to roll once and apply the results to all characters as appropriate. Maybe?

Why, though?

What does the randomness of starting fate points add to the game?

Grognards love random stats.

In seriousness, one argument I can see is that you may forgo a background with more fate points in order to take a background that is more interesting, gives you access to some unique ability, or has some other mechanical offset. Whether this exists in practice is a matter of debate.

I think both suggestions are valid.

Personally I don't use any dice in character creation, in any RPG, including, evidently, all WH40k RPGs. I think the randomness robs a lot from char creation. However, I think that allowing both options, in the same sense that there is an option for rolling stats and another one for using "stat points" exist.

Personally, however, I'm a great believer in GM caveat, personally for an attribute that defines a lot of the feeling of the chronicle.

And I think that CPS is 100% right regarding going less for just fate points, talents and abilities that can be bought later with XP and more for unique abilities that give the feel of the background to the characters.

I remember they started that with Psykers and Tech Priests in DH 1, created special abilities for all classes in RT and kept the idea, and I believe it should be fully incorporated for backgrounds.

Any cool suggestions?

I gotta say I like the assassin's ability a lot, thematically speaking.

In a related topic, I loved this expression, "grognard".

I just googled it, and it seems to be a common slang, but I never noticed it before!

And now you'll be seeing them everywhere (on FFG forums) ...

Oh, I have been seeing them for a looong time.

In a sense, I'm one of them, as I've been playing RPGs for some time.

But it's very hard to identify with any of their ideas, as this is certainly the most rules-heavy game I play. =)

Cool trivia:

grognard m ( plural grognards )

1. an old veteran soldier; specifically of the grenadiers of the Imperial Guard (Grenadiers à Pied de la Garde Impériale); an old complaining soldier

is 25 years long enough I wonder, to be a grognard?

I really don't care whether fate is rolled for or not but I have found tha players tend to "feel" better about stats or numbers that they themselves rolled. It allows them to own the result and also to create more participation or drama depending on what the roll was for.

Okay, I edited in some more of the points that were discussed. Anything else? Any other counterpoints to what's up there so far?

The high characteristics low xp thing.