Gaius said:

No, that's explicidly not what I want. Otherwise I would have posted in the House Rules forum.

I posted to ask if I missed any balancing element, because if not then I'd houserule it. I was told I didn't, so I decided to houserule it.

The discussion goes on because of some peoples' inability to read and because they somehow got miffed that I identified a rules imbalance, insignificant as it may be.

It's not even that anyone doubts the rules' imabalance, it's that they try to tell me that badly made rules don't matter, try to blame my players or do other citings of the unbelievable crap that is the Rule 0 Fallacy. I can't help it, if someone tries to pull that fallacy on me I just want to throw up, especially if doesn't belong into the thread at all, like this one.

How does one even get from reading a thread that asks about a perceived rules imbalance to vehemently telling the asker that imbalanced rules don't matter in the Rules Questions Forum? The pure insanity and idiocy of it baffles me.

I mentioned the House Rules I'd be using in the 10th post in this thread. Did you read that far before you decided to answer?

Badlapje said:

(I'll just quote this, but it goes for the rest of the post too).

My god, didn't you read this thread?

What you are talking about is the price of rice in china, the age of the warrant and the points that provides has, taken by itself, nothing to do with the problems with the warrant path.

Why is everyone doing that? Can't you even take the time to look at the problem as presented in this thread?

Hell, can't you at least look at the Warrant Path to understand that what you atlk about isn't problem?

What's so hard about reading these days?

Sorry, but you are at the very least the third person to have made this mistake, and I just can't react normally to this kind of lazy reading anymore.

The table as is penalizes player choice, because the way it is structured it inflicts lower or higher starting values on groups without any connection or basis in fluff whatsoever. Players don't start with less point because they have a younger warrant, the table doesn't work that way. Thus a group can't use fluff to account for any differences in starting PF and SP that different choices might lead to.

Gokerz said:

I did read the entire thread, i replied in it before.  I just don't agree with your logic.  You see lower PF or SP as a penalty.  I see it as a differing starting point which you can choose depending on what kind of story one wants to star in.  

The above simple statement is what you don't get.  On top of which you provide a faulty example just now.  Players do start with less poins because they have a younger warrant.  You can't get an older warrant then the "Age of Rebirth" one, and it has the most SP and the most PF.  Most of the choices and the consequences they hold seem entirely logical to me.  The only problem i have with the warrant path (as i stated earlier), is that it doesn't allow for free choices on each line.  I have the same problem with the career path, and it's one that is easily houseruled either by giving a number of free choices or letting them all be free.

Basically, the entire concept of the warrant path seems to be so far out of your munchkin worldview that you simply cannot wrap your head around it.  So i do hope that you houseruled it to your heart's content and it won't impede your fun anymore.  

Badlapje said:

*sigh*

I think I give up.

What is so hard to understand about the Warrant Path?

Can't you look at is for the 5 seconds that are required to notice that you can make a warrant that starts at Age of Redemption and ends up with a higher total PF+SP than one that starts Age of Rebirth? Age of the Warrant doesn't matter for the final PF+SP total.

I don't know what's more embarassing, your inability to understand the thread, your inability to understand how the Warrant and Origin Path is structured or that you already stooped down to personal attacks by calling me a munchkin.

 @Gokerz:

If the question is "Is there something missing from this path", then the answer is (according to.. Sam?), that nothing's missing.

If the question is "the SP+PF+bonus is unbalanced, right?", I'd sey "yes, you are right" since my group able to sort out SP+PF above 100 (compared to the usual 'mundane rolls of 90 totals, or some other path that only give 86 total). At least it is very unbalanced in the terms of SP+PF (and bonuses such as archeotech or xenotech).

However, just to put more emphasize, most of the people here (including myself) simply considers (under our own opinions) that SP PF and bonuses (mechanical benefits) are not the only way to balance out things. Fluffs and stories, to most people here at least in this thread (at least from my point of view), are another balancing factors as well (especially in a pen and paper RPG where we play with friends, having fun together).

Right now I do not think I'd like to share more opinions here in this thread, since apparently people who stated their opinion (opinions) got bashed. But maybe those are just my perception and opinion, who are prone to mistakes (just like my english).

Gokerz said:

Actually, you seem to be the one misunderstanding. You have presented you argument clearly and concisely and gotten a response of 'So what?'

What you are misunderstanding is that starting with 50 PF and 70 SP is not better than starting out with 45 PF and 65 SP. So, one path having a lesser set of totals is not worse than going down an adjacent path with better total. All it means is your ship has another bell, and you can afford another whistle.

Starting SP and starting PF are free parameters in starting a Rogue Trader game. If the GM wanted, and the players agree, they could start out with 20PF and 20 SP. They could start at 60 PF and 70 SP. They could start at eleventy billion PF and 0 SP. The fact that some paths on an optional chart are not all equally good is a tiny tiny problem.

You are also missing that part of the path is the path itself, and its use in defining backstory. Guess what? Some backstories arent as useful as others for getting PF and SP. It may be a bitchin story tho. So again, a couple less PF and SP are not a problem.

Most of us arent worried about maximizing SP and PF. As a result, we dont consider your problem to be a problem.

