| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
| Page 2 of 9 (122 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 4 5 ...Last page » |
Theofonias said:
As with any RPG, most of the stuff you can take or leave out at your discretion. Cloistering yourself away is fine when you are enacting Rites of Repair and what not. However, most SMs like to spar with other SMs rather then a servitor.
All well and good, but it doesn't change that they basically told people to play their BT PCs as asocial, anti-party malcontents.
Death is the only truth.
Atheosis said:
All well and good, but it doesn't change that they basically told people to play their BT PCs as asocial, anti-party malcontents.
As a Chapter they set themselves apart from other SM Chapters as it is. Due to their history and practices they would be set apart from the others as it is.
"We are not your worst nightmare.... we are your every nightmare."
Or, you could have an inordinately social Black Templar who constantly preaches to his brethren until the Space Wolf and Dark Angel in the group work past their issues with one another's chapters through mutual annoyance and take the self-righteous git down a notch or two.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own!" -Adam Savage, Mythbusters
I really hope that we get a stealthy Space Marine chapter. But the probability is quickly going down to 0.
Stipendium peccati mors est. Personal Motto of Deathwatch Champion Raziel, Black Shield.
Theofonias said:
Atheosis said:
All well and good, but it doesn't change that they basically told people to play their BT PCs as asocial, anti-party malcontents.
As a Chapter they set themselves apart from other SM Chapters as it is. Due to their history and practices they would be set apart from the others as it is.
Yes, yes. That's all well established. The problem is that such characteristics aren't an issue for a tabletop wargame, but can be a very big issue with a tabletop RPG. Between the Dark Angels and the Black Templars we now have two asocial Chapters out of a total of four. I'm actually going to fall down laughing if they manage to include the Iron Hands (another isolationist Chapter) for the techie/bionics angle. I can feel the bitter, silent (or not so silent) hatred brewing even now...
In all seriousness this game seems like it might prove to be a trainwreck.
adversarial PCs + uber-powered PCs + constant combat = a big effing mess, at least potentially
Death is the only truth.
Atheosis said:
Yes, yes. That's all well established. The problem is that such characteristics aren't an issue for a tabletop wargame, but can be a very big issue with a tabletop RPG. Between the Dark Angels and the Black Templars we now have two asocial Chapters out of a total of four. I'm actually going to fall down laughing if they manage to include the Iron Hands (another isolationist Chapter) for the techie/bionics angle. I can feel the bitter, silent (or not so silent) hatred brewing even now...
In all seriousness this game seems like it might prove to be a trainwreck.
adversarial PCs + uber-powered PCs + constant combat = a big effing mess, at least potentially
No matter what game you play you'll have the recalcitrant and unsocial "character". To write off an entire game as a "trainwreck" because of that sentence smacks of hyperbole.
It all boils down to whether or not your GM has the skill of crafting a story enough to bring those types of characters into the game. It's FFG's job to provide a setting and rules. It's up to your troupe as to how they use them.
"We are not your worst nightmare.... we are your every nightmare."
Theofonias said:
Atheosis said:
Yes, yes. That's all well established. The problem is that such characteristics aren't an issue for a tabletop wargame, but can be a very big issue with a tabletop RPG. Between the Dark Angels and the Black Templars we now have two asocial Chapters out of a total of four. I'm actually going to fall down laughing if they manage to include the Iron Hands (another isolationist Chapter) for the techie/bionics angle. I can feel the bitter, silent (or not so silent) hatred brewing even now...
In all seriousness this game seems like it might prove to be a trainwreck.
adversarial PCs + uber-powered PCs + constant combat = a big effing mess, at least potentially
No matter what game you play you'll have the recalcitrant and unsocial "character". To write off an entire game as a "trainwreck" because of that sentence smacks of hyperbole.
It all boils down to whether or not your GM has the skill of crafting a story enough to bring those types of characters into the game. It's FFG's job to provide a setting and rules. It's up to your troupe as to how they use them.
FFG's job is to provide setting and rules that don't make the GM's job actively harder. That's what's at issue. It's not that the setting is nonsense, it's that the setting of an RPG should be designed with having actual people play it at real tables and have a good time. If your setting makes it harder to achieve that goal, then you need to rethink your approach.
The Wyzard said:
FFG's job is to provide setting and rules that don't make the GM's job actively harder. That's what's at issue. It's not that the setting is nonsense, it's that the setting of an RPG should be designed with having actual people play it at real tables and have a good time. If your setting makes it harder to achieve that goal, then you need to rethink your approach.
