Yay! Actual concrete examples of core game mechanics. 'Bout time.

Looking forward to the intro to what "Missions" represent exactly.

And I like the idea of team or solo-based abilities. It took 3 12-hour sessions to get my group to work as a team. Giving them benefits for doing so (and allowing bonuses for those that don't) is an interesting tact and really hammers in the fact that Marines are meant to work as a squad, as if they were in an army, where as Acolytes and Explorers are individuals brought together for their specific talents. I like this system (even if 'Solo-Mode' does sound a little silly).

BYE 

Atheosis said >>>

I would focus on narrative far more than mechanics.

Hmmn... The narrative is, for me, always more important than the mechanics.  With that said?  I always find that it is great when the mechanics support the narrative.  I'm not necessarily talking about the whole narrativism gubbins, but rather the idea that mechanics become increasingly transparent and support the type of play desired.  (Oh, god, that does sound like narrativism.  I need to go and purge myself.)

Atheosis said >>>

And then I would honestly own up to the fact that DW is going to be primarily action oriented rather than trying to mask it behind rules.

One of the things that I've tried to do with my own interpretation is made the rules match up with the description of the universe as much as possible.  In the case of Marines, I've looked into making what is otherwise an equipment choice for other characters into the focus of something that much more significant for Marines.  Thus, for me, I tend to borrow from the samurai ideal that the warrior's soul is housed in their sword, or for a Marine their armour.

That kind of bond strikes me as inherently more interesting than merely "power loading."

Brother Praetus said >>>

I have to agree with much of what you've said here, Atheosis. I don't mind mechanical benefits to teamwork and tactics, but it may be too much effort on the part of the Devs. DW should be rather combat intensive; though this does nothing to prevent interesting story and interaction.

Indeed.  On my own behalf, and as above, the idea is that one way of making the "combat experience" that much more palatable is to make the trappings of combatthe weapons, the armour, etc. into a more significant component of the game.

Brother Praetus said >>>

I want to see this successful. I don't want to have to go back and dig out all my damned notes from when I was working on a 40K-type setting with D20 Future.

Same here with regards to the success of the line.  After all, the longer the line sticks around the greater the chance that I'm going to see the kind of products that I would love to see come out of it.  With that said, I never left my homebrew conversions. 

Kage

I find myself liking the new mechanic immensely. Anything that hammers down the point of playing as a team is great for a game about a special task force if you ask me.

Also, I don't find the mechanic especially arbitrary or abstract. Not any more than any other rule, at least. From what I know about various special units, either military or law enforcement, they tend to train certain group maneuvers ad nauseam, the point of exercise being exactly what "group mode" seems to be about - being certain that everyone around you does his job properly so you can focus on doing your part without worrying about anyone else screwing up and screwing you in the process. Mutual trust and doing your part in the team work so much better when anyone involved has his part trained to the point of being a "muscle memory".

I also think it makes Space Marines so much cooler that their awesomeness comes not just from twinked out individual stats, but from mutual trust and perfectly executed tactics as well. And having an actual rule that makes it work is so much better IMO than saying "Space Marines team works as one, except that mechanically they are as stand-alone as your lame first rank Guardsmen are". Mechanics representing and reinforcing fluff FTW.

Again to play Devil's Advocate, this from the other side of the argument, but numerous games that have handled the idea of small unit operations have never previously felt the need to introduce team mechanics.  I was browsing through GURPS 3e Special Ops 2e the other day for inspiration in dealing with my own interpretation of Space Marines and, well, no "team mechanics" sprang out.  (On the other hand, fantastically inspirational on how to deal with protracted military campaigns, but there we go...)

What is it peculiar about Space Marines that needs some form of "team building?"  Does it in some way enhance the team outside of the tactical wargame side of things?

I think that it's clear that it is not necessary and, further, that it creates some oddities with regards to dealing with the other races (e.g. Aspect Warriors and how they work as a 'team'), so what is it that makes this necessary, fun, or just plain awesome?  And if Marines get to be awesome, what about the next codex that makes Orks awesome (or should that be "orrzum?"), or Eldar or Tau... ?

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I think the reason that DW Marines need special “Go Team Awesome” Powers is that they are a mixed bag of radically different combat doctrines. By the fluff, watching a squad of Ultramarines move across a battlefield would be radically different from a squad of Space Wolves, or Black Templar's, etc. The “Go Team Awesome” powers would represent special combat doctrines that only the DW train in as a way to bridge the gap between chapters and allow these very different individuals to be able to work together effectively despite their divergent training.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Go Team Awesome?

