I just suggested to my RT to have his character progressively fall into chaos worship. It seemed to peek is interest rather well, which was my issue with the player to begin with. Now if need be, we can eventually have a more natural transition if we choose to switch RTs or keep this up if it gets interesting.

That's great! That's the other thing a GM should do- go about piquing everyone's interest- and it seems that you've handled that excellently.

I'm curious- how do you intend to dispose of him once he does turn corrupt? Will you make him a villain and allow the player to make someone new, create a spinoff game, or allow him to keep the character after applying Black Crusade-flavoured hacks?

So if nobody has the inclination, desire or ability to play an Inquisitor, players shouldn't play Dark Heresy, or Dark Heresy: Ascension? Either way, you have a GM controlled chain of command issuing instructions.

Here's another example: If nobody has the inclination, desire or ability to play a Navigator, since that means that none of the players can navigate the ship does that mean they shouldn't play Rogue Trader?

Blah, Blah, Blah...

Well, nobody in Dark Heresy gets to be an Inquisitor, so this is a moot point. Ascension CAN be played with the players as high level Throne Agents and an NPC Inquisitor, so, again, moot point. Why someone wouldn't want to be the Inquisitor is sort of beyond me, but that's another topic altogether.

Rogue Trader without the title class ? Yeah, no. RT is simply different than other systems. It's "larger," both in theme and scope, than any other FFG 40K system. IMO, more than any system, period. That was the design intent. If you're going to play the game, play it right - yes, right. The system demands more of players than some run of the mill Deathwatch, bolter porn campaign, and certainly even more than an admittedly deep Dark Heresy campaign. It requires players to think in a non-linear sort of way.

With that said, if your group of players (and GM) can't cope with the demands of a Rogue Trader campaign... don't play it. Save yourself and your players a lot of disappointment.

You're welcome.

I would quibble with your usage of moot, but I won't. You're missing my point though (and I think it might be intentional, which strikes me as disingenuous, but that's yet another topic); Dark Heresy, whether you include Ascension or not, centers and focusses around the Inquisition. Rogue Trader centers and focusses around Rogue Traders. If you can play a group of agents of the Inquisition, why can't you play a group of agents of a Rogue Trader? You think that the holder of the warrant only owns one ship? Many dynasties control fleets- mostly transports, but still. You think the Rogue Trader captains every ship in his fleet, simultaneously? Nope. Therefore, agents, carrying out his/her/its will.

I do. I have fun. This is off topic.

So, like a deep game of Black Crusade? Or well thought out game of Ascension? Or a good game of Traveller, Alternity, Spycraft, or even Microscope?

Are you expecting me to thank you for A) telling me I'm playing it wrong B) disingenuity C) having a poor knowledge of spacefaring gaming history D) a truly unfortunate metaphorical depth perception E) restricting the options and games I can play F) one or more of the above?

I assure you, while I am kind of entertained by this, I'm not exactly feeling grateful. I will also assure you that your arguments, while hilarious, were singularly unimpressive.

Edit: Forgot something I'm still not expressing gratitude for.

Edit 2: Bah. Removed something that could be an ad hominem attack. I shouldn't be insulting.

Well, nobody in Dark Heresy gets to be an Inquisitor, so this is a moot point. Ascension CAN be played with the players as high level Throne Agents and an NPC Inquisitor, so, again, moot point. Why someone wouldn't want to be the Inquisitor is sort of beyond me, but that's another topic altogether.

I would quibble with your usage of moot, but I won't. You're missing my point though (and I think it might be intentional, which strikes me as disingenuous, but that's yet another topic); Dark Heresy, whether you include Ascension or not, centers and focusses around the Inquisition. Rogue Trader centers and focusses around Rogue Traders. If you can play a group of agents of the Inquisition, why can't you play a group of agents of a Rogue Trader? You think that the holder of the warrant only owns one ship? Many dynasties control fleets- mostly transports, but still. You think the Rogue Trader captains every ship in his fleet, simultaneously? Nope. Therefore, agents, carrying out his/her/its will.

