Quote from: Herr ArnulfeI'm not disputing that an epic sourcebook for WFRP would be awesome. But mass battles as the default playstyle in a tabletop RPG has never been done before Reign (and who knows how successful that will be). What makes you think GW can suddenly make this fringe concept a hit like traditional WFRP has been?

Actually, even in REIGN mass battles aren't the "default playstyle". They're something you can do if your organisations' Might stat is high, and you're playing rulers of nations as opposed to (say) gangland bosses. Even then, though, combats aren't played through in a wargamey way - the outcome of battles, and all other actions on the organisational level, are dealt with on an abstracted level through (most of the time) a single roll of the dice.

The clever bit is that the dice pools rolled on an organisational level tend to be lower than the pools that players roll on an individual level, and so if the players really want to ensure their organisation is successful they need to spend some uptime carrying out clever plans in order to get bonus dice on their roll - for example, assassinating the enemy leaders before the day of the battle, or leading a diplomatic mission to convince an important ally to send troops. This is strikingly different from the playstyle in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, where Heroes are essentially major resources on the battlefield and the game tracks the exploits of every unit. I don't know how you could translate that to an RPG without things becoming unmanageable, and without the PCs themselves being entirely eclipsed; pretty much every attempt I've seen to include a mass battle system in an RPG, from REIGN, to RC D&D to Pendragon, has involved some level of abstraction.

(As far as REIGN's success goes: I dunno about sales of the core rulebook, but as you might be aware Stolze has been releasing supplements on the Ransom model - he sets up a fund on a website and invites fans of the game to contribute donations to it, and if the fund hits $1000 by the deadline the supplement is released, if it doesn't the supplement is cancelled (and nobody who contributed pays any money - you only pay when the ransom is accepted). Once the supplement is released, it's free for everyone to download forever. He's managed to raise the ransom for 4 supplements like this so far, in the 4 months since the game was released, so he's been earning $1000 a month of pure profit just on REIGN supplements since the game was published. By the standards of small press self-publishers, that's pretty damn awesome, but it wouldn't be able to support a big publisher like Black Industries.)

Quote from: WarthurActually, even in REIGN mass battles aren't the "default playstyle". They're something you can do if your organisations' Might stat is high, and you're playing rulers of nations as opposed to (say) gangland bosses.

OK, I haven't bought nor read Reign yet; I was just going on the reviews I've seen and secondhand info from friends who own it. It's great that Greg's managed to make some money on it, though.

Quote from: Herr ArnulfeOK, I haven't bought nor read Reign yet; I was just going on the reviews I've seen and secondhand info from friends who own it. It's great that Greg's managed to make some money on it, though.

Glad I could make this thread useful for someone.

One thing I like is the idea of 'colour' armies and whatnot from Burning Empires.

Er, the way I think it is supposed to work is you can make up any old shit ('I survey my armies - I watch the panzers of falkenburgs legion deploying on the right, while the grand battery of a thousand solar cannons pound the enemy positions!') but the other side is free to just make up any other old shit in response ('Yeah? Well I have ten thousand biomech commandos from Trall, and a hundred thousand slave-thanes of Norsonium III!'), and if you want a mechanical advantage you have to pass a skill check to do something. So a battle is a straight test of command skills, unless someone has made a roll on diplomacy to make sure the lowland clans of crab-warriors actually turn up for the battle, giving them a +1.

Now, obviously it is burning whatever, and hence for all I know that could actually be a badly explained recipy for asparagus soup, but that kinda codifies the way I like things.

QuoteEr, the way I think it is supposed to work is you can make up any old shit ('I survey my armies - I watch the panzers of falkenburgs legion deploying on the right, while the grand battery of a thousand solar cannons pound the enemy positions!') but the other side is free to just make up any other old shit in response ('Yeah? Well I have ten thousand biomech commandos from Trall, and a hundred thousand slave-thanes of Norsonium III!'),

Sounds like Kindergarten all over! [we had "rubber-wall" that would deflect everything, but it was even beaten by the dreaded "wall-against-everything" that would stop even bounced attacks! Alas, after the invention of anti-matter, those wars quickly petered out. Is there something of an equivalent in US-Kindergartens?]

Maybe BE CAN actually be cool if you Gonzo-fie it to the max.

Turn it´s Kindergarten logic up to eleven, and revel in the carnage.

Thanks for the idea, Erik.

Erik, I as a fan of WFRP I tip my hat to you.

This is the greatest troll on rpgsite right now, and long may it continue.

http://www.blackindustries.com/?template=40k&content=interview-mm

QuoteHave you any particularly juicy, fitting and humorous play test anecdotes you’d like to share?

There was this one time when I was playing a tech-priest who was driving the rest of the group across a desert on a flatbed truck. Unbeknownst to me, whilst the others are all sitting on the back on the truck a shale crow appears and starts freaking everyone else out, so much so, that one of the players decides to take a shot at the crow. Unfortunately they don’t hit the bird, but do somehow manage to hit the truck and the shot ricochets through the driver’s cabin, narrowly missing me! I fail my drive test and the whole vehicle goes out of control and crashes. Leaving us beaten-up and stranded in the middle of the desert. We hadn’t actually started the adventure at this stage!

