"Heroes & Heretics" Tabletop RPG

I don't have many opportunities to play Warhammer 40,000 and (as can be seen by the low number of painting & modelling posts!) I don't paint as much as I should. Obviously, the background and lore of the 40K universe is where my interest really lies - and a good way of immersing yourself in that (in addition to writing history & background) is with a good old-fashioned tabletop roleplaying game! So, here is a post about the game I ran, and some thoughts on game design and playing philosophy!

A group of friends were starting a Dungeons & Dragons game and some others, who hadn't really played RPGs before, were interested. So, I offered to run a game - my plan was to do a bit of bait-and-switch, with the gameworld being a late-medieval / early-renaissance setting but this to actually be a backwater planet of the Imperium of Man and have the wider galaxy be gradually revealed! So, the players would be "classic" RPG characters (rangers, knights, warriors etc.) in a futuristic world.

Rather than use an existing ruleset, I modified a ruleset I had written about a decade before for a game called Gotham Knights (a DC comic-book hero game). That ruleset was based on Decipher's CODA system (used for the movie-tie-in Lord of the Rings game and - I believe - a Star Trek RPG), but was both stripped-down and also added in some mechanics from other game systems.

For the 40K ruleset (which I decided to call Heroes & Heretics in the alliterative mode of Dungeons & Dragons and others!) I stripped down Gotham Knights even further, pretty much everything except Attributes and Abilities.

You can read the rules here (this is a Google doc, and so will be updated as I make changes to it - it is a "living document" and experience in running the game will necessitate changes and clarifications) and read the 40K setting specific rules here. Feel free to leave feedback in the comments on this blog post - I'd love to see what you think - and if you run a game of it, please let me know!

A few notes on my design philosophy; I've run a lot of RPGs in my time (and played more) and, while complex systems with many special and specific rules for classes, races, feats, etc. etc. provide a lot of detail and can be fun, they can also distract from what I think is the most important part of an RPG - telling an interactive story. To my mind, ten minutes spent flipping through three different books to find all the relevant rules which culminates in knowing it is a +2 rather than a +1 is wasted time; a competent GM could have just decided that in a second; at the end of the day, remaining immersed in the narrative rather than being pulled out of it is worth minor inconsistencies or a lack of realism.

Furthermore, I long ago came to believe the shelf-full of books RPG companies produce serve only one purpose - to sustain their business model. A good RPG (with an imaginative GM and players) can be run from the core book - that should contain the rules for the game, rules for players and foes, and the gameworld background. Books of additional rules or classes or magic etc. can be fun - but they gradually become more and more niche and more and more specific. I understand why companies produce them; RPGs are (in theory) an inexpensive hobby . . .

Image h/t "The Jungle" Facebook page

. . . so the companies producing them need to make supplements to keep the business afloat. They need new products because people only need to buy one of anything - they do not consume the product. This explains, in some measure, why RPG companies go to the wall - there comes a point where the majority of players simply say "I've got enough books and I do not need the latest, exceptionally niche, handbook".

So, I made Heroes & Heretics exceedingly simple. There aren't rules for "edges" or "flaws" or special abilities. There are no classes, no races. The subtleties of different weapons are smoothed away - how big is it, and is it sharp? Armor is light or heavy - there is no difference between chainmail or plate or lamellar except in appearance.

I also wanted to reflect my gaming philosophy in the ruleset; while the kind of game you run (or story you tell) is set by the GM (it is hack-and-slash, mystery, horror?) the ruleset has a significant impact on that. A game with highly realistic rules for injury (including infection, bleeding out and permanent injuries) plays very differently from a game with simple hit-points that are recovered very easily. Similarly, a game with complicated skill trees or similar plays very differently for one with a generic "Knowledge: Science" stat.

In addition to wanting games that are simple to play (so you can spend more energy on telling the story) I like games about heroes; good people doing good things in a bad universe. I like games where heroes do dramatic heroic deeds, where they can defeat hordes of faceless enemies but struggle against the "end of level boss" so to speak. Heroes should not die unless they sacrifice themselves - the story is about them! In many ways, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the perfect exemplar of this - the interest comes from the heroes' internal conflicts and dramatic, set-piece battles where they do great deeds but only truly struggle against the grand enemy. Judging by the popularity of these movies, a lot of people agree with me!

