RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k Roleplay Forum

18:13, 3rd May 2024 (GMT+0)

Dark Heresy: Discussion.

Posted by Furry TeddyFor group 0
Valthek
player, 13 posts
Tue 27 Jan 2009
at 15:41
  • msg #24

Re: DH: Discussion

nice... might use that in my game.. MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
flakk
player, 25 posts
GM
PLAYER
Tue 27 Jan 2009
at 15:44
  • msg #25

Re: DH: Discussion

Valthek:
nice... might use that in my game.. MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Please don't=:)  Jon Schmidt and his little Boom-Stick would have a big issue with that.  Although it would probably be worth a load of xp.....
Algard
player, 3 posts
Tue 27 Jan 2009
at 15:51
  • msg #26

Re: DH: Discussion

Hehe is that that thing also classified as Minoris threat like the arm thingy?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:52, Tue 27 Jan 2009.
Furry Teddy
GM, 42 posts
Wed 28 Jan 2009
at 13:37
  • msg #27

Re: DH: Discussion

Does anyone play as a cleric? Out of the two games I play in which have a combined total of 22 players there is not a single cleric. Plenty of guardsmen, psykers and scum with the other classes represented but no clerics.
flakk
player, 31 posts
GM
PLAYER
Wed 28 Jan 2009
at 14:05
  • msg #28

Re: DH: Discussion

Furry Teddy:
Does anyone play as a cleric? Out of the two games I play in which have a combined total of 22 players there is not a single cleric. Plenty of guardsmen, psykers and scum with the other classes represented but no clerics.


No clerics.  I tried to add one if that counts, but the player did not last very many posts.  It seems like an interesting class but I have yet to see one played.  I see it as easier to play than tech-priests but there are plenty of techs floating around in the games I run/am in.
Algard
player, 4 posts
Wed 28 Jan 2009
at 15:51
  • msg #29

Re: DH: Discussion

In reply to flakk (msg #28):

Well i would put that much to the fact that the Imperial creed does not have much flesh on it compared to its more extreme angles(Redemption for example) and the Adeptus mechanicus.
I for one would love to run a redemptionist character tough ;)
Valthek
player, 15 posts
Wed 28 Jan 2009
at 16:39
  • msg #30

Re: DH: Discussion

i don't play one, but i've got 2 (!) in the second group of my game
one 'BURN, BURN, BURN!' cleric, and one with a tad more restraint
flakk
player, 32 posts
GM
PLAYER
Wed 28 Jan 2009
at 21:52
  • msg #31

Re: DH: Discussion

Valthek:
i don't play one, but i've got 2 (!) in the second group of my game
one 'BURN, BURN, BURN!' cleric, and one with a tad more restraint


Great!  Can;t wait to meet them=:)
Valthek
player, 19 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 15:33
  • msg #32

Re: DH: Discussion

that is, if their inactivity stops (got 2/3 people who haven't posted in several days)

If not, i've initiated measures to asure that you meet up
flakk
player, 34 posts
GM
PLAYER
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 15:36
  • msg #33

Re: DH: Discussion

Valthek:
that is, if their inactivity stops (got 2/3 people who haven't posted in several days)

If not, i've initiated measures to asure that you meet up


Yah the second group I just started in my game is drying up already except for a couple of them.  I know the feeling.

"Post minimum once per game Monday-Thursday, tell me if you are going to be away."
I didn't think those rules were too hard and I got everyone to agree before adding.  <Sigh>

I know that myself and Ishmael are really digging the game and have been emailing back and forth about it so you have at least us hooked.  Corm seems to be doing well too.  An now an explosion!  The plot thickens....
Valthek
player, 20 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 15:48
  • msg #34

Re: DH: Discussion

i'll fix it, if those two have simply stopped, i'll add the third person to your group.

Originally there were going to be even more people, but all comunication with them went dead after the RTJ :D
flakk
player, 35 posts
GM
PLAYER
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 15:56
  • msg #35

Re: DH: Discussion

Valthek:
i'll fix it, if those two have simply stopped, i'll add the third person to your group.

Originally there were going to be even more people, but all comunication with them went dead after the RTJ :D


It happens=:)
Valthek
player, 21 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 16:07
  • msg #36

Re: DH: Discussion

meh. i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. It's supposed to be a fun game, mostly for me, and for you as well.. so, yeah.. screw them then, i'd say
flakk
player, 36 posts
GM
PLAYER
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 16:08
  • msg #37

Re: DH: Discussion

Valthek:
meh. i'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. It's supposed to be a fun game, mostly for me, and for you as well.. so, yeah.. screw them then, i'd say


Exactly!