The rules and the setting (that have been provided) do not make the GM's job actively harder. What you are arguing is that a piece of fluff will make this a roleplaying nightmare. I think that is completely false. Fluff does not dictate the interactions of players, the players and GM (to a lesser degree) do.
"We are not your worst nightmare.... we are your every nightmare."
Theofonias said:
The Wyzard said:
FFG's job is to provide setting and rules that don't make the GM's job actively harder. That's what's at issue. It's not that the setting is nonsense, it's that the setting of an RPG should be designed with having actual people play it at real tables and have a good time. If your setting makes it harder to achieve that goal, then you need to rethink your approach.
The rules and the setting (that have been provided) do not make the GM's job actively harder. What you are arguing is that a piece of fluff will make this a roleplaying nightmare. I think that is completely false. Fluff does not dictate the interactions of players, the players and GM (to a lesser degree) do.
You're excluding a vast middle and attacking a strawman.
Theofonias said:
The Wyzard said:
FFG's job is to provide setting and rules that don't make the GM's job actively harder. That's what's at issue. It's not that the setting is nonsense, it's that the setting of an RPG should be designed with having actual people play it at real tables and have a good time. If your setting makes it harder to achieve that goal, then you need to rethink your approach.
The rules and the setting (that have been provided) do not make the GM's job actively harder. What you are arguing is that a piece of fluff will make this a roleplaying nightmare. I think that is completely false. Fluff does not dictate the interactions of players, the players and GM (to a lesser degree) do.
That's like saying alignment doesn't dictate the interactions of PCs in D&D. The fact of the matter is it does. When the source material says certain types of characters act a certain way, most players will emulate that at least to a degree. How do you expect interactions between BT PCs and Librarian PCs are going to play out? If you don't foresee player conflict coming from that, then you must know how to breathe sand.
Death is the only truth.
Atheosis said:
That's like saying alignment doesn't dictate the interactions of PCs in D&D. The fact of the matter is it does. When the source material says certain types of characters act a certain way, most players will emulate that at least to a degree. How do you expect interactions between BT PCs and Librarian PCs are going to play out? If you don't foresee player conflict coming from that, then you must know how to breathe sand.
That's not a comparison at all. Alignment had an integral part in the game. Protection vs Evil/Good, +10 damage vs Evil/Good creatures, etc. That was part of the rule system and not fluff. No, what I'm saying is something akin to say that Dwarfs are grumpy alcoholics. Does that mean every dwarf you came across was a constantly stewed jerk? No, it meant that it gave a generalization of the race as a whole. Being that there are over a thousand BTs there is room for more than just the anti-Roleplay matter that you are making it out to be.
Character conflict is a part of roleplaying. Black Templars aren't fanatical in the sense that they will attack Librarians as they are not stupid. They still use non-combat psykers such as Astropaths and Navigators. And no, the multi-lung does not allow for breathing of sand, just water.
"We are not your worst nightmare.... we are your every nightmare."
Theofonias said:
Atheosis said:
That's like saying alignment doesn't dictate the interactions of PCs in D&D. The fact of the matter is it does. When the source material says certain types of characters act a certain way, most players will emulate that at least to a degree. How do you expect interactions between BT PCs and Librarian PCs are going to play out? If you don't foresee player conflict coming from that, then you must know how to breathe sand.
That's not a comparison at all. Alignment had an integral part in the game. Protection vs Evil/Good, +10 damage vs Evil/Good creatures, etc. That was part of the rule system and not fluff. No, what I'm saying is something akin to say that Dwarfs are grumpy alcoholics. Does that mean every dwarf you came across was a constantly stewed jerk? No, it meant that it gave a generalization of the race as a whole. Being that there are over a thousand BTs there is room for more than just the anti-Roleplay matter that you are making it out to be.
Character conflict is a part of roleplaying. Black Templars aren't fanatical in the sense that they will attack Librarians as they are not stupid. They still use non-combat psykers such as Astropaths and Navigators. And no, the multi-lung does not allow for breathing of sand, just water.
Yes character conflict is a part of roleplaying, and I'm beginning to think it's going to be the majority of the roleplaying in DW.
Death is the only truth.
I'm still more worried, and entertained by the thought, of aving Dark Angels and Space Worlfs in the same room before even thinking at Black Templars and their dislike for psykers =P
May the Emperor protects.
Lucius Valerius said:
I'm still more worried, and entertained by the thought, of aving Dark Angels and Space Worlfs in the same room before even thinking at Black Templars and their dislike for psykers =P
Now imagine a kill-team composed of a Dark Angel, a Space Wolf, a Black Templar, and an Ultramarine Librarian...
Death is the only truth.
| Page 2 of 9 (122 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 4 5 ...Last page » |