Have you a favourite Dark Heresy PC and can you tell us about him or her?

It would be my hapless tech-priest, named Enoch Nixios, who can’t seem to make anything work, be it flatbed trucks, guns or pretty much any machine or technology you may care to name. Although, he’s very good at turning his vox-synthesier up to maximum volume in the middle of a fight, making everyone (including the other acolytes) drop to the floor with their hands to their ears. Needless to say, the rest of the group is still trying to work out why our Inquisitor hired him!

A fucking useless WFRP character? Colour me surprised!

QuoteAlthough, he’s very good at turning his vox-synthesier up to maximum volume in the middle of a fight, making everyone (including the other acolytes) drop to the floor with their hands to their ears.

Would it be rude to suggest that this is probably because the mechanic for this involves the priest not making a skill roll, and the targets instead making a resistance roll, so two thirds of them are going to fail?

Percentile systems suck donkey dick.

Seriously, does it count as trolling when I end up raging incoherently about the foolishness of it all?

QuoteNeedless to say, the rest of the group is still trying to work out why our Inquisitor hired him!

Or indeed why we are bothering to follow such a mongoose.

Quote from: Erik BoielleA fucking useless WFRP character? Colour me surprised!

Would it be rude to suggest that this is probably because the mechanic for this involves the priest not making a skill roll, and the targets instead making a resistance roll, so two thirds of them are going to fail?

Would it be rude to suggest that a better question to ask would be when guns and pickup trucks got added to a FANTASY game?  Now I know that you haven't played WFRP 2nd edition of the game, but as you claim to know everything about it anyway I figured I'd ask you when those items became fantasy staples.

Quote from: cnath.rmWould it be rude to suggest that a better question to ask would be when guns and pickup trucks got added to a FANTASY game?

Well, Rogue Trader came out in 1987, so then.

But I don't think it is unfair to describe what we have seen of Dark Heresy as WFRP in space, complete with useless wanker characters and remarkably low success chances (frex, from the Shattered Hope demo:-

Quote

QuoteNow, you. You’re a sorry bunch, aren’t you? Who’re you supposed to be? Not the Inquisitor I’ll warrant. Well? Speak up? I won’t have a commotion in my camp.” At this point let the players answer in whatever way this wish. Raynard has a good idea who they are, and is secretly worried
that they are all the help he’s going to get. He listens, stony, and waits for them to finish. Let the players talk as long as they wish. Once they stop, trail off, or look confused, stare at them a bit longer, a few seconds, and then say, “Right. So, the Inquisitor isn’t coming.”

Then, by the given rules (1/2 str -10), Mir, by far the toughest of the PCs, has a mighty 13% chance of impressing the Sergent enough that he even stops and talks to them.

This is shortly after the Inquisitor has expressed a lack of confidence in their abilities and shortly before the quatermaster refuses to give them anything more than some rope and a few grenades.
 
Then the commisar more or less brushes them off and everyone 'dies' falling in to a pit.

)

(I mean, seriously, that sergent guy is more or less the first person the PCs talk to! Talk about starting with a bang!)

The above tech priest no doubt suffers from that although 30% isn't to bad as a hit chance in combat because if you miss you can have another shot next turn, while a non-combat skill use will USUALLY only get one go at it, so the low chances matter more.

This is made even worse as the PCs are supposed to be employed by the inquisition instead of freelance bums, which makes one wonder why they arn't shot or replaced for incompetence, and that powerful weapons for blowing up tanks are handed out in large numbers to common soldiers.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Erik BoielleThe above tech priest no doubt suffers from that although 30% isn't to bad as a hit chance in combat because if you miss you can have another shot next turn, while a non-combat skill use will USUALLY only get one go at it, so the low chances matter more.

That's also why you are supposed to use difficulty modifiers.  Is this task easy + 20% etc....  But you should know that of course, seeing as how you profess to know all.

Quote from: SettembriniSounds like Kindergarten all over! [we had "rubber-wall" that would deflect everything, but it was even beaten by the dreaded "wall-against-everything" that would stop even bounced attacks! Alas, after the invention of anti-matter, those wars quickly petered out. Is there something of an equivalent in US-Kindergartens?]

Maybe BE CAN actually be cool if you Gonzo-fie it to the max.

Turn it´s Kindergarten logic up to eleven, and revel in the carnage.

Thanks for the idea, Erik.

Yeah, that doesn't suck in principle.  In practice, too much can overload the setting.  So I'd use that technique sparringly.

BTW, a week or so ago my daughter came home from kindergarten with knowlege of badguy-stopping forcefields.  My robot claws could not reach her.

Quote from: kryystThat's also why you are supposed to use difficulty modifiers.  Is this task easy + 20% etc....

Well, my experience tells me that most rolls are made straight - specifically, the GM will say 'give me a strength roll' and will then interpret the results based on how well you roll.

Now, technically there is little difference between roll under or roll plus adds or a dice pool or whatever, but I find that 'I failed by 20' sound worse than 'I got two successes' or 'my total is 10', even if all those results are statistically identical.