Gokerz said:

What amazes me is that i and many others continue to post here to answer your question, in what now must be dozens of different ways to explain the same simple reality, and your answer is every single time the same.  Summarised your answer is:

"yousa dumb, mesa smart, warranth path isa unbalanced".

Given that i am appearently so far beneath your intellectual level, i'll gracefully leave you to figure out the meaning of life and the warrant path.  I bid you adieu, kind sir.

Gaius said:

This would have been ideal.  Simplifying the table to just PF and SP with a token archeotech/xenotech result missed some excellent opportunities.

For the record, I agree with pretty much everything Gokerz has said in this thread.

The Ship & Warrant Origin Path rules are not well designed.

What is there to "balance"? If the players pick an older warrant, you get tougher foes, hereditary grudges and hidden political enemies. If you pick a weaker one, go straight to high adventure. Balance is for player to player comparisons. You can't balance against the GM. The GM will throw whatever he deems a sufficient challenge against you. The better your ship is, the better your foes become. 

I do agree that the warrant chargen could be more interesting with stuff like:

*Authority to commandeer Imperial forces

*Ecclesiarchical authority

*Grant of xx World

*Duty to supply forces

*Charged to cleanse  xx world within xx centuries

*Charged to maintain xx warp route

*Relic: signed by the Emperor/Primarch/Sebastian Thor himself

*Bad Relic: signed by Horus himself

Telosse said:

See, that is completely okay. I do not argue that the the difference has to matter to any specific group,that any group is somehow deficient in any way if it doesn't affect them. I am arguing because a vocal minority of people seem to be of the opinion that it shouldn't matter to any group,that a group is somehow deficient if they have a problem with that imbalance (see the munckin comment above). The difficutly is that a number of people with a much more balanced opinion like yours seem to have misinterpreted my arguing against the vocal minority as me arguing against them as well.

There are also other points to consider:

- The fact that there might be a percantage of groups that have no problem with an imbalanced rule doesn't mean the rule isn't a problem and doesn't need to be fixed.

- While the Power difference that results from is a problem, I consider any componentupgrade you can cram into your ship to increase its value to a group even if removed from notions of power. Assuming equal quality of fluff a group thinks up for their ship more SP invested into the Ship at the start means a more individualized ship, with more unique character, more chances to be able to do interesting an cool stuff, more things that might turn into plot hooks, more elements that might positively affect roleplaying opportunitieswhat you might call all around chances for increased awesome. That is a problem even if you completely remove any notions of pure increase in combat powerother other game mechanical gains that result from the lower points. Again, not by much, but it irks me. This is also why the "just pick harder foes" argument doesn't work for me.

- The Warrant Path should not be balanced purely for the 100% non-mechanical groups. Groups that have a more mechanical bent in their preferences but still want to be able to chose their Warrant Path without any considerations for any issues in effectiveness down the road are legtimite. They are not somehow less worth balancing for just because they care more for mechanics than other groups.In fact, it's the other way around as groups that have a low dependency on balanced rules are less affected if the rules were balanced for groups that have a higher dependency on well balanced rules.

korjik said:

I am eagerly awaiting your statistical breakdown to back up this notion. It has to be pretty good, you a are claiming to talk for an awful lot of people there.

Okay, that's a bit unfair of me.

Still, do you mean to imply that a group shouldn't have a problem with this rules imbalance? Is a group that is affected somehow playing wrong, maybe having Badwrongfun`?

Or do you mean that because your "most of us" isn't terribly affected, the rule shouldn't be fixed?

Or none of the two and you are just making a general observation?

What does it actually matter to the question I asked in the OP if "most of you" aren't worried?

Gokerz said:

From post 31 to post 42, 7 people posted an opinion. 2 thought it was a problem, 4 did not, 1 showed no opinion. I could go back further, but that isnt really going to change the breakdown much.

What you miss is that most of us are saying it isnt an imbalance. The only way it could be an imbalance is if each path competed against one another. You seem to miss where I said that having less PF/SP only means you have less PF/SP. The starting PF/SP can be set to any values the GM wants. Like I said, if the GM wants a 20PF 20SP start, that isnt a problem, even tho it isnt stated somewhere in the book that you can do that.

You are the one saying that the chart is a horrible design. The rest of us are saying 'not really' The fact that some of the 400so paths do not give as high a total isnt a problem.

Personally, when you are talking an optional rule designed to define backstory as much as give starting SP/PF, I really dont want one of the line producers to waste a daytwo compiling all the possible paths to make sure they all give exactly the same SP/PF total. I would much rather they spend those days making the next book.

If it were to come down to my players,them complaining that they had two less SPtwo less PF, I would still go 'so what?', either dont use that path,maybe you could play the game to get those PFSPs.

duplicate post
duplicate post
duplicate post
duplicate post
 

korjik said:

Except the ones that, you know, agree with mesee it as a problem too.

So, there are two kinds of people in this thread: some for which the imbalance is a problem,others for whom it isn't a problemthey assume that because it isn't problematic for them there obviouslyobjectively can't be a problem. You realize which of the two is commiting a logical fallacy?