N0-1_H3r3 said:

N0-1_H3r3 said:

No I don't. In this case I would never introduce a rule that says that something can be activated 1/game. I agree totally that no game can account for personal play styles, this is why I wouldn't even go into designing something that may be problematic with certain play styles.

In our case I would simply design a rule that says 1 per deployment/mission and make it beyond awesome, while knowing that for some people this would mean an ability activated 1 per 3 game sessions and for some 1 per session. The way it's worded now looks this way:

One group plays long games but infrequently, the other plays short ones but often. They play a pre-made scenario that clocks in around 11 hours of gaming.The first group can use demeanours once during the scenario because they will play through it in a day, the second group will probably be able to use the demeanours mechanic 3 times because of the fact that they play shorter games. The group that plays short games gets more bang for their buck than the group that plays long games, while still playing the same game and scenario.

Arag said:

And there's your solution.  So simple.

Atheosis said:

Not as simple as you think, because we haven't really seen what the demeanours really give to the characters. And I mean the hard and fast rules here.

What we know is that the demeanours will give an effect similar to a fate point plus a roleplay based benefit. That's not enough to start the parade.

Arag said:

Yes, yes, but the "once per session" deal seems rather easy to fix doesn't it?

As to how demeanours actually work?  Yeah I have a funny feeling I'm not going to be all that into it.  The design decisions revealed so far leave me less than optimistic.

Given that many RP books state that a game session is generally 3-4 hours long (I know the White Wolf RPGs say this), it's fairly easy to change it to fit that, or for the GM to just state when they will "recharge". Since they are going for an ability that should only be used every so often, they went for the easiest measure of time in an RPG, that being "a session".

It is a pretty cool mechanic, and it does help to promote roleplaying, so just switch around the number of times you can use it, or whatever, to what you want it to be. It's not hard.

Arag said:

Okay, first of all, I see where you're coming from and it's a reasonable point to bring up, I anticipate there will be a lot of demeanour choices not unlike White Wolf games, and the Designer has already pointed out that the rules will endorse free and realatively unrestricted changing of you character's demeanours so that you can experiment. That said I don't see this as an important mechanic, more of an extra fate point that gives you that little bit extra if you stay in character, instead of giving you an extra get out of death free card.

It seems to me the Demeanour mechanics are deliberately built to be in line with Fate points and that 10+ hours is a long, long time. Much longer than what the industry percieves as the "average" length of a social gathering such as a gaming session, in fact. So apply your house rule for refreshing Fate points during atypically long sessions to demeanours as well and you're good to go next time you sit down to play till you pass out.

PS: I dont' like D&D: Brightly Colored Board Game Edition either.

Sister Cat said:

Way I see it, the once-per game thing is there to prevent the guy who's very charismatic (irl, not in game) and a natural actor/role player to totally dominate the game by simply doing what he normally does.

I have a player who's playing a paladin in our current D&D game atm, he's running circles around the other guys as it is (He's the leader and other players look at him for advice/opinion all the time, because he's so outspoken), I already have to force the spot lights on the other guys, I can only imagine how  bad it  would get if he had in-game mechanical benefits just for being who he is.

As it is, he'd most likely easily get his 'crowning moment of awesome' easily every game while the other players will have to work at it... but heh, this may also be a good incentive for them to try and steal the spotlight rather than me having to find a way for them to actually get it.

I see your point here, and I agree.  I just hope that the Demeanor mechanic is in addition to, rather than instead of, the normal Fate Point system.

Otherwise, DW is going to be even more lethal than DH and RT.  Then again, that may not necessarily be a bad thing.  I'll reserve judgement for now.

I see your point here, and I agree. I just hope that the Demeanor mechanic is in addition to, rather than instead of, the normal Fate Point system.

It sounded more like it was in addition.

Other than that, I have a question for the "Once per game session is arbitrary"-guys: Where were you when Dark Heresy was published? Fate Points are regenerated in exactly the same way - with the start of the next game session.

Dodskrigaren >>>
After reading that, I'm wondering how straightjacket FFG is going to make Marines sound.

Well, there is one line of thought that suggests that Marines should be straight-jacketed.  Of course, in this case I choose to see it as giving them the option to stand out from the "average" Marine, who are more straight-jacketed than the PCs, thus subscribing to one of the normal fantasy conceits about the players being special from the start.

Atheosis >>>

It does seem perilously close to crossing the line into roll-playing, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Now that all the disappointments regarding the Chapters choices (or lack thereof) are out if the way, I'm really hoping the mechanics of the game redeem it.