Accordingly, I not only designed the game to be easy to play, but also to make the player characters heroes. The central mechanic which achieves this is combat damage; "brutes" (the faceless minions of evil) are taken out of combat with a single hit - don't even waste time rolling for damage! (This mechanic was not my idea originally; I think I borrowed it from Feng Shu.) Additionally, there is no death mechanic - characters (both PC and NPC) are taken out of combat with sufficient damage, but death is determined by the GM according to narrative necessity. I made it very easy to recover from damage so PCs can get back into the game quickly and easily, keeping the story going and sustaining the heroic narrative.

There are also a couple of mechanics I am rather proud of, although I am sure I picked them up from other RPGs.

Characters are built on points - nothing original there, but the points are spent on both Attributes and Abilities. So, there is no issue of a player being able to min-max a character by biasing their expenditure to one or the other; if you are 45 point character, you have 45 points in Attributes and 45 points in Abilities.

The core mechanic is 2d6 + Attribute bonus + Ability score - very simple indeed. This generates a Test Result compared to a Target Number. The Attribute bonus is not the Attribute score, but rather generated with a mathematical formula. The formula is pretty complex, but is based on a triangular number progression (and there is a table to reference so you don't need to do math!) The triangular number progression gives diminishing returns, discouraging min-maxing. Furthermore, the number of actions taken per turn is based on the lowest Attribute bonus, further encouraging even advancement.

The triangular number is used for missile combat, too - which means there is no maximum range, but the chances of hitting drop off dramatically. This philosophy of "no limits but the law of diminishing returns" allows for HUGE power differentials using the same system.

Damage is based on flesh wounds being turned into dramatic wounds; this happens when a Resist Damage check is failed (with the TN being the number of flesh wounds taken). So, it is possible to be hit several times before any "real" damage is done. Additionally, armor does not reduce damage taken but rather adds to resisting damage - so, one takes down an armored target by gradually beating it down. This is unrealistic, of course, but creates a dramatic situation (this mechanic, while likely appearing in other RPGs, was inspired by a Batman comic where Batman is being shot and his dialog suggests his armor works by gradually being worn down!)

I've never been happy with shield mechanics in any other RPG - they are either far too good, or simply not worth having. I made the mechanic simple here - you can generate your TN to be hit using the hand-to-hand combat Ability rather than dodge . .  . allowing characters with shields to gain double benefit from their melee score and avoid having to point so many points into dodge.

Inspired by wanting to run medieval characters alongside futuristic ones, I scaled the game so it modern and futuristic weapons (particularly firearms and armor) can exist alongside older ones. Often, games don't scale well - a game where a character might be killed by a sword should, in all honesty, always have them be killed by a raygun. The damage mechanic (where minions are taken out of combat immediately and where heroes only take at most a single dramatic wound per hit) allows for suitably damaging modern weapons (and suitably effective modern armor) without ruining the heroic setting.

I also designed the game so it could be played without book-keeping during the game; while any game can, in theory, be played with tokens rather than scribbling down running totals of damage or willpower etc. I specifically intended this one to be played this way. That is intended to allow the players to keep immersed in the story, rather than being taken out of it to do math.

I think the first session went well - everyone had fun and "got" the idea of an RPG. The system worked very well and people were not distracted by the mechanics of the game. The reveal of the 40K setting was dramatic (one of the characters was an amnesiac Sister of Battle found in a crater in the forest, who was presumed by the other characters with her "magical" (power) axe and "magical" (power) armor to be an angel of the God-Emperor . . . which isn't far off) and fun. Further sessions will, of course, test the game engine more - but I think it was successful.

Let me know what you think!

=][= Danforth Laertes

House Rules for Inquisitorial Warbands

In previous editions of 40K, there were rules for mixed units of Inquisitorial henchmen, designed to represent the ragtag band of heroes, anti-heroes, sidekicks and hangers-on that work with an Inquisitor (for example, Betancourt, Bequin and Amos et al working with Inquisitor Eisenhorn). Under the 8th edition rules, this is not possible - partially because of the new way characters (even previously "squad upgrade", non-independent characters) work in 40K (as individual units), but also because the rules just don't have that degree of granularity currently.

Hopefully, this will change with the Inquisition Codex release - but perhaps not, because 8th edition does seem to be simpler, quicker game and this kind of complexity does make the game more fiddly. These suggested house rules certainly do!

