I was initially going to run Deathwatch when I took a look into the different WH40k RPGs, but due to its (slightly) more complex system alongside the fact that I've never run a 40k RPG before and my lack of a decent sized group, I decided to back up to Dark Heresy for now.

Now, here's my big question. I'm going to be GMing a single player, my dad. Is this game friendly toward solo players?

If it is not, my next question is how do I make it friendly for a single player? I'm not saying friendly like sunshine and butterflies and he's never going to be at risk at all, but on that same note, if this game is designed for a minimal group of x players, I don't want to overwhelm him.

I should of course design most adventures around his capabilities, but what about the combat aspect and all? Are there natural ways to scale the difficulty of the game appropriately aside from decreasing the amount of enemies present at any given time?

Ouphh. Well, personally, I've never been a friend of such "single player games" - but ... I do believe it'd be possible. I would be tempted to change the focus, however. To me, it just doesn't feel right if you have an Acolyte working solo, but at the same time, coming up with 2-4 NPCs to flesh out the Cell doesn't sound very awesome either.

So instead, what you could do is tweaking the campaign towards the one specific career and background chosen by your dad. Like, a game entirely focused on a Guardsman staying alive in an evacuated hive overrun by plague zombies, cut off from his unit and trying to find a way back. Or an Assassin who takes job after solo job, essentially turning DH into "Hitman the RPG". Or an Arbites detective trying to solve a series of crimes. And so on.

I can definitely understand the intolerance of solo-games because it seems like most RPGs are geared toward 4-5 player groups. I could possibly have a maximum of two players. We've never been able to hold a stable group of more than that together. The area we live in isn't quite game-y enough.

I imagine he'll end up either taking an Arbitrator or a Guardsmen, but I heavily suspect it will be an Arbitrator since they have the investigation theme to back up the law-keeper and beat-downer bits.

Even though he'd be alone, the way I've been picturing it in my head is that the Inquisitor he's working under likely just sends all of the Acolytes to do specific things and pairs them or groups them only when an assignment might really call for it (at which point I'll have a basic profile(s) put together only to help him through the tasks and other than that, they'd just be an extra body(ies) that I could narrate through combat) and even then, the focus will still be on him.

I believe that could work - though really, I think just ditching all the Inquisition stuff might actually net you more, as it's really just in there to justify such a diverse group of people working together.

In short: just take the rules, then do your own thing. You've got the entire setting of 40k to work with!

As far as player availability is concerned ... ouch, sorry to hear that. You could perhaps consider an online group (it's what I am usually forced to do these days due to work), but not everyone likes the idea.

I don't know if I'd really like the idea of online because I don't have any solid block of time totally to myself. I'm still currently living with my parents (20 year old College student) and I've also got a little brother and dogs to worry about as well, so playing online would be impossible with the amount of interruptions I could expect.

I'll have to think on that idea though. Dropping the Inquisitor aspect would have a narrative benefit but at the same time, I like the theme presented in the book. I'll try and work something out after I get a couple of test games done.

I have another question, and that's whether or not the players can actually have the option to be an Inquisitor themselves. Is that what the high-level ranks are supposed to represent?

There is the option to level into Inquisitor with the Ascension supplement.

... at the same time, you could easily just "pretend" with standard DH. In theory, being an Inquisitor is a title moreso than any firm set of skills or talents. It all depends on how you narrate things. That being said, an Inquisitor I'd consider "incomplete" without a warband of minions/specialists to accompany him/her. But this is an opinion formed by a couple novels and the TT Codex more than the actual description of their work.

Supposedly, the 2nd Edition of Dark Heresy will offer the opportunity for players to start being an Inquisitor right off the bat (I'm assuming by having the campaign begin at a higher XP level), but that's just what I heard!

Well, alrighty. Appreciate the info!

I asked him about it just earlier and gave him the option to start as either an Acolyte or an Inquisitor and he decided he'd rather start as an Acolyte, so with that said, I'm going to run a test adventure or two to see how everything goes with him on his own, and if it goes well, I'll stick with soloing and occasionally bringing in an NPC to spice up the investigations, and if it goes bad, I'll rework my adventures to be more focused and centralized on his role and probably do away with the Inquisition side of things altogether like you suggested.

Sounds good - hope you'll be having fun!

If he makes an Arbitrator, why not give him a team?

Check out chapter 12 of the Core Rules, and tweak the Arbitrator entry so he has has something like 4 Troopers and maybe a Cyber Mastiff to back him up, and give each one 2'ish Skills that his character lacks. Fluff-wise that would fit extremely well with how the Adeptus Arbites operates.

I actually got another person to make up a character.

Now we have an Arbitrator, a Psyker, and I'm going to make a GMPC. What would be a good third character to round out the party.

I made a Cleric because I figured he would be a good non-spotlight support character.
EDIT: ...but am open to making a completely fresh character because I actually find it to be really easy and fun. They both suggested I take a Tech-Priest so I'm probably just going to go with what they want.

Comments?

Now we have an Arbitrator, a Psyker, and I'm going to make a GMPC. What would be a good third character to round out the party.

Best advice I can give: Don't have a GMPC.

But if you must, have you tried the advanced search feature of the forum?