Something similar to the concepts of "Demeanours" was generated in fan speculation, though in that case it was specifically associated with the armour, e.g. older armour might have "heroic abilities" associated with it, Marines can develop more powers for their armour as they gain experience, etc.  Mostly this was speculated as being technological, but the idea that the charactereven if they die in the processperforms some form of Chapter-specific heroic deed being able to pass their armour down through the generations of the Chapter?  It has that rather interesting Pendragon flavour without actually making the Marines into noble knights that have children.

Atheosis >>>

I will say though that any time I've ran a game with once a session abilities, I've always treated it as two to three hours of play time. Though I tend to agree it's a little bit off design-wise.

Well, you can always take a bit out of other systems that can handle the "once per game" mechanic even within PbP?

Adam France >>>

I have to say I'm not impressed, this seems like a game mechanic for players who don't know how to roleplay. It smacks of 4e D&D's powers, especially with the arbitrary 'once per game' rule.

If handled well, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  I personally leave the "roleplaying" aspects to just thatroleplaying, modelling the intelligence (etc.) of the Marines in the conventional manner.  There might be Chapter-specific abilities, be it more or less Bloodlust or whatever, but the idea of having "powers" is not necessarily a bad thing.  It does make it a bit video-gamey, but that might not be a bad thing.  (Well, unless it is overdone.)

Adam France >>>

I am seriously doubting I will bother buying this game, it just doesn't look like it's going to have much of interest to me, and almost every DD makes me more and more convinced I won't like it.

I'm tempted to buy it just to see how it ultimately handles Marines.  The little tid-bits that we get with Designer's Diaries are interesting, but ultimately you have to judge it with the book.  On the other hand, I already know that I'm not going to be using the system, but the more interesting bits there are in it the more likely that I'm going to use them in the system that I do use.  Homage and all that.

N0-1_H3r3 >>>

I don't see it; the easiest way to think about them is as an extra Fate Point you get once per game (an an appropriately dramatic moment) for roleplaying your character.

There's an alternate way of handling them, thougha reward to roleplaying.  Rather than just being a one-game shtick, you make them something that is powered by Fate.  They don't come back for the session (whatever the individual might define that as) unless they do some roleplaying that is consistent with their Natures. 

Urgh, begins to sound like WoD, but you get the drift.

For me, though, abilities that are powered by "fate" (essence, karma, whatever) this is how they tend to work.  Burn a point and you get the ability.  It gets a bit more than that, though, with the idea of Good and Bad Points from 'ole Amber DRPG but... err... I digress.

N0-1_H3r3 >>>

Personally, the first thing I'm doing with Deathwatch when it comes out (and I can show it to my players) is integrating Demeanours and Fate Points more closely, so that each time you use a Fate Point, you need to trigger a Demeanour first.

Oooh, you beat me to it.  What he said.

SonofDorn >>>

What I'm going to do before I buy DW (and most likely I will), is to read through the rules and make a thorough evaluation based on what I've fully seen before my eyes and not the tidbits of information that is presented to us here from week to week.

Sounds like a valuable thing for everyone to do.  I tend to get "library" copies to evaluate before buying (i.e. the copies that a friend has purchased).  I would still love to see online samples in the form of a table of contents and index, but that's unlikely to happen.

Arag >>>

Well, I agree with you, but only partially. I'll buy the game and look into it's mechanics to see what good and what's to be changed. But right now we are getting previews and what I'm seeing (a stand-alone idea as it is) doesn't make me happy. I'm not judging the game here, I'm judging the info given on demeanours.

That seems fair enough.  I see them more as a part and parcel of the story of modelling a character.  I'm not going to use them as is, but would rather explore the idea of associating it with "glorious deeds" of the past, allowing them to acquire some bonus to an endeavour.  

Sister Cat >>>

However, I do see a potential pitfall in the whole "once-per-game-session" thing.

Mine is that I'm not fond of the other players being able to get a say in the matter. 

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Yeah, I see potential abuse here.

Why wouldn't you want your allie to get a free fate point? Even if he roleplayed poorly, why not give him a thumbs up? After all, you want it to vote for you when you try and trigger your demeanor.

Players usually work together after all.

And than there's the possibility of hurt feeling... if one player roleplay his heart out and think he deserves it and one (or more) of the other players are like 'meh'... the roleplayer may be offended.

Tarkand said:

    Exactly. Could not have said it better myself.

Tarkand said:

Yeah as soon as I saw that, I knew I was going to be ignoring it.  If I'm the GM then I'm the GM.  This isn't a democracy.  If the other players want a say they can start up a game.