For that reason, these rules are (of course) only to be used in friendly games and with the permission of your opponent. They are intended to allow players to field a characterful and unique Inquisitorial warband, not to gain a massive gaming advantage or create a "death star" unit. Model selection should be made with a view to background and lore - ideally, each model in the warband should have a name and a (short) biography, a reason for why and how he serves the Inquisitor.

An "Inquisitorial Warband" is a new Detachment type, consisting of one compulsory HQ (which must have the INQUISITOR Keyword), one compulsory Elite (which must be a unit of Inquisitorial Acolytes), up to a single Dedicated Transport model with the IMPERIUM Faction Keyword, up to five models selected from Troops, and up to five models selected from Elites. Models selected from Troops and / or Elites must have the IMPERIUM Faction Keyword and the INFANTRY Keyword, and cannot have the FLY or JUMP PACK Keywords. Fulfilling the requirements for this Detachment grants zero Command Points.

The total number of models selected from Troops and / or Elites with the IMPERIUM Faction Keyword cannot exceed the number of models in the Inquisitorial Acolytes unit. The total number of models in the Detachment (including the Inquisitor, but excluding the dedicated transport) cannot exceed 11.

Models selected from Troops and / or Elites are selected as individual models, not as units. Ignore the usual unit composition rules and instead select (any) single model from the chosen unit. You may take any upgrades, weapon choices etc. allowed by the unit's datasheet. You may only choose a single model from any one datasheet. Pay the appropriate points cost as determined by the appendix for that Faction for each model. *

Each model so chosen functions as an individual unit. It retains all its existing rules, Abilities and Keywords, and gains the following Abilities;

Inquisitorial Henchman: All models from the same Detachment with this rule must remain within 2" of that Detachment's Acolyte unit. If the Acolyte unit is destroyed, all models with this Ability from the same Detachment must remain within 2" of another model from the same Detachment with this Ability. This restriction is removed when only a single model with this rule remains from the same Detachment.

"I'm With The Boss": When embarking or embarked on the same Transport as the model with the INQUISITOR Keyword from the same Detachment, the model gains the Ability Authority of the Inquisition.

"Sidekick, not Redshirt": If the model is within 2" of a model with the ACOLYTE Keyword from the same Detachment, it gains the effects of the CHARACTER Keyword in the shooting phase only (i.e. cannot be targeted in the shooting phase unless it is the closest model). It does not gain the CHARACTER Keyword (unless it already has it).

These additional Abilities are designed to both require and allow the models to remain with the Inquisitorial Acolytes unit, while giving them a degree of protection from shooting. Certain models will not be well-served by being included in an Inquisitorial Warband (assassins, for example) and others might not fit the lore very well (Space Marines in particular). The Warband rules are intended to allow the creation of a characterful selection of models, not an overly powerful unit; there are many ways these rules can be abused and players should be sensitive to this. An opponent can not only refuse to allow these rules to be used, but also refuse a particular expression of these rules. I created these rules as a bit of fun, and they should be used as such.

* Obviously, these rules do not work well when designing an army a Power Level. I suppose it would be possible to work out the PR for a single model, but that sort of granularity is better served by points. If you have to use these with Power Levels, it might work to figure the points and then divide them by 20 (which seems to be about the ratio) to get an idea of PR. But that certainly would be a fudge.

Let me know what you think!

=][= Danforth Laertes

"Magdalena" Apostle-Class Knight-Titan pt II: Rules

I'd decided to build a Knight-Titan for my Sisters of Battle army not only before 8th edition was released, but before it was announced. If I had given any thought to gaming with it, I would have fielded it as an allied Knight (as pretty much any Imperial army could do in 7th) using the old workhorse of "count as". Magdalena (a piece of background which I feel is relevant; no-one calls her "Maggie" twice within earshot of a member of the Order . . .) is armed with a power fist and melta weapon; there would be some similar configuration I could field.

In 8th edition, of course, the same could be done - the Knight Errant has a thermal cannon and can upgrade its reaper chainsword for a thunderstrike gauntlet. The Errant's heavy stubber would have to stand in for the anti-infantry torso guns and the heavy flamers on the back of the power fist would just have to be cosmetic and have no in-game effect.

But the unique army construction method of 8th edition gives a different option. The datasheets detail the weapons a model may be armed with and appendices give the costs for those weapons and the basic model in points. It is, theoretically, possible to arm any model in an army with any weapon available to that army (or even any weapon at all) by simply adding up the points.