Rogue Trader without the title class ? Yeah, no. RT is simply different than other systems.

You never played Starfleet Battles , Starfire , Traveller or Alternity , did you? Heck, in execution and theme Rogue Trader isn't much different from the Firefly RPG.

It's "larger," both in theme and scope, than any other FFG 40K system. IMO, more than any system, period.

Larger than SFB? Nope. Larger than Starfire? Starfire handles fleet battles more simply. Nope. Larger than Traveller or Alternity? Nope. Larger than Black Crusade? May I remind you exactly what a black crusade is?

It is grander in scope than Firefly, I'll grant you that.

That was the design intent. If you're going to play the game, play it right - yes, right.

I do. I have fun. This is off topic.

The system demands more of players than some run of the mill Deathwatch, bolter porn campaign, and certainly even more than an admittedly deep Dark Heresy campaign. It requires players to think in a non-linear sort of way.

So, like a deep game of Black Crusade? Or well thought out game of Ascension? Or a good game of Traveller, Alternity, Spycraft, or even Microscope?

With that said, if your group of players (and GM) can't cope with the demands of a Rogue Trader campaign... don't play it. Save yourself and your players a lot of disappointment.

You're welcome.

Are you expecting me to thank you for A) telling me I'm playing it wrong B) disingenuity C) having a poor knowledge of spacefaring gaming history D) a truly unfortunate metaphorical depth perception E) restricting the options and games I can play F) one or more of the above?

I assure you, while I am kind of entertained by this, I'm not exactly feeling grateful. I will also assure you that your arguments, while hilarious, were singularly unimpressive.

Edit: Forgot something I'm still not expressing gratitude for.

Edit 2: Bah. Removed something that could be an ad hominem attack. I shouldn't be insulting.

Played all but Starfire. GMed all but Alternity. Those games are neither as taxing on players/GMs, nor grander in theme and scope, than a properly executed Rogue Trader campaign - which, mind you, is not a space combat simulator. In fact, space combat is probably the least compelling part of what Rogue Trader is. You are a multi-billionaire, pirate, swashbuckler, explorer (and his senior crew) with voidships and the GDP of a small hive world at your disposal. You roam the edges of the known galaxy where the Imperium is a presence, and little more than that. You have the freedom to carry the Emperor's will and eternal flame into those dark reaches. What you do there is entirely up to you - whether that be using the flame to enlighten the ignorant or burn the xenos is entirely up to the players.

The whole point of Rogue Trader is that the players have control over their actions and endeavors. It's not supposed to be another on-rails RPG where the GM dictates the goal and the players simply move towards accomplishing it. Quite the opposite, in fact. And without a PC Rogue Trader are you really playing the game to its fullest? Are you even playing it at all?

I'll leave you with this:

Rogue Trader, Core Rulebook, Page 12, first paragraph:

"In Rogue Trader, you take on the role of a Rogue Trader and his most trusted counselors..."

Any questions?

Yes, I've a question, but I'll come to it in a bit.

You've made your perspective clear and I still disagree with it, but I doubt that surprises you. There are several minor points you make that I disagree with, but I won't enumerate them this time- I'll only focus on one.

You say that the point of Rogue Trader to self-determination, right? I disagree. The point of Rogue Trader is to have fun.

So, my question. What else matters?

...

So, my question. What else matters?

Pie. I like pie. Does that matter?

You say that the point of Rogue Trader to self-determination, right? I disagree. The point of Rogue Trader is to have fun.

So, my question. What else matters?

We play games to have fun. It's not a point... its a foregone conclusion.

I've seen plenty of games where fun was not had, usually due to a That Guy player, so I wouldn't call the conclusion foregone. In one case, the game even continued for a longish time, just due to inertia- it was interesting seeing an otherwise good player change over the course of years into That Guy and then watching the game self destruct. Interesting like, say, watching a train wreck.

