I hate to use the house rule argument, but it is rather easy to house rule: Give all players all aptitudes. Maybe we can get FFG to make a little black optional box explaining this possibility and its merits in the rule book.

My worry about the current aptitude system is that I am unsure of how well it is balanced between the aptitudes and if the background and roles provides a free enough aptitude choice.

This is one of those things that's so simple you kick yourself for not having thought of it. Sure, it's a band-aid for the wonky Aptitude system, but using this rule I could just sharpie in a number at the top of each Talent table and on this Skill table.

Not sure what I'd do for characteristics, though. Maybe have each player pick 2/3 cheap, 3/4 medium, rest expensive options. Or use Aptitudes as normal... Still, I like it.

[...]

If characters ending up samey is an issue, maybe you shouldn't be creating and advancing characters in isolation. It is a group hobby after all, wouldn't taking advances that complement each other make sense?

Isn't the Aptitude system meant to facilitate that, though? After all, one of your fundamental issues with the Aptitude system is that characters of the same experience level end up with huge gaps in effective experience - this is presumably because whereas one character has the appropriate Aptitudes for how he's building his character, the other character(s) do not, yet choose to pick cross-Aptitude skills, talents and characteristics.

But then you use the argument yourself that this is a group hobby, and that you should be taking advances that complement each other.

If you do this within the Aptitude system, the Aptitude system doesn't have the fundamental issue you mention.

You think this is good game design and that there should be wrong choices for players to make when advancing their character?

Of course there should be. If you're doing a Basketweaver, taking Masonry advances is wrong.

The answer to your question is entirely dependant on the definition of "wrong".

Should there be advances that are wrong for some character concepts and not wrong to others? Absolutely!

The problem here isn't a matter of Aptitudes, but what you can buy with them. Ideally in an Aptitudes system or something similar you want every player to be of roughly equal effectiveness. This appears to be impossible at first, but the easiest way to fix it is to ensure that the skills and talents that synergize with each other to form a specialty (for example: a melee heavy character) aren't all on the same set of Aptitudes. In other words, you want to force every player to spend greater XP for some skills and talents that they need, rather than spending a reduced cost for everything.

BC did this better than OW does, because it forced a split in talents and skills along the lines of lore, rather than logic, and there were fewer, larger splits. What you were forced to do to make the example melee focused character was spend XP in both Khorne advances and Slaanesh advances. There needs to be something similar happening with Aptitudes.

A character who spends all his XP on things within his aptitudes is going to be far more versatile and competent than someone who buys a decent amount of advances that his aptitudes don't suit. This is pretty much an objective fact of how the system works, if we assume all advances that are of similar costs are of similar worth.

Nor is it even desirable, as it is only possibly by setting up extreme limits of available activities.

Have you played flat-price systems? With no classes and where everything costs the same for everyone? They still have good choices and bad choices.

Game balance is an illusion. We will never achieve a balanced system, because you and I will disagree on how that balance should work. This is why I usually refer to game balance as a White Hart.

And I think that's horrible design. There shouldn't be wrong choices for players to make in character advancement.

If anything, I find the attitude that there should be no "wrong" choices for players to be horrible, because it is not only silly and impossible but also deeply insulting to players.

But reality holds the option of making bad choices and so should games. Always, otherwise you wouldn't need your brain to play, and that would remove any interest from me instantly. If there are no bad choices, there are no choices. Advancement might as well be random then.

I don't know if I simply mis-interpret what you wrote, but I really see very little merit in your statements.

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't. If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting. But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter . A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story . That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story. "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws. Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting. A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun . Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun. The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun . Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose .

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws. When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun. That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat. If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive. If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter .

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't. If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting. But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter . A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story . That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story. "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws. Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting. A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun . Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun. The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun . Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose .

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws. When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun. That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat. If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive. If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter .

You do realize there are ways to highlight a character's background story without punishing the player, right?

Your last sentence is the height of ridiculousness. Character advancement schemes and background benefits can be totally separate items in a game. Dark Heresy 2 has chosen to combine them, but it is a fallacy to say that equal advancement for all invalidates a character's background.

Do you realize how insane it is to say, "Oh, you want Skill X? Only Backgrounds 2, 5, and 6 are good at Skill X. Since you took Background 4 you have to pay double the XP Steve does to get Skill X." There are better ways to make a game.

Yeah, I much prefer the idea of backgrounds giving you your starting skills, talents and etc along with some flavourful, exclusive benefits. But that's where they should end. Backgrounds should represent where you've been, not where you're going.