@Kage

Again to play Devil's Advocate, this from the other side of the argument, but numerous games that have handled the idea of small unit operations have never previously felt the need to introduce team mechanics.

Others, like Werewolf, did. And if I had to place Space Marines between "modern day spec forces squad" and "pack of 3 metre tall killing machines with almost supernatural team coordination generally obliterating opposition by a combination of pure combat strength and superior team tactics", I think I'd choose the latter. Certainly connotations of the former, but that's not all there is.

Cifer said:

That's fair enough.  The spec-ops thing was merely a reference to materials that I was looking through vis-a-vis Space Marines as a means of trying to craft rules to work with Marines and their potential modus operandi (and, again, how to handle long-term military campaigns with reasonable suspension of disbelief). The question was whether it was necessary, not whether it had been done before.  ItsUncertainWho talks about the combat doctrines of the various Chapters, but this seems to be something that would be represented in "Solo Mode."  Effectively meshing these advantages and disadvantages would seem to be a part and parcel of a "realistic" approach to the Deathwatch rather than just because you're in that organisation you get super-cool resource powers with extra bling and a dose of Team America for that "%#%# Yeah!" moment.  (Combat spacing is a "power" unavailable to other Marines?)

My personal preference is to slide more to the Band of Brothers approach then Le Morte D'Arthur (and now I'm going to have Carmina Burana buzzing around in my head every time I think about Deathwatch thankyouverymuchExcalibur!) coupled with the (and now I've got Bryan Adams doing his "power ballad" going around my head, ack!).  

You've already got "Pure Awesome" with the Marine themselves.  I think that the question remains as to whether the rules iceberg that is "Go Team Awesome" powers are necessary.  As mentioned previously, learning a certain amount from video games can be useful, but when does it cross the (personal) line into the territory of too much?

I'm just thinking out loud.  When Deathwatch comes out, will "Team Combat Powers" really be worth taking the time to convert over or can they be left out for an imaginative group of roleplayers?

(Incidentally, never played Werewolf so don't know anything about team combat powers, and have only ever seen rules/mechanics that were produced in a licensed conversion.)

Kage

There's nothing realistic about a team of super elite, extremely trained "commandos" to not be more efficient when executing pre-trained group maneuvers. Not that realism is this important when talking about enormous combat mutants wielding impossible technology to battle impossible enemies, but still.

Also, this mechanic doesn't seem to replace normal combat rules (and thus any tactics that they enable), it seems to be an additional layer on top of normal rules, representing the fact that thanks to their elite training Space Marines get more mileage out of their tactical approach than a random bunch of guys coming up with a cool idea.

Morangias said >>>

There's nothing realistic about a team of super elite, extremely trained "commandos" to not be more efficient when executing pre-trained group maneuvers. Not that realism is this important when talking about enormous combat mutants wielding impossible technology to battle impossible enemies, but still.

First, let's not conflate the use of the term "realism" in application to the 40k universe.  Everyone knows that it is a fictional game universe, that the warp doesn't exist, there are no Greater Daemons of Tzeentch, or whatever.  "Realism" is contextualised by the setting and individualised approaches to it as determined by preference, etc.

Also note that I took a pro-stance to the "Team Mode" mechanics earlier on in the thread.  Ultimately I'm more interested in discussion on the relative merits, whether it is pointed or pointless mechanics, etc.  No-one can say anything definitive, just speculate it and at the end of the day go, "Nope, I was wrong," or "Yep, I was right."  Even then, you don't get some mystical form of fan points for doing so since it's inherently a personal observation (that others may share, but that's another point altogether).

On my own behalf, as above, when I look through Deathwatch ultimately what I'm going to be doing is searching for those things that enhance the game play and are worth my spending the time to convert them to another system.  As it stands, Team Mode as describedadmittedly, with only one example of "combat space" as a form of group-share of abilities (sorta kinda)isn't really firing all my "Convert Now!" neurons.  Indeed, I tend to remove all the "tactical wargame" elements of the system that I'm using in favour for something more fluid, so adding more of them into the fray is a bit... strange.

However, when we understand more about them I might be a convert and, erm... convert... them.  Now?  Not so much.

