I've never agreed with the assertation that DH should be a very granular, detailed game because it's a 'tense investigation game'.

I mean, Gumshoe handles investigation better than any other system I've encountered, and it's very rules light.

I've never agreed with the assertation that DH should be a very granular, detailed game because it's a 'tense investigation game'.

I mean, Gumshoe handles investigation better than any other system I've encountered, and it's very rules light.

DH should likely be a very granular detailed game because many of its players objectively like that aspect of it, as potentially demonstrated by the system's persistent popularity.

Having the details present in an approachable way makes it easy for GMs who don't like them to just houserule it.

I mean, you can literally watch gameplay where things like ready rules, descriptive hit/crit system, and diverse character talents leads to more enjoyment.

There happens to be a reason that higher-detail RPGs like D&D 3.5, DH, and CoC tend to remain popular for years: There's literally more for players to do.

Oh, I totally get why the system is the way it is. I'm not debating that. I'm questioning this assertion a lot of people have that DH needs to be detailed and complex because it's a gritty investigation focused game. You can easily nail the tone and style of DH in much more rules-light systems.

Oh, I totally get why the system is the way it is. I'm not debating that. I'm questioning this assertion a lot of people have that DH needs to be detailed and complex because it's a gritty investigation focused game. You can easily nail the tone and style of DH in much more rules-light systems.

Well this is the point where you'd need to demonstrate how something like "Gumshoe" nails the tone of DH.

There seem to have been perhaps descriptions in the thread previously of the drama created by decisions of when and how to bring out a weapon using the DH rules.

I could probably do that, but honestly I can't be bothered. I have no intention of trying to convince FFG, or the people here that Dark Heresy should change direction completely. I don't want Dark Heresy to become Gumshoe. I have Gumshoe for that. Dark Heresy works (relatively) fine as it is, and I'd rather it stay the same style of game, albeit with a **** lot more fine-tuning, and a bit of a clearer mission statement.

I like coming to threads and finding Fgdfsg has already said exactly what I wanted to say. Also Balenorn.

And again, the point that Tom has made is that just because the system worked decently for its time/is popular doesn't mean that it's particularly great now. I'm sure you can think of a lot of popular media that isn't actually that good, including video games (call of duty: version new maps and guns?). Having a ready action is not necessarily intrinsic to making a gritty game, as it's elimination is likely not going to cause the game to fall apart. Lots of people seem to like its granularity or the extra story that can be squeezed out of that granularity. I personally find that te granularity frequently gets in the way of the story, but that's my own opinion. I do stand by my question of whether the inclusion of the ready action outweighs how much players try to get around it by its narrative/crunchy value. Out of curiosity, are there any people who are primarily players rather than GMs? What do you think about it? I've spent most of my time with 40k as a player, although I do like to GM (I've run sessions of deathwatch and dungeon world), so I think I'm an even split leaning toward player perspective for 40k.

And again, the point that Tom has made is that just because the system worked decently for its time/is popular doesn't mean that it's particularly great now.

Oh of course not.

But it does mean that there's a reason it worked.

A reason you can assess upon the data: Like the consistent success of detailed RPGs over time.

So in order to make that design decision, you should probably be apprised of why stuff like that occurs.

Otherwise it's perhaps just a case of "we agree we have the same opinion".

If we're talking about success, it's probably worth looking to the rapidly rising success of more stripped down, narrative RPGs like FATE.

If we're talking about success, it's probably worth looking to the rapidly rising success of more stripped down, narrative RPGs like FATE.

FATE is free, and still nowhere near the usage level of DH.

There's a pretty easy analysis of why this occurs: Lack of story.

FATE is very generalist, and requires most of the lore to be generated by the players.

So what you see is that things based on FATE, like the Dresden RPG, can become more popular because they provide more inspiration. (Including perhaps rules about when magic works, or when weapons get drawn.)

Inspiration is the currency of RPGs, ostensibly.

So what you're largely looking to do is balance mechanical ease with inspiring specificity.

Well, if you want a more commercial example, look at FFG's own Edge of the Empire, which strikes a nice balance of narrative focus and explicit rules. It's fairly new, but it's doing incredibly well, and I haven't heard a single major complaint. From people who've actually played it, anyway. There's plenty of complaining about how the dice mechanics are the end of the world, but this seems to entirely come from people who haven't actually tried them out of some ingrained stubbornness. The RPG community seems to be very much shifting their opinion of narrative focused rulesets.

The RPG community seems to be very much shifting their opinion of narrative focused rulesets.

So I'm not really sure what you mean here.

"Narrative Focus" does not at all mean "mechanical simplicity"-- it means the mechanics are designed to more easily represent the story, as opposed to the combat (or other).