I think it is the 'I failed' thing. Black and white - pass or fail, while only getting 10 or a couple of successes is a bit softer.

--

Like you are having a chase across some rooftops - people are leaping between buildings.

I find it much easier to interpret 'I only got 1 success' as 'you stumble on landing and your target pulls ahead'.

While 'I have a jump skill of 50% - I rolled a 70' just SOUNDS more like 'You fail your jump and plummet to your death'.

I dunno. Who jumps between buildings when you have a 50/50 chance of failing? Its a soft thing, but really, really important, I reckon.

--

I think it might be GM psychology - even if you arn't going to get what you want unless you roll well, your guy is less likly to end up looking like a tool if the GM is thinking 'you don't get quite enough' rather than 'you fail'

Hey, heres another - more warhammer in it cheesy voice over than the entire range of WFRP products:-

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27412.html

Quote from: Erik BoielleWell, my experience tells me that most rolls are made straight - specifically, the GM will say 'give me a strength roll' and will then interpret the results based on how well you roll.

Now, technically there is little difference between roll under or roll plus adds or a dice pool or whatever, but I find that 'I failed by 20' sound worse than 'I got two successes' or 'my total is 10', even if all those results are statistically identical.

I think it is the 'I failed' thing. Black and white - pass or fail, while only getting 10 or a couple of successes is a bit softer.



I think it might be GM psychology - even if you arn't going to get what you want unless you roll well, your guy is less likly to end up looking like a tool if the GM is thinking 'you don't get quite enough' rather than 'you fail'

It's like you've never read or played the game before.  Shocking

WFRP does use a roll under system, no denying that.  It does however use degrees of success based on how well you make your roll.  But you are talking 'feelings' here so obviously facts are of no importance for you.  But if you want to talk about feelings then personally failing by 1% doesn't seem as grave as rolling no success on 5 dice in a pool system.

QuoteLike you are having a chase across some rooftops - people are leaping between buildings.

I find it much easier to interpret 'I only got 1 success' as 'you stumble on landing and your target pulls ahead'.

While 'I have a jump skill of 50% - I rolled a 70' just SOUNDS more like 'You fail your jump and plummet to your death'.

I dunno. Who jumps between buildings when you have a 50/50 chance of failing? Its a soft thing, but really, really important, I reckon.

Your examples are continually as ridiculous as your arguments.   In this case you are comparing 1 success - which is still 1 success vs no success at all.  Why not at least keep your examples the same.

I have a jump skill of 50% I rolled a 49% I made it, but just barely.  Had I rolled a 40, I would have made it by 10% and kept running in stride..... I know, I know, simple logic I'm not playing fair anymore.  

Heroes, Heroes jump between building when they only have a 50/50 chance of success, because failure means the bad guy gets away.

Quote from: kryystIn this case you are comparing 1 success - which is still 1 success vs no success at all.  Why not at least keep your examples the same.

Thats just it though - given a dice pool of 5 and a 50/50 chance of each dice being a success the chances of getting no successes is about 3% - equivalent to rolling 98+ on a d100. You are always likly to get some kind of success even if it isn't enough to get entirely what you want. Add in a fortune point reroll and VERY RARELY INDEED would you have to deal with getting no success at all.

% systems are the fucking devil, and instant death to any kind of heroic action.

Quote from: Erik BoielleNow, technically there is little difference between roll under or roll plus adds or a dice pool or whatever, but I find that 'I failed by 20' sound worse than 'I got two successes' or 'my total is 10', even if all those results are statistically identical.

I think it is the 'I failed' thing. Black and white - pass or fail, while only getting 10 or a couple of successes is a bit softer.

I strongly disagree with you about failure being inappropriate to Warhammer. To the contrary, Warhammer has always revelled in spectacular failures (one of my London TV producer colleagues observed that it's a fundamental British trait to embrace disaster with a sense of pride e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade and Gallipoli).

The v1 rulebook divided failures into appropriately-named categories (e.g. "Serious Failure" and "Catastrophic Failure"). WFB's Misfire tables are one of its distinguishing features and Wizards who fumble while spellcasting can explode. The General who whiffs horribly and is run down by a lone cannon crewman is the stuff of Warhammer legend. That's what people talk about in the pub afterwards -- not how badass their guys are and how many mooks they killed. One of Warhammer's great strengths has always been that failing is almost as much fun as succeeding, and sometimes moreso.

Now, I agree with you that the skill percentages are a bit too low in v2, compared to v1. This was done (presumably) to create more room for character advancement at the higher end of the scale, but at low levels it tends to produce excessive slapstick comedy unless you mitigate failures with modifiers and DoF. This has the potential for being more of a problem in 40K than in WFRP, purely due to the wider range of PC power levels. However, I see nothing wrong with the Dark Heresy actual play description you posted. It sounds like the player is having a total blast driving the plot forward with his character's spectacular failures.

Also, just FYI, Degrees of Failure aren't part of the v2 core rules, aside from being a tie-breaker for opposed tests. Degrees of Failure were added in expansions like the Old World Armoury (Surgery & Command) and WFRP Companion (Charm, Gossip, Intimidate). Also see unofficial supplements like Liber Fanatica III.