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't. If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting. But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter . A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story . That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story. "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws. Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting. A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun . Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun. The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun . Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose .

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws. When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun. That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat. If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive. If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter .

I agree with the premise - that backgrounds should matter - but not the conclusion. The problem with the way it works in DH2 is that it makes it very hard to be a very wide range of very plausible characters. Like Tom Cruise says here above, Backgrounds should reflect where you've been, not where you're going.

Essentially, the way Aptitudes are doled out in DH2 - not an inherent problem with Aptitudes themselves - means that to be an effective character, you have to be one combination of a very limited set of backgrounds or roles and so on, no matter what actual role you want to fill or what kind of character you portray.

This is why I prefer Archetypes (no matter what we choose to call them; I prefer Archetype since it's more open than a definite role/in-world position) as in Black Crusade or Only War; it makes it easier to be a scoundrel from a Forge World, or from a Fortress World without being pigeon-holed into being a knuckledragger.

I am always of the opinion that rules should be moulded to be representative of the fluff, in a manner that is internally consistent with the universe portrayed. With this basic assumption in the back of my head, which may be debatable to many of you, I cannot defend a system that effectively punishes very reasonable fluff-consistent characters.

Take the Highborn Homeworld, for example. It gives you the Fellowship Aptitude. Why on Earth would every single Highborn have an Aptitude for Fellowship? What if you want to play a Malfian Noble? What if I want to depict a sleezebag seneschal? Or the Voidborn Homeworld. Are Voidborn all intellectually gifted?

And for Backgrounds, everyone from the Imperial Guard gets Fieldcraft. That's a big one. And it makes little sense. For all we know, the guardsman I want to make had exactly zero fieldtime. If I'm Highborn Homeworld and Imperial Guard Background, I would even have difficulty explaining how the hell I ended up with the necessary fieldtime to display an aptitude for Fieldcraft.

Aptitudes are not things you pick up or things you train. They are the things you are Apt at, that you do well, and they should determine - just like in real life - where you end up, and how your lot in life is ultimately interpreted. With that, I am saying that it's much more reasonable to have Aptitudes doled out more or less only as a part of your Career/Archetype/Specialization/Whatever, and not be overly confused with the backgrounds of the character as much as it is an intrinsic part of who you are; your aptitudes are why you ended up in the role you are now, either because you capitalized on your skills or because someone else noticed that you were good at it.

There are not many Aptitudes in the game, and while I'm not inherently opposed to giving out extra Aptitudes during creation, they should not be so closely tied to your actual backgrounds or origin as they are.

I say what I have always said. Basic rule for Aptitudes: You get a number of Aptitudes as part of your Archetype and then you get to pick one Characteristics Aptitude and one Professional Aptitude and you are allowed to switch each out for any other Aptitude of the same kind if you so desire.

This allows you to make atypical characters fulfilling specific archetypes or roles, while also maintaining limitations to any single character and prevent complete specialization and/or min/maxing.

Yeah, I much prefer the idea of backgrounds giving you your starting skills, talents and etc along with some flavourful, exclusive benefits. But that's where they should end. Backgrounds should represent where you've been, not where you're going.

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

At that point, one has to ask themselves why they chose that kind of character to begin with.

And I might sound just as broken of a record as you, but; this is an issue with DH2 - not with the Aptitude system itself. DH2 has a quite small range of "Roles", where to make the most of the Aptitude system you also have to take the "correct" Homeworld and Background choice. This is terrible design on the character creation side of things - especially when they then throw even more Aptitudes at you as part of in-book suggested Elite Advancements (terrible, terrible, terrible idea).

But it's not the Aptitudes that cause that, but simply character creation seemingly not taking into account just how much of a deciding factor what Aptitudes you get actually are as to what character you can depict without being taxed into submission.

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

..and I feel like a broken record trying to explain that a truely balanced system is a pipe dream and that imbalances of character effectiveness will occur, regardless. Aptitudes just change where they are.

Most imbalances occur in the minutiae; the individual talents and skills themselves. Whereas this is an entire system built in a way that promotes imbalance between PCs. I'd say it's a much more major issue than the minor imbalances you're always going to get in any RPG.

And I feel like a broken record for constantly restating this, but I can't get behind any system that represents a significant possibility for the effectiveness of characters to be massively different at the same XP level. That's not fun. I like my games to be fun. You can go on about how much it makes sense or is realistic forever, but ultimately I want fun systems in my role playing games.