Of course, some common sense has to be (or maybe should be) applied - vehicle-only weapons shouldn't go on infantry, for example, and the number of weapons should be reasonable. One should also only use weapons from a different Faction whose costs are comparable to those in your Faction (one element of the cost of a weapon is the BS or WS of the model using it). And, naturally, any unique entries so created can only be used in friendly games and with your opponent's permission.

But with all that, it was very easy to come up with the rules and points values for Magdalena. Each of the five Knight classes has an identical profile and special rules - the only difference is in the weapon loadout - and each model has the same points cost (320) in the appendix. A basic Knight "chassis", therefore, has no weapons, the Knight Abilities, and costs 320 points.

Magdalena's weapons loadout is obvious just by looking at her; she has a thunderstrike gauntlet, a thermal cannon, titanic feet, twin heavy flamers on the back of the fist, and torso-mounted anti-infantry guns (which look like overscaled hurricane bolters). The first three weapons are easy to select from the Questor Imperialis appendix - 35pts, 76pts and 0pts respectively. The other two are a little trickier, because they are not standard Knight weapons (and it isn't entirely clear what the torso guns actually are).

I could choose two heavy flamers from the Knight appendix at 17 points each. That would be perfectly WYSIWYG and from the same Faction. But Magdalena is a Sororitas Knight - the background is not that she is seconded or oathsworn to the Sisters, but that she is actually part of their armory. Two heavy flamers are also two separate weapons, capable of firing at two different units under 8th ed rules - that didn't seem entirely reasonable given the weapons' placement.

Instead, I chose to go with an immolation flamer (35pts) from the Sororitas appendix. This is a uniquely Sisters' weapon (not just a twin-linked heavy flamer) and so seemed in character. I reasoned it was fair to use the Sisters' appendix for the points values because Knights and Sisters have the same BS (3+) and so weapons are equally effective. It was also the case that the weapons which appeared in both appendices - heavy flamer and meltagun - were the same points values, suggesting parity.

For the torso guns, I considered using hurricane bolters - that is, after all, what their appearance is inspired by. But that would have meant drawing from a different Faction (Space Marines) and I didn't want to do that. I could have counted them as heavy stubbers but that didn't seem quite right (it is not one of the "holy trinity"). Instead, I reasoned they were basically multi-barreled heavy bolters synchronized to fire together - twin-linked heavy bolters at 17 points.

So, Magdalena points out as follows:

Basic Knight chassis: 320pts
Thunderstrike gauntlet: 35pts
Thermal cannon: 76pts
Titanic feet: 0pts
Immolation flamer: 35pts
Twin heavy bolter: 17pts
TOTAL: 483pts

To calculate Power Rating requires a bit more math, and a degree of fudging. Firstly, I calculated the points cost of each of the five classes of Knight in the Index (basic weapon loadout, no carapace weapon) and compared it to the Power Rating, getting a pts : PR ratio;

Errant: 430pts / 23PR = 18.7 ratio
Paladin: 458pts / 24PR = 19.08 ratio
Warden: 466pts / 25PR = 18.64 ratio
Gallant: 389pts / 21PR = 18.52 ratio
Crusader: 512pts / 27PR = 18.96 ratio
(all ratios rounded to two decimal places)

I then averaged the ratios (getting 18.78) and divided Magdalena's points value by that to get a Power Rating of 25.71. That rounds up to 26, of course, so her pts:PR ratio is 18.58. This gives her the second "worse" ratio (after the Gallant) but the actual variation is minor (a 26PR Knight at the "best" ratio would be 496pts, only 13 points more than she is).

In terms of Keywords, it would be an unfair advantage to change them - the Faction Keywords remain IMPERIUM, QUESTOR IMPERIALIS and <HOUSEHOLD>. The chosen household is, of course, CRYSTAL LADY but there is no synergy between my Sisters' <ORDER> Faction Keyword. My army will be unified by the IMPERIUM Faction Keyword. The non-Faction Keywords of TITANIC and VEHICLE remain, with the individual class of Knight being replaced with KNIGHT APOSTLE.

So that was how I went about using the material in the Indices to create a unique entry for my army. Again, such things are only intended for fun games and with your opponent's permission. But I hope this exercise has not only shown you how I did it, but also encouraged you to consider doing similar things. In 8th edition, we might be seeing a return to the glory days of vehicle design rules and other imaginative, freeform unit creation and army selection!

Let me know what you think!

=][= Danforth Laertes