Maybe there should be a thread started to black-flag players who bail without notice.  I am only half-joking......=:)
Valthek
player, 22 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 16:11
  • msg #38

Re: DH: Discussion

that may actually be a good idea, maybe just for DH and WHFRP, so that GMs can check wether the player aplying is going to be a liability or not.
Not sure what RPOL's policy on this is though
flakk
player, 37 posts
GM
PLAYER
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 16:14
  • msg #39

Re: DH: Discussion

I know they do not want rating systems for GMs/players, but a thread with user name and a brief description (like # of posts, frequency of posts) might not be too bad.
zacaldo
player, 29 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 17:36
  • msg #40

Re: DH: Discussion

everybody I've known that has started a forum has always wanted to do this, but no one knows who or how, I think that there is big seperation here between the average gamer and a DH or FWRP, there is at least at the game shops I frequent, I mean that's why they have  GAMES WORKSHOPS is it not.

But what you would have to do is set up a thread, maybe two, turning †his forum into a democracy, there needs to be explicit titles with a goddamn constitution almøst.  Because a black list of names is far to 1950's Hoover for me.  I think you Need all three branches, just one for the exec, three maybe for judicial and however many odd number for the rest of the voters.

Then and only then will their be able to make LAWS for the forum, to come up with a lot of the stuff that has been posted in this most excellent post, to be implemented needs to be taken to a further level.  Sorry I wasn't following the entire thread, but to blacklist players is pretty serious and to grant players the right to judge GM's is just as if not more serious than the prior.  I hope this forum moves on some of the subjects they have mentioned, because I think there is the personal in the forum to do amazing thing.

Has anyone here checked out the SWSE community?
flakk
player, 38 posts
GM
PLAYER
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 19:24
  • msg #41

Re: DH: Discussion

I think my use of "blacklist" was a bit harsh.  Maybe references would be a better.  I think I am going to start requiring them in my games, or making a person lurk for awhile to see if A) they like the game and B) they like the posting rate and C) so that they can take over abandoned characters D) so they can be plugged into the action as soon as possible.

Publically posting about players and GM's probably is not such a good idea now that I think about it.....

One for GM's would have saved me a lot of time though=:)  Players as well.
Yup the more i think about it either references or making someone a lurker is the best for me.
Furry Teddy
GM, 47 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 19:34
  • msg #42

Re: DH: Discussion

A blacklist is a bad idea.

1. A person may have reasons as to why they cannot post and sometimes you just don't get the opportunity to pop on Rpol and explain yourself. Real life comes before Rpol.

2. Sometimes people don't gel with a game. What is true in one game with one group of players may not be true in another.

3. It would probably become corrupted with people listing someone out of spite and people not on the forum cannot defend themselves.

4. Jesus wouldn't do it.

Other than that it is an interesting though and something I have thought about doing for myself as I can never remember all the players who have joined and then dropped out of my games. Also I don't think it goes against the TOU as it would be in a personal game.
jamat
player, 7 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:01
  • msg #43

Re: DH: Discussion

Hi there I'm playing the more restrained Cleric in Valthek's game I really love the profession.
Furry Teddy
GM, 48 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:06
  • msg #44

Re: DH: Discussion

jamat:
Hi there I'm playing the more restrained Cleric in Valthek's game I really love the profession.


Ah yes back on topic. It really is a class that you can take anyway you want. People always seem to want to play as guardsmen. Big fan of the Scum class myself.
Valthek
player, 23 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:11
  • msg #45

Re: DH: Discussion

Personally i'm a big fan of Psyker and Assasin.
And i still can't figure out the use of the adept class.. wth? everything they can do, someone else can do better and more efficiently. why play one?
jamat
player, 8 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:13
  • msg #46

Re: DH: Discussion

True Adept class is a bit of a strange one.

If it's ok with Valthek I'll post my cleric's background in the NPC thread for anyone interested to read. I won't post the stats in case I end up meeting the other group in the game.
Mr. Sticks
player, 22 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:17
  • msg #47

Re: DH: Discussion

I'm a huge fan of the Scum class myself, though I do like the Priest class. It depends a lot on the game you are in. I was a "Battle Priest" type character once, and worked towards riling up everyone right before a big fight. The only other time I was a priest, it was as a Sir William of Baskerville type character. That was a lot of fun, since it combined my love of being a vagabond and general cutthroat with the sense of purpose and drive of a cleric.
Valthek
player, 25 posts
Thu 29 Jan 2009
at 20:23
  • msg #48

Re: DH: Discussion

Yeh, that's okay, Jamat, you may.
Anyone who plays in my game, i do expect you to keep this kind of OOC knowledge and IC knowledge seperate, k?
Sign In