..and I feel like a broken record trying to explain that a truely balanced system is a pipe dream and that imbalances of character effectiveness will occur, regardless. Aptitudes just change where they are.

True balance is impossible, therefore we should not strive to build a balanced system? Is that where you're going with this?

Most imbalances occur in the minutiae; the individual talents and skills themselves. Whereas this is an entire system built in a way that promotes imbalance between PCs. I'd say it's a much more major issue than the minor imbalances you're always going to get in any RPG.

Please understand: I too prefer flat-costed systems.

BUT!

The aptitude system isn't bad, since it allows for specialisation of characters (which some people feel is very important) while still allowing characters to advance outside of their specialties.

It appears that the designers of this game favour some form of class/career/discipline/whatever structure. They've invested a lot of time in figuring out what rewards should be differentiate these elements. I don't care for them as written and honestly consider them worse than surpefluous, but I'm not designing the game.

Considering that this type of structure has been decided to be a design feature, the aptitude system are about the best compromise between structure and freedom that we can get. Like I've been trying to explain since page 1 of this thread.

cps: Have you actually read the posts I've made in this thread?

Yes. And from what I can tell we have exactly opposite opinions on how a game should be designed. I've asked you several questions that I haven't seen answered.

Yes. And from what I can tell we have exactly opposite opinions on how a game should be designed. I've asked you several questions that I haven't seen answered.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed those. Could you please post those again?

I'd like to see every home world and background have the choice between at least 2 aptitudes

^ This. Basically the background packages should offer multiple choices for aptitudes that are still fitting.

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't. If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting. But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter . A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story . That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story. "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws. Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting. A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun . Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun. The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun . Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose .

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws. When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun. That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat. If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive. If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter .

You do realize there are ways to highlight a character's background story without punishing the player, right?

Your last sentence is the height of ridiculousness. Character advancement schemes and background benefits can be totally separate items in a game. Dark Heresy 2 has chosen to combine them, but it is a fallacy to say that equal advancement for all invalidates a character's background.

Do you realize how insane it is to say, "Oh, you want Skill X? Only Backgrounds 2, 5, and 6 are good at Skill X. Since you took Background 4 you have to pay double the XP Steve does to get Skill X." There are better ways to make a game.

"Highlighting" a character's background is not what I'm talking about - and "Punishing the player" certainly has nothing to do with it. The point is telling a story . If you "highlight" that background/story and then move on with no one much worrying about it from there...well now you know that you don't really want PC backgrounds/stories to matter much in your game. That's fine - it's your game. I want PC's stories to actually matter in my game. One big factor of that story not being just lip-service but actually mattering comes from the system.

Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much. And that's fine - to each his own. In my game they matter, so I want a system where they matter. "Equal advancement", practically speaking, greatly reduces the meaningfulness of a PC's background & story. If a PC is a Guardsman one month, then really more of a surgeon the next month, suddenly more of an Adept the next month & a Tech-Priest after that - IMO, that's not a story...that's a video game. (Hey - and I like video games...just not in my Role-Playing Games. )

Why is it "insane" for PCs to have a " role " in a Role -Playing Game? Your example of "Skill X" and "Backgrounds 2, 5 and 6" sounds like the building of a wargaming army, which isn't what this is about. After the player chooses a path for his character, that character is not then limited because of an army-point-total ceiling, it's limited because of the story that that player chose to tell with that character...strengths, limitations, flaws & all.

There's no problem with a PC having a role in a role-playing game. The problem is that you're forcing the PC to have one of X very narrow, utterly clichéd roles. If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

I'm all for background stories having an effect on the system (though I don't think it's strictly necessary - a group can make stories matter as much or as little as they wish), but then I'd want it to be my story that had an effect - not a generic one written by FFG.

I just don't see how anyone could find the idea of bad advances to be palatable in the slightest. Options presented to a player should all be worthwhile, there shouldn't be any 'traps' to fall into when creating or advancing a character, that's not fun, especially considering the choices you make are generally permanent.

Either you want a PCs background story to matter or you don't. If one doesn't want a PCs story to matter that's fine - to each his own...differences are something that makes the RPG world interesting. But to say that a PCs background story MUST be irrelevant to that PCs advancement or else that system is "horrible" is crazy.

