--- In imperium_40k@..., "taenre" <ascendance@g...> wrote:
>
> I've taken a look at the rules, and I like what I see. However, is
> definitely tuned towards the gritty end of the spectrum, much like the
> original WHFRP was.
>
> I'm also not sure I like the randomness of advances, especially since
> the number of advances are limited by your job. Its ok in RQ, cuz
> there weren't limits on advances. Its ok in Inquisitor for the same
> reason.
>
> Two or three unlucky rolls, followed by a string of average rolls, are
> enough to make a character kinda suck compared to the next guy. I
> guess the GM's job is to make sure you don't live long enough to
> complain :D

A good point. It seems to work in practice though. The law (guideline)
of averages generally levels everything out.

In the initial playtest, we tried D6+4 per advance for a while, but
this quickly created very powerful characters with stats in the 80s
and 90s.

So for the second playtest we went back to D10 advances, which kept
things gritty.

Perhaps for a more cinematic game, use D6+4?