A Ready Weapon rule is actually a narrative focus rule, because it's designed to portray a real element of the story in the mechanics of the game.

I guess I worded that poorly. What I mean is there's a very clear divide in RPG design philosophies between narrativist systems and gamist systems. Basically systems which focus on open mechanics that are light on rules and focus more on players shaping the way the story plays out, vs games which are more regimented in their rules and don't leave much open to interpretation. I find DH falls firmly on the gamist side of things. Not that that's a bad thing by any means.

Basically systems which focus on open mechanics that are light on rules and focus more on players shaping the way the story plays out, vs games which are more regimented in their rules and don't leave much open to interpretation.

Oh. Successful games tend to walk a balance.

RPGs should basically be written such that they can be played RAW, but with the understanding that they likely won't be played RAW.

The mechanics are always there to assist the story.

So this is why a detailed mechanical backbone from which stretches more 'fuzzy' interpretative play tends to pull in the most players-- it offers an easy jumping off point of things to do.

All combat mechanics with zero player-input variability (i.e. perhaps an autoleveling class) tends not to do well, and zero combat mechanics (i.e. basically freeform) tends not to do well either. (In the latter case perhaps because there's likely no reason for you to have the book, it's all up to you anyway.)

Yeah, I agree completely. I think Edge of the Empire is the system that straddles that line best out of any other systems I've seen. I'd be tempted to try and convert Dark Heresy over, but that's a fairly large undertaking.

I think its a bad idea to compare DH to Edge of Empire. Something thats not being taken into account here is the value or the relative IPs. If Dark Heresy was a generic sci fi investigation game, I doubt it would have had much success.

Having said that, one of the reasons Dark Heresy is so popular is because the IP has a pre-existing fan base from the TT game.

Here lies the difference. Starwars fans are fans of films. The narrative aspect of their enjoyment in the IP is paramount. That's not to say they aren't gamers as well but by its nature star wars should look, play and feel cinematic .

Dark Heresy takes a large portion of his player group from fans of wargaming. People who already have a hobby that requires them to learn rules and mechanics (and often how to exploit them). They are also a community that keeps crying out for their main hobby (assuming that's the TT) to become more detailed , not less. If you strip a system down these are going to be people who start saying things like 'I wish I could fire into combat" or "I wish there was a skill that let me draw my weapon before the other guy". I could give you countless examples of this from other forums prior to 6th edition where people are basically complaining for 10 years they want rules from 2nd Ed (easily the most complicated system) to be reintroduced to the game.

Speaking of changed mechanics, while I can only speak from a limited experience, FFG tried changing WFRP completely after they acquired the property rights. I have an RPG club that numbers some 50 members. Not a single person will play wfrp3 because its too much of a departure from the established system. That includes people like myself (who owns nearly every DH book in physical form) and my friend Chris, (who has the entire library for wfrp 2) and other people who often buy copies of core books or books for classes they like/whatever.

You can complain about the rationale behind it, but however you cut it that's a huge drop in revenue even from a relatively small area (around £1,000 from me and Chris alone). I did actually try wfrp 3 and to be fair it was an interesting, new system. It wasn't what I wanted from a warhammer game though, so ultimately we went back to 2nd.

That's the thing with RPGs, unlike TT games no one can force you to play the new edition just because some big company tells you its the 'tournament standard' now.

In my experience the issues with WHFRP3 are less with the system change itself, and more with how FFG went about it. Shifting the game into a format where everything is presented in the form of decks of cards and handout sheets makes the game feel far too much like a board game, which I know put a lot of people off. I'm fairly confident it would have fared much better if FFG presented the game in a more traditional format.

I do see your point though. The target audiences are very different, and it's probably in FFG's best interests profit wise to keep DH on the gamist side of design. I just wish that wasn't the case, I guess.

Yeah, I agree completely. I think Edge of the Empire is the system that straddles that line best out of any other systems I've seen. I'd be tempted to try and convert Dark Heresy over, but that's a fairly large undertaking.

With DH, I often run it using the "if it's plausible rule"-- basically if the player says something that's not explicitly in the rules, but would in the universe work, I'll tend to allow it and declare an appropriate skill to test. Even for combat.

The design of an RPG merely needs to offer 'a helpful reference', where there's sufficient detail and player-recognition to get people considering the world.

Having said that, one of the reasons Dark Heresy is so popular is because the IP has a pre-existing fan base from the TT game.

There's certainly an influence, but IP tends to be more of a "foot in the door" effect:

Inquisitor (the game) was also based on 40k, but did not achieve the popularity of Dark Heresy.

IP can get people initially interested, but the game itself tends to be the retaining factor.

Dark Heresy does a reasonable job of taking the grim darkness and expressing it in a way that allows players to create stories within it accurately, and progress those stories consistently and clearly with its resolution mechanics.