I want a PCs background, that is to say, his/her story, to matter . A player that chooses a Guardsman has chosen a very particular beginning to his PC's story . That's going to shape that PC going forward & is a big part of telling that PCs story. "Limitations" are not universally "bad" and neither are PC flaws. Flaws are one of the biggest factors that makes a PC interesting. A Guardsman tends to be good at some things and not so good at others - that's fun . Watching a Guardsman awkwardly try to research something on a dataslate in a critical situation is fun. The group enjoys watching a loner Assassin awkwardly try to rally NPCs - because that's fun . Many of those flaws come from the restraints that a system puts on a PCs advancement because of the background story that the player himself chose .

The reason that characteristics, skills & talents not central to a PC's background story are more expensive is because that player is trying to (legally) circumvent his PC's background story's typical flaws. When the party finds itself depending on an Adept to hold off the hordes their reaction is likely to be, "Oh great" and that's fun. That's because an Adept's typical "flaw" is their central focus isn't combat. If that player wants to circumvent his Adept's "flaw" & make him a bit tankish...it's going to be expensive. If a Guardsman wants to circumvent his background story's "flaw" and be an expert with dataslates it's going to expensive.

These aren't the result of a horrible system, these are the result of a system that makes PC's background stories matter .

You do realize there are ways to highlight a character's background story without punishing the player, right?

Your last sentence is the height of ridiculousness. Character advancement schemes and background benefits can be totally separate items in a game. Dark Heresy 2 has chosen to combine them, but it is a fallacy to say that equal advancement for all invalidates a character's background.

Do you realize how insane it is to say, "Oh, you want Skill X? Only Backgrounds 2, 5, and 6 are good at Skill X. Since you took Background 4 you have to pay double the XP Steve does to get Skill X." There are better ways to make a game.

"Highlighting" a character's background is not what I'm talking about - and "Punishing the player" certainly has nothing to do with it. The point is telling a story . If you "highlight" that background/story and then move on with no one much worrying about it from there...well now you know that you don't really want PC backgrounds/stories to matter much in your game. That's fine - it's your game. I want PC's stories to actually matter in my game. One big factor of that story not being just lip-service but actually mattering comes from the system.

Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much. And that's fine - to each his own. In my game they matter, so I want a system where they matter. "Equal advancement", practically speaking, greatly reduces the meaningfulness of a PC's background & story. If a PC is a Guardsman one month, then really more of a surgeon the next month, suddenly more of an Adept the next month & a Tech-Priest after that - IMO, that's not a story...that's a video game. (Hey - and I like video games...just not in my Role-Playing Games. )

Why is it "insane" for PCs to have a " role " in a Role -Playing Game? Your example of "Skill X" and "Backgrounds 2, 5 and 6" sounds like the building of a wargaming army, which isn't what this is about. After the player chooses a path for his character, that character is not then limited because of an army-point-total ceiling, it's limited because of the story that that player chose to tell with that character...strengths, limitations, flaws & all.

Sounds like we need more roles, more permutations of Aptitude sets. Which is what splats are for, yah?

I agree; the player is choosing which role he/she best thinks fits the PC concept. Aptitudes then focus that concept in a particular direction. So, if you don't want to go that direction, choose another role.

Aptitudes still need going over, though. The ratios between them and what they make available for access are horribly wonky.

If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

Uh, this example is actually pretty bad because the Assassin is one of the "multi-role roles" so two Assassins can differ greatly depending on the players' choices.

The Hierophant, the Warrior and the Sage are much better to represent cookie-cutter characters.

If you want every Hive World Assassin to be basically the same person at the start of the campaign, you're not playing a game I'd want to be in.

Uh, this example is actually pretty bad because the Assassin is one of the "multi-role roles" so two Assassins can differ greatly depending on the players' choices.

The Hierophant, the Warrior and the Sage are much better to represent cookie-cutter characters.

Warrior, then. It really makes no difference, though - the point is that someone else has decided what my backstory is for me. In that case, I'm not particularly interested in having it make an impact. Whether Assassins have 1 or 10 potential backstories is just decorating the turd.

Putting aside "the height of ridiculousness" hyperbole, yes - character advancement schemes & background benefits can be totally separate - in games where a PC's background & story don't matter as much.

Go play a FATE game and try telling me this with any modicum of honesty.