Moreover, I don't think forcing a player into a predefined role contributes to fun. That's like starting up a D&D game and saying "Oh by the way, one of you must play a human bard." Actually, given the Rogue Trader's support/face role, that's almost exactly what it is.

But, you may be using the phrase foregone conclusion in a way I'm not used to. If you actually meant "Fun is the implicit purpose of games," then I'll let your statement stand because it's (fundamentally) true. So, if fun is a 'foregone conclusion' in that sense, then what's the problem if players want to use the Rogue Trader rules-set to, say, run an Explorator Fleet, where the Explorator is running things instead of the RT? Or have an Arch Militant run things and run a Crusade campaign? Or play a DH-style Agents of the Rogue Trader game, wherein gaining profit for the dynasty is more important than rooting out heretic cells?

...

So, my question. What else matters?

Pie. I like pie. Does that matter?

Everyone likes pie. If everyone likes pie, does anyone like pie?

Now I'm just being silly.

I've seen plenty of games where fun was not had, usually due to a That Guy player, so I wouldn't call the conclusion foregone. In one case, the game even continued for a longish time, just due to inertia- it was interesting seeing an otherwise good player change over the course of years into That Guy and then watching the game self destruct. Interesting like, say, watching a train wreck.

Moreover, I don't think forcing a player into a predefined role contributes to fun. That's like starting up a D&D game and saying "Oh by the way, one of you must play a human bard." Actually, given the Rogue Trader's support/face role, that's almost exactly what it is.

But, you may be using the phrase foregone conclusion in a way I'm not used to. If you actually meant "Fun is the implicit purpose of games," then I'll let your statement stand because it's (fundamentally) true. So, if fun is a 'foregone conclusion' in that sense, then what's the problem if players want to use the Rogue Trader rules-set to, say, run an Explorator Fleet, where the Explorator is running things instead of the RT? Or have an Arch Militant run things and run a Crusade campaign? Or play a DH-style Agents of the Rogue Trader game, wherein gaining profit for the dynasty is more important than rooting out heretic cells?

...

So, my question. What else matters?

Pie. I like pie. Does that matter?

Everyone likes pie. If everyone likes pie, does anyone like pie?

Now I'm just being silly.

I love "that guy"... for just long enough to ask him/her to stop being "that guy." Should they fail to do so, they are simply asked to leave the campaign. Why let one person ruin everyone else's fun? Answer: you don't.

Fun is a foregone conclusion if you're going to RP. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. Make changes, up to and including discontinuing the campaign. Bashing your face into a painful, train wreck of a campaign is just... daft.

Yes, in Rogue Trader, the Rogue Trader is a predefined and necessary role. It's the title class. The whole purpose of the Rogue Trader system is that one of the player plays the Rogue Trader and the others play his/her senior officers, advisers, counselors, bodyguards, accountants, etc... A failure to do that is a failure to play within the spirit AND design intent of the system. If you want to be agents of some all powerful NPC figure, play Dark Heresy. If you want to lead/take part in crusades, play Only War. It occurs to me that we're both repeating ourselves on this point, so I'll just leave at - we agree to disagree.

Even though you're wrong

Lastly, sure, you can use parts of the system to create an entirely different game. That's totally fine. Just note that you're not playing Rogue Trader.

And, on the issue of Pie: Duh... who doesn't like pie?

Damnit Annaamarth, stop having fun wrong!

On the original topic - I like the solution you are going with, the corrupting influence of chaos is one of the cornerstones of the 40k rpgs, and there is enough in it to keep anyone interested. Having something to motive your players is the key IMO to being able to write a campaign without railroading, and the possibility of being overcome by a daemonic entity that will murder all the crew is quite motivating.

Oddly, I think that the Rogue Trader rules would be more useful for prosecuting a war, strategically speaking, because of that scale you mentioned earlier, but that's more a matter of preference than anything else. Only War is the goto for frontline combat (of course) but I was referring to taking on the role of a Warmaster. But that's just me.

Nuh-uh, you!

.... yeah, I think I can call it there

Hiyas:

I hate pie. Like Pi, tho'.*

L

*On the fence about peeing.