I think some of the changes FFG are introducing are going to go down well with some of my players. I know the 'class' based advance system was unpopular with some people and the new aptitudes system allows a much greater freedom in terms of character creation, which was the most common complaint I heard. This is a good example of an archaic mechanic being replaced with a more modern one.

There is also an issue of backwards compatibility. One of the best things about this franchise is that it's (with some, albeit minimal, work) backwards compatible with over 20 years of published material (going back to wfrp 1) in terms of pre-written adventures. I'd be very sad to see that lost, and I think it would hurt the game in terms of 'out of the box' value, so to speak.

Inquisitor failed because it was too much of a combat game. It didn't really try to be an RPG, it was just 'big necromunda' using a badly changed version of wfrp 1.

To me, it's not an issue of "granular design" vs. "generalised design".

I like that there is a way to rules-wise differentiate between a scrub that can't hold a gun and one that's not only capable of using every weapon from artillery to combat knives, but also able to do pull from the hip, double-tap a heretic, throw the pistol in their face and grab the bullpup lasgun from the sling.

There's a lot of potentially "superfluous" Talents and even Skills. But I prefer to have them there, even if they are minor, than to not have them at all. This being a minor mechanic in a generally self-contained part of the system, it is very easy to tinker with if you desire to do so, but I feel that the system would be diminished due to it's loss.

For example, even at a measly 100xp, I cannot imagine ever doing an Adept with the intent of taking Quick Draw. I may end up taking it anyway, because that's how the character develops and adapts to his surroundings, the lowly bookkeeper forced into violent circumstance, going Postal in an increasingly insane world.

And I just enjoy reflecting my fluffy character with crunch, even when minor.

This reminds me of the argument around Weapon Training, when it was discussed removing Weapon Talents. I just don't like it, not because the math breaks or because I enjoy "gritty realism", but simply because I like that I can differentiate between characters on a meaningful level. Some have Quick Draw, Sleight of Hand, and a metric ton of Weapon Training - others are bookkeepers stocking up on Forbidden Lores, hide when the shooting starts and their only claim to fame being the mastery of the Mono-Pencil.

I think a lot of my misgivings with the Quick Draw talent are that, in my experience, everyone tries to get it within the first few sessions' worth of experience, because it's just a pain not to have it. Which makes me think that either the talent should be removed, or ready actions should be granted by default. Or, I guess, its cost should be increased. Choices that are pretty much 'must haves' are barely choices in the first place.

I think a lot of my misgivings with the Quick Draw talent are that, in my experience, everyone tries to get it within the first few sessions' worth of experience, because it's just a pain not to have it. Which makes me think that either the talent should be removed, or ready actions should be granted by default. Or, I guess, its cost should be increased. Choices that are pretty much 'must haves' are barely choices in the first place.

Let's examine this for a moment. Quickdraw like any other talent has governing aptitudes; They are agility and Finesse. The Minimum cost for a character with both aptitudes is 200xp (not 100). For a character that has neither (Which is very possible with the aforementioned sage) the cost goes up to 600xp! That means if your Sage is Hellbent on getting quickdraw he will spend most or all of his XP from as many as THREE game sessions getting it! That's as many as SIX new lore skills he WON'T be getting! I'd say the cost is plenty steep enough for a traditional non-combatant! I still believe it should be divided up by weapon type but that's just me!

I think a lot of my misgivings with the Quick Draw talent are that, in my experience, everyone tries to get it within the first few sessions' worth of experience, because it's just a pain not to have it. Which makes me think that either the talent should be removed, or ready actions should be granted by default. Or, I guess, its cost should be increased. Choices that are pretty much 'must haves' are barely choices in the first place.

Let's examine this for a moment. Quickdraw like any other talent has governing aptitudes; They are agility and Finesse. The Minimum cost for a character with both aptitudes is 200xp (not 100). For a character that has neither (Which is very possible with the aforementioned sage) the cost goes up to 600xp! That means if your Sage is Hellbent on getting quickdraw he will spend most or all of his XP from as many as THREE game sessions getting it! That's as many as SIX new lore skills he WON'T be getting! I'd say the cost is plenty steep enough for a traditional non-combatant! I still believe it should be divided up by weapon type but that's just me!

I would say everyone in a group trying to rush quickdraw is probably a group-specific thing, rather than a general problem.

If your game is such that the Adept has legitimately nothing else he wants to purchase-- you may be running a game with such a saturation of combat that playing an Adept at all might be somewhat pointless.

I suppose it's worth considering that the costs are fairly changed from what they used to be. Quick Draw used to be pretty easy to get for basically anyone, which made it a pretty obvious pick.

I'm not a fan of the aptitude system in the slightest, but I guess it does solve this issue to some extent.