As someone else pointed out, the Hammer of the Emperor sourcebook made it possible to "re-class", gaining an entirely new set of Aptitudes. That one decision by itself largely invalidated any reason for having an Aptitude system in place. The decision is a min-maxers dream, and only those who plan their characters and optimize are truly rewarded by the re-class function...thus making it an overall toxic system for casual gamers and non-optimizers. Aptitudes in the OW system are added complexity merely for the sake of complexity, and rewards those who game the system the most. While that is true in any system, the degree of separation is a bit too severe for my taste.

I am currently a player in a campaign where we still run with Aptitudes, but in a relaxed fashion. I am also GMing a campaign in which 75% of my players are brand new RPers, and the fourth player has had no prior experience with WH40K RPGs. As a GM, I instantly made the decision to strip out Aptitudes completely and just adjust XP gain accordingly. Even after just a few game sessions I am confident that the decision was the right one for my group.

But let's examine what Aptitudes are and what their purpose is: As someone mentioned, its just a variation on a class based system. It achieves this by "rewarding" a certain build path or character progression by allowing those attributes, skills and talents associated with that role to be purchased much cheaper than would otherwise be the case. The "reward" is so significant however, that all it really does is PUNISH deviation.

So, what you have is a system that is intended as a guidance for players (to build the character they want) which in actuality becomes a strait jacket. This is the reality of the system from a design point of view.

Now, I am not necessarily condemning this sort of system, or those who like it. I still enjoy a good run of Pathfinder from time to time. But just because WH40K RPG dresses itself in a sexy new package in a compelling and popular setting, it still just a variation on Chainmail.

Personally, I think a game like Dark Heresy can do better than just the usual. By their nature, Acolytes may start as one thing but are massively changed by the experiences they undergo. A class based system has serious difficulty incorporating such character progression in an organic and natural way.

Rather than a strait jacket, I would love to see DH give player development guidance, backed up by GM/Player co-operative narrative rewards such as Recognition, Reputation and Control. Recognition would be short term narrative gains that could be converted into various kinds of Reputation (Combat, Investigation, knowledge, etc) that would grant access to various services, NPCs, equipment, backup, etc in the purview of the Inquisition. At the ultimate apex of this pyramid would be control: Where the PCs themselves begin to master their destinies and exert control on the world around them.

Again, just brainstormed ideas...but something I would rather see than just a re-hashed Aptitudes system. I know that won't come to pass, but currently when identifying characters you would say things like Feral World Assassin. Everyone now has a pretty good idea of the template, and "minor" details like name, appearance, personality are no longer really important. Instead I would love to have a character described in terms like: Osric Thrykian, Purger of the Pale Throng (combat rep), Stalker of the Dusk Dragon (stealth rep) and Illuminatus of the Unclean (rep for high Forbidden Lore: Mutants, Heretics, Psykers).

Just ideas off the top of my head, but whatever happends with DH 2.0 I know realistically that I will probably end up ripping the guts out of the system to suit my own needs anyway.

I'd like to see every home world and background have the choice between at least 2 aptitudes

or let players pick from the aptitudes their backgrounds unlock.

I feel compelled to point out that none of the lines were ever intended to be cross-compatible. That being said, is there any reason to believe the Aptitude system of Only War will be successfully ported (read as copy/pasted) over to a completely new core? Before answering, I would remind us all of the copy/paste errors we've already come to expect .

I still think we need new aptitudes and not copy/paste.

A character who spends all his XP on things within his aptitudes is going to be far more versatile and competent than someone who buys a decent amount of advances that his aptitudes don't suit. This is pretty much an objective fact of how the system works, if we assume all advances that are of similar costs are of similar worth.

Competent? Yes, because he gets more skills within his stereotypical 'area of expertise' for the same XP.

Versatile? Well...I disagree on that one. Surely someone who's buying 'outside of type' is by definition going to be more versatile? An assassin bothering to buy pilot (at a surcharge) instead of two (discounted) levels of improved stabbyness is, to me, a more versatile character.

That said, I'm fine with 'open' characters. One game I really like is Traveller - now whilst it's extremely detailled in character generation (to the point of generating a lot of character background for you), the in-game character advancement is extremely loose, and essentially just boils down to guidelines on how long it would take to study for a new skill, regardless of what it is.

An assassin bothering to buy pilot (at a surcharge) instead of two (discounted) levels of improved stabbyness is, to me, a more versatile character.

Nonono... The Warrior buys that pilot and not the Assassin. The Assassin has cheap Operate.

Actually, the Assassin is a bad example for hammering the Aptitude system: with Forge World/Outcast, the character will have only two expensive Skills (Command and Parry). And that's a pretty flexible character IMHO!