Warhammer 40k Roleplaying, initial thoughts

When it came out I was aware of why Dark Heresy was a big deal. I just didn't care. I've never been much for science fiction and while I really liked Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP), the idea of WFRP in SPAAACE! didn't appeal to me. (Sheesh how stupid I was!)

I'm not sure what--it wasn't the Dire King's excellent Star Wars 40k posts--but something piqued my interest. So I read the Eisenhorn Omnibus, half (so far) of Let the Galaxy Burn, Ravenor, and I'm a(thelmost done with Ghostmaker (the second novel) in The Founding Gaunt's Ghosts Omnibus 1. Then of course I read Dark Heresy and pre-ordered Rogue Trader. By the Will of the Golden Throne I am a convert!

So naturally I am going to run some 40k Roleplay for my guys at some point. But I have a dilemma. IMO, WFRP is a game about rat catchers and peasants scrabbling up from the muck and filth and--if they don't die of infection, plague, or starvation--making their mark on the Empire (or more likely die trying). The WFRP rules work really well for that. I had a blast (which I largely attribute to a great GM) playing WFRP.

But in my limited experience, 40k characters aren't like that.* The are at least good at what they do, if not outright experts. Their adventures save planets, systems, and sub-sectors. They fight Chaos Marines, Daemons, unspeakable powerful xenos, or very well armed Chaos Cults. So the port of WFRP 2e to 40k doesn't really work for me.

Dark Heresy (DH) is set up for playing "entry-level" inquisitorial staffers. Rogue Trader (RT), while ostensibly about more powerful/effective beginning characters, still exhibits the problems I have with Dark Heresysome of the same Which is fine, it's not the 40k game I want to play. So these thoughts aren't really criticisms of DH/RT, but what I want out of a 40k game.

It may be that I can do some tweaks to DH and get what I want, or maybe I need to port the setting to the game of my choice. But, before I try to figure out what I want to use, here's a couple of things bothering me about Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader rules as written (RAW).

1. Let's talk about Attributes
At character generation, you begin with a maximum of 45*** with the possibility of a few points and initial XP expenditure, you could take that up to 50 something. Just so we're clear, that's a percentile. A d%, roll under your attribute. This is what you roll when using a skill. The GM should be giving modifiers based on the difficulty of a task, so browbeating a hive scummer to give up some info will probably be +30 for an Arbitrator. But I am not the kind to keep track of modifiers. Imposing a modifier from -30% to +30% is more than I want to keep up with. I can tell you from playing WFRP that is easy as a player and GM to forget those positive modifiers. Honestly I'd rather give everyone a 30% permanent bonus and impose negative modifiers as I see fit.

2. Let's talk about skills.
RT/DH** use a fairly strict career path (ie character class) system. This worked for me in WFRP, but I was quickly frustrated when I wanted to make an Imperial Guardsman with a scouting emphasis (Tanith First and Only). Unless I had some special GM permission, I couldn't take any sneaky skills. Oh, but wait, what if I start him a little higher rank. IIRC (the book is not in front of me) you have to wait until rank 5 to get some scouty skills. Ahem. No.

This is a big problem for me in couple of ways. For one damn thing there are 58 skills in each game --that's counting each skill category (drive, pilot, Forbidden Lore, for ex) as a single skill. 57 are the same. DH has lip-reading; RT has Commerce. I am not a fan of large skill lists. As a player it's more than I want to keep track of. As a GM its more than I want to keep in mind when calling for a skill check. Large skill lists also have a good number of dispately useful skills. Take the aforementioned Lip-Reading. How useful is that going to be? Really? Maybe once? For the entire campaign (at least the way I run a game). Compare that to Dodge, which you'd use every combat. Now I'm not saying that some skills should be more useful than others, but this seems extreme (as I said, I believe it's a symptom of a huge skill list).

Now here's the rub, on a certain level I feel like the graininess of skills is a good representation of the setting. To me at least, it reinforces the grittiness of the setting and how specialized skills are a treasure.

So my real problem is maybe more with the career-based restrictions than the actual skills. Hmm, maybe.

So what do I like?
Well for one thing, I'd like to be able to use the RT and DH published materials without recasting it into another system.
For another, the system is pretty straightforward. Roll d% under your Attrtibute. Half if it's a basic skill you are not trained in. My experience with WFRP taught me enough about combat that I like it well enough.
I have some kind of attachment to the game that I can't really explain.

What about another system?
Sure that's a possibility. Savage Worlds would probably be my first choice. The group knows the game. There's a good looking fan conversion. But dammit I want to play Dark Heresy!

Houserule that Sucker!
Thanks I probably will. I found an interesting blog with some houserules that intrigue me. I don't like everything, but it gives me a place to start.

My problem with houserules, however, is that they often have side affects that aren't immediately obvious.

So I'll think and tinker and blog more about this.

* According to more knowledgeable friends, neither are Warhammer Fantasy characters from the fiction. The WFRP stereotype is a phenomenon of the RPG alone. Any ideas how it got that way?
**I'm using DH/RT to refer to the specific games as opposed to the setting they portray.
*** Depending on Homeworld your attributes start at 2d10 +15, +20, or +25.