 If you think you're awesome and the other players disagree, then the obvious inference is not that they're cruel, but that you're not as awesome as you think.  I really don't know why (for example) four players voting is going to be less arbitrary or more unfair than the GM making the call.  If all the players at a table think something is great and the GM disagrees, then the problem is that not everyone is on the same wavelength.  Also, if your players are just looking for every opportunity to dodge past the rules (only give the thumbs-up if its good roleplaying) to get an advantage, then it's time to find new players.

Honestly, a lot of the posts in this thread are giving me the impression that many of you play with gaming groups made up of dishonest, self-interested jerks.  I could solve ninety percent of the supposed problems with these rules just by getting good players.  

Also, I have no idea how y'all are using the term "roll-playing."  I mean, I've heard it before, but I'm not sure it's being used the same way here as I've seen elsewhere.  I personally think it's kind of a dumb word, in that it actually makes the discussion less productive...but if I can't convince people to stop using it, then may I at least ask that they explain what they mean by it?

The Wyzard says >>>

I really don't know why (for example) four players voting is going to be less arbitrary or more unfair than the GM making the call.

While everyone is ideally engaged in a co-operative narrative, the way that I've always seen it is that the GM tends to have a special place insofar as that they have a heads-up as to not only the plot in general (which is flexible) but the intent of any given scenario.  All this means is that while at any given time it might be arbitrary, it is at least an informed arbitrary decision.

I personally just don't like the feel of how this is employed, preferring the suggestions being made by others.  I wouldn't want the use of a character ability to be determined by what others think of as "cool."  After all, if they're playing the role of, say, a Space Wolf and I want to do something "awesome" with my Blood Raven Librarian, they technically should be resistant to it.  On the other hand, the player should not inherently be so biased... It just seems, to me, like an inappropriate kludge of metagaming and roleplaying.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the appropriate use of metagaming as a means of enhancing player immersion in the game, but this just sounds a bit off.

Of course, it's early days yet.  We've only had one insight into the game mechanics of Deathwatch thus far. What does it tell me?  Well, it tells me pretty much what I wanted to hear about certain parts of characterising PC Marines.  First, that the Chapter is going to have an important influence on the character.  Thus, the Chapter should be appropriate modelled with certain "traits" (or whatever works for the system in question).  Okay, that was clear from the start, but nice to see at least a part of it coming out here.

The other thing seems to come down to the idea that the player should create a focusone might call it a conceptfor their character and characteristics, traits, or whatever, appropriately for that focus/concept.  Further, they should roleplay them.  Okay, that's fair enoughthat's pretty much how roleplayers have been doing it from year dot.  It is, however, good to see that it is mechanically supported.

Am I going to replicate "Demeanours" as represented in the Designer's Diary?  Well, without further information I would say no.  I would go with the idea that the player establishes a strong enough concept that describes why they can rise above the "average Marine" and break away from the mold of "mindful, indoctrinated killing Machine" that I prefer to interpret for the vast majority of Marines.  This will include the selection of characteristics of whatever that support that role, and not just a "power" that you can play once a session (or whatever).  In this case, I'll go for the mechanics supporting the bond between the Marine and their armour, and of course their other wargear.  

The Wyzard says >>>

Also, I have no idea how y'all are using the term "roll-playing."  I mean, I've heard it before, but I'm not sure it's being used the same way here as I've seen elsewhere.  I personally think it's kind of a dumb word, in that it actually makes the discussion less productive...but if I can't convince people to stop using it, then may I at least ask that they explain what they mean by it?

On my own behalf, I consider roll-playing to be any situation whereby the game mechanics, which might include randomised elements such as dice, are the only, or at least, the primary means of interacting with the game universe.  Of course, that's what the game mechanics are there for, but I would contest that role playing is such that the mechanics are there as a means of supporting the player as they take on the role of their character in any given situation.  This does not require that the player be a "Thespian," that they act for their character, but merely that they provide characterised information for the GM to make a determination upon rather than: 

GM: "Okay, the Militia are barring your entrance into the city."

Player: "I roll my Fast Talk."

That, for me, is roll-playing.  Role-playing would be more akin to: 

GM: "Okay, the Miltia are barring your entrance into the city."

Player: <considers character options> "Okay, this is what I'm going to do..." <outlines scenario of bluffing or whatever>

GM: "Hmmn... Okay, roll your Fast Talk with these modifiers..."

The only real difference here is that the GM acts as the interface between the players actions and the mechanical abstractions.  If a player is just telling the GM what dice they're going to roll rather than taking on the role of their character to determine what they would do in that given situation?  That, for me, is roll-playing.

I'm not that anyone else would agree with me in that definition, but that's the one that I use.

Kage