I'll grant that Pi is amazing, but to dislike pie? Heresy. *BLAM*

That's great! That's the other thing a GM should do- go about piquing everyone's interest- and it seems that you've handled that excellently.

I'm curious- how do you intend to dispose of him once he does turn corrupt? Will you make him a villain and allow the player to make someone new, create a spinoff game, or allow him to keep the character after applying Black Crusade-flavoured hacks?

I don't like making too many plans in advance but this could easily tie into a 2nd edition DH game once it's out. I'm already thinking about adding some of the new rules to my RT game so we'll see.

I'll grant that Pi is amazing, but to dislike pie? Heresy. *BLAM*

By all that is Holy Emprah!!! Please DON'T!!! don't kill yourself...Over pie!

L

I'll grant that Pi is amazing, but to dislike pie? Heresy. *BLAM*

By all that is Holy Emprah!!! Please DON'T!!! don't kill yourself...Over pie!

L

He's right. The Imperium has so many sanctioned ways for you to kill yourself, inventing a new one is a heresy.

Which is punishable by death.

I do not know if you have solved this problem yet, but I have experienced something similar so I think that I have something that could be a solution.

In my situation were we playing DH, and the character that was the problem was our Tech-priest, one of the most characters (from my point of view). He was a bit of that guy, calling dips and doing his own things, but that was not really his problem, his main problem was that he didn´t really have a character, and if there is something that Tech-priests have is it their special form for character. Now instead of suggesting him to change class or do anything like that chose I to do something else, to sit myself down and take a talk with him, us writing a backstory together. Now we haven´t had a session since then just yet, but I could already feel how he had stepped up his game and now had a spark to him instead of him being his normal "standing in the corner and shoot with my las gun" self.

My experiences from a dozen years of LARPing and half that time P&Ping have shown me that without a proper foundation for a character do you not really have a character at all. I do know that you say that he is an experienced player, but how firm a grip does he actually have on his character? You say that he likes to rip faces of people and that he dosn´t have much interest in anything else, beside gaining more money to his empire, and that to me sound like he have an outline to a character instead of a proper one.

But hey I could be wrong, but my advice is one that I have used before and one that I will use again in here, take a talk with him. A good talk that gets you into your troublesome players head does fix the problem 9 out of 10 times since you now know what there is wrong, instead of just guessing at it on your own.

And if talking to them doesn't work...then kick them out of the group if they are making it so no one else is having fun. We have had that happen in our campaigns. Actually I myself was once kicked out of a a game I was in for four years, though it wasn't actually my fault. The GM's roommate (who he was also sleeping with) and I got into an argument out of game and she couldn't stand to be around me anymore. So he said I had to go because it was causing too much drama in his house.

No hard feelings, we are still friends and we still role play together in a different game where she isn't involved!

I smell game breakage. Kill 'em.

The next time I run a Rogue Trader game I swear I'm going to have the players apply for the RT position like a job interview. As people have pointed out, it's a pivotal role in the game. This person has to command a ship without the real ability to command the players and that takes a really skilled, active, and involved player, or the rest of the players have to be really tolerant and supportive. I really love the game, but it's a tough one to form an effective party for.

I smell game breakage. Kill 'em.

The next time I run a Rogue Trader game I swear I'm going to have the players apply for the RT position like a job interview. As people have pointed out, it's a pivotal role in the game. This person has to command a ship without the real ability to command the players and that takes a really skilled, active, and involved player, or the rest of the players have to be really tolerant and supportive. I really love the game, but it's a tough one to form an effective party for.

We actually held elections for the job with a few candidates giving speeches about the type of RT they would be...campaign promises are crap!!!

Errant, you would make a wonderful commissar.

I'll agree that establishing a good RT group via internets is particularly challenging, and if you get a lemon in the RT slot your game is borked from word one. I do most of my GMing in person or with individuals with whom I am familiar, so I cheat- if I didn't, I'd probably adopt the interview method, or use the RT as drooling idiot method from the get go.