Morangias said >>>

Also, this mechanic doesn't seem to replace normal combat rules (and thus any tactics that they enable), it seems to be an additional layer on top of normal rules, representing the fact that thanks to their elite training Space Marines get more mileage out of their tactical approach than a random bunch of guys coming up with a cool idea

And do we need that?  Marines are already going to be uber-cool and nigh on invulnerable to most things that the normal games throw at them barring meltaguns and the odd hellgun and thunderhammer so do they need another mechanic to buff them even more?  If it gets even worseand this is a tongue-in-cheek commentit might be that when you open up Deathwatch all you get is a page that says, "Thank you for buying Deathwatch.  You are now a member of the elite Space Marines of the Imperium of Mankind.  You are some awesome and uber that you're going to win.  Just roll 1d10.  If the dice happens to randomly explode or turn into a Sperm Whale, you and your Battle Brothers win by sheer awesomeness.  If you do find yourself with exploding dice or sea mammalia, roll another dice.  Same rule applies."

Surely the Marine training would reflect in higher skillssorry, statisticsand what might in Ascension be called Master skills and Paragon Talents?

On the other hand, it might be fantastically cool and appropriate.  We shall have to wait and see, though that doesn't stop people discussing it. 

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I'm a little lost on this comment. What part of Deathwatch makes you think the party will be "nigh on invulnerable" exactly? These characters aren't going to be fighting the same things a "normal game" would by a long shot. So with that thinking, perhaps a few more abilities are really needed?

I assume that people expect the encounters in this game to be worthy of the Astartes themselves. In Dark Heresy you might never fight 30 cultists at the same time right? What about a group of Astartes? Perhaps 30 cultists is nothing to them, well except for the traitor marines with them, or the daemons, or even the possessed daemonhost with them.

This is a game of heroics, its the meat of "Space Marines". If, in your opinion, the characters are "too powerful" then you simply aren't doing your job as a GM of pushing their limits like you should IMHO.

I think that a lot of angst could be saved by changing the terminology somewhat and perhaps some of the mechanics.

A new resource is added to the game: cohesion.

Things like 'once per day per game time' are awefully gamist and can break the suspension of disbelief. If for example, feat of strength used as its cost Fatigue, say 1D5 fatigue, well there is a chance that a marine could do it more than once a day (or more than once between rest periods) but there is also a chance that they could collapse from the strain. This is internally consistent as the reason for the limitation is justified within the mechanics. There is no real abstraction invovled (except the necessary abstraction of using numbers to represent reality of course).

For me personally RPG (and wargames to a lesser extent) mechanics need to be self referencing to be 'realistic' within the game. ie, the D&D approach of 'once per encounter', 'once per day' etc are arbitrary limits placed on the rules that have no direct relationship to a character. If they relied on hit point expenditure, fatigue, or mana, then there would be a tangible REASON that something is most likely going to be 'once per encounter', it would be self referentially logical.

In the previous example, feat of strength could be an alternative use for a fate point. As fate points are a finite resource, then like the pure of heart talents that sisters/clerics can use, it shows that the character's own 'fate' is behind their heroic feats rather than an abstract limitation to 'balance' the ability.

They've gone for a very different kind of RPG, more like a combat simulator I think. I've often thought that space marines (and other elites like eldar aspects) act as force multipliers within their squads. ie, 1 marine is worth 10 guardsmen. 2 marines are worth 25 guardsmen, 3 marines are worth 40 guardsmen and so on. The more 'squad cohesion' there is, the more their training can be amplified. Basically, elite forces in the 41st millennium trained for decades become greater than the sum of their parts.

Cohesion seems to be a method of measuring this. Although it also sounds like a form of morale meter as well, which I would have thought could be represented by the current disposition rules with regards to Command tests etc. I don't mind the cohesion concept; the squad ability given as an example is fairly logical in its application. However it does seem strange that a unit becomes less cohesive the more it acts as a unit - ie the more the unit acts together using squad abilities the less cohessiveness it actually has...

So my opinion is that I like the concept, but not necessarily all of the execution. Some of it could have been covered by preexisting rules imo, whilst others seem a little too abstractly gamist for my tastes.

I truly believe that you can have great mechanics without sacrificing verssimilitude and relying on abstraction to balance the system.

Hellebore

I actually like the idea of having some form of squad specific powers, the way I see it is as a kind of  group investment just like Rogue Trader's ship mechanic. Giving players a chance and opportunity to invest into a common thing. Just calling it Solo Mode or Team Mode is kinda weird...I'd say call it Solitary Tactics or Squad Tactics or something in the likes.

kenshin138 said >>>

I'm a little lost on this comment. What part of Deathwatch makes you think the party will be "nigh on invulnerable" exactly? These characters aren't going to be fighting the same things a "normal game" would by a long shot. So with that thinking, perhaps a few more abilities are really needed?

Needed only so far that we get into power creep.  Based upon what we've seen, and what might be reasonable to inferI laugh at myself for using that phrase, but you have to use something!of the base representation, these are characters that have power armour, and a functional stacked set of power armour that happens to be invulnerable to armour piercing weapons.  They have upgraded weaponry based upon their size (news to many, but there we go).  They have sheer manner of cool abilities based upon their inherent being, as produced by the zygotes (something that we didn't really see in our previous insight into Space Marines).  They're seemingly going to get a whole lot of awesome to be used on narrative whim, and then they're going to get a resource pool of coolness to buff them in certain "transcendent abilities" that manifest themselves by dint of them working together because they get uber abilities that out-uber their already-uber abilities because they're in the Deathwatch.

And that's just what we've seen (with a healthy dose of inference).

It seems to buff Space Marines up beyond where they're already buffed to no end for the sake of "uber coolness."  Can you imagine the amount of buffing that is going to go on for Grey Knights?  Or, god forbid, Adeptus Custodes? 

That's why I ask if it is necessary.

kenshin138 said >>>

What about a group of Astartes? Perhaps 30 cultists is nothing to them, well except for the traitor marines with them, or the daemons, or even the possessed daemonhost with them.

Don't forget that they can shoot fireballs out of their &$^$.  Another useful ability for the Marine in power armour. 

Seriously, though it might be a kick-ass cool ability in the context of the game...?  Is it necessary, or does it merely subscribe to power creep?

kenshin138 said >>>

If, in your opinion, the characters are "too powerful" then you simply aren't doing your job as a GM of pushing their limits like you should IMHO.

That's a dual edged sword there, kenshin138.  Pushing them by which definition?  The one that has Space Marines as to "da bestest," or ones that might see them as bionetically augmented, highly trained individuals with the most advanced technology that they are allowed to get their hands on?  The idea that Marines are superhuman, so you take the best possible example from humanity and then uber it for "heroic reasons?"

Who is doing what job?

Hellebore said>>>

I think that a lot of angst could be saved by changing the terminology somewhat and perhaps some of the mechanics.

Good point.

A new resource is added to the game: cohesion.

Hellebore said >>>

In the previous example, feat of strength could be an alternative use for a fate point. As fate points are a finite resource, then like the pure of heart talents that sisters/clerics can use, it shows that the character's own 'fate' is behind their heroic feats rather than an abstract limitation to 'balance' the ability.

Certainly not unreasonable, and while I might be setting myself up for an astute counter-argument (dang it, don't you just live discussion) I find myself agreeing.  

Hellebore said >>>

Cohesion seems to be a method of measuring this. Although it also sounds like a form of morale meter as well, which I would have thought could be represented by the current disposition rules with regards to Command tests etc.

Indeed.  Sounds like Corruption with the vestiges of the karma system that was left of from some of the original design?

Hellebore said >>>

I truly believe that you can have great mechanics without sacrificing verssimilitude and relying on abstraction to balance the system.

Again, I find myself agreeing with this.

Brence said >>> 

I actually like the idea of having some form of squad specific powers, the way I see it is as a kind of group investment just like Rogue Trader's ship mechanic. Giving players a chance and opportunity to invest into a common thing. Just calling it Solo Mode or Team Mode is kinda weird...I'd say call it Solitary Tactics or Squad Tactics or something in the likes.

Hence why my question is whether it is necessary or whether it obfuscates a quality of power creep that is common to the 40k universe?  What are its broader implications to the 40k universe, or do "we" not "care" because it's the next 40k universe?

Questioning whether something is necessary doesn't mean that you're saying something is bad.  Remember for me it doesn't matter either way.  I'll look at the Team Buff modes and see whether there is something in there that, for me, needs to be converted.  If nothing, I don't convert and I don't get the Buff Mode.  If it's a whole lot of awesome for the individual characters with oodles of narrative potentials rather than just combat/tactical wargame buffing?  I'm all for that.

Kage

I feel like I could boil down half of the above agruments to "Do RPGs need rules?"  Technicaly, no.  I've both run and been a player in compleatly ruleless RPGs.  Those are essentialy stories with mulitple authors.

The G in the RPG is what seperates it from just being a group of people making up a story, and I for one enjoy some Rolling with my Roleing.  And that's were mechanics are helpful.  And personaly, I'm glad that FFG is putting the time and effort into making Deathwatch a game specifily designed to play as a squad of marines, rather then just porting over Dark Heresy with different starting equipment. 

In many ways, I think videogames have been one of the bigest chalanges to RPGs, not because they try to make RPGs more like video games, but because everyone insists on comparing the two on some assumption that an RPG should be nothing like a video game.  Odd given that many RPG-Video games were created by just programing in pen-and-paper rule sets.