Now we have an Arbitrator, a Psyker, and I'm going to make a GMPC. What would be a good third character to round out the party.

Best advice I can give: Don't have a GMPC.

But if you must, have you tried the advanced search feature of the forum?

I second this, with a big if

If you put this DMPC in the background, not doing anything and not stealing the spotlight of your players, it's acceptable. But then again, you're just using an NPC like the other dozens of NPC's.

Hi, I thought I share my thoughts on this:

I’ve never played an entire company with only two players, but I’ve done a lot of solo or duo missions during times when getting the group together was difficult.

When the player needed backup they either went through their contacts (like requesting assistance from the adeptus arbites, calling in favors from a noble they’ve helped out or asking one of their old gang-members for a hand) or, if they wanted to keep the civilian involvement to a minimum, requested personnel from the inquisitor. This was usually someone that a) had specific qualities necessary for the mission at hand that the PCs lacked and b) was someone who simply served the PCs and did not contribute much beyond their specific ability.

The NPC psyker was frequently used for this. He pretty much lacked combat abilities and did nothing except when ordered to and was mostly used as a psyker-phone and psyniscience auspex.

The other frequent NPC was a mind cleansed penal legionnaire with an explosive collar, commonly used when the PC/PCs lacked combat abilities (when dealing with those players I obviously did not put them on a combat-heavy mission). He also lacked initiative and any other order than “kill that” or “stay here” was pretty much beyond him.

This way the PC were always the ones planning, investigating and generally making the plot move forward without being outshined by GM controlled characters. However the players could usually manage fine on their own and backup was seldom called for.

Best advice I can give: Don't have a GMPC.

Best advice I can give: Don't have a GMPC.

This, so much.

Call me careful, but I'm generally sceptical towards people trying to "multitask", at least with something that relies so heavily on immersion as a roleplaying game. Lack of focus will lead to either the character or, worse, the game world as a whole suffering.

Another role that could work would be a walking librar… I mean a scholar if the players lack in the lore department

If there is really a need for one such character, the Adept would be my first suggestion as well. Some flimsy clerk who serves as a walking repository of knowledge, capable of carefully dropping hints whenever the group appears stuck (might be a good way for the GM to steer the campaign). A Deckard Cain of sorts, if you excuse the comparison.

Alrighty then! Some nice suggestions you're all sharing.

My experience with GMing isn't vast, but I understand what will and will not alienate my players' experiences. I've also played quite a few games on the player side and there has often been a GMPC in our group and it's always worked because they've normally been kept in the background and don't ever interact with anything important. In the game (not DH) my dad's running right now, his character actually only serves as a historian and a way to get cheaper prices in the black market. His abilities outside of those areas are extremely limited.

I know what to lookout for in general though. My thinking on the Cleric was actually a little bit the opposite. I saw that he could do plenty of different things which in my mind meant he probably wouldn't really excel at any one thing and I could just use him to fill in whatever little cracks might be giving the players some sort of unexpected difficulty. I'll do away with him though.

As usual, I apperciate all of the responses. I think I may just see how it goes for a few sessions without a GMPC as was suggested above and if the game starts to falter a little too much from limitation or difficulty, I'll consider adding an Adept or a Tech-Priest (occasionally) for the must-have situations.

Now I gotta ask though, what exactly causes all of the bias against GMPCs? Is it the roleplaying aspects that make them bad or is it the gameplay that makes them bad.

I can see this being bad:
The GM rolls amazingly and looks up at his players "Well the assassin takes his power blade and delivers the definitive final blow to the greater daemon after leaping onto its back and plunging the blade straight through his neck..."
That steals all of the thunder and no one gets to go "**** DUDE, THAT WAS AWESOME" because it's the GM. And it also provides a much bigger crutch for players than is necessary.

But at the same time, I see this being good:
"With the blastdoor leading into the facility jammed, the Tech-Priest slowly gravitates toward the door's panel to interface with it and fix the issue. The maddening roar of possibly dozens of cultists flooding the corridors from which you just came means you're going to have to defend him as best you can while he gets the door open because as soon as they find you, they won't let up."
I mean...dozens of cultists would probably kill the PCs, but you get the idea. All of the action serves to set up a feeling of urgency and terror while giving the players the Tech-Priest is a reasonable way to help them out of a sticky situation and gives them a goal to strive for during the encounter.

That's obviously just one specific scenario, but that's the kind of stuff we've dealt with before whenever we've RP'd. Where as the assassin bit...well nothing like that has ever happened here and we're all smart enough to know that letting that happen would be lame.

My dad's also tried something else in the past where he's made NPCs which he does the roleplaying side of things for while letting players control them during combat and other places where skills and abilities come into effect.

That can immediately be bad if it clutters the game and confuses people, but so far from just reading Dark Heresy, this game seems pretty easy as far as those mechanics are concerned.

Anyway, thanks again for providing more ideas on good ways to go about this, and tell me what you think of those last bits I just mentioned too.

Now I gotta ask though, what exactly causes all of the bias against GMPCs? Is it the roleplaying aspects that make them bad or is it the gameplay that makes them bad.

In my case, subjective personal experience. Not mechanical, but the roleplaying. Over the past ten years, I've seen such characters being either poorly developed, or running a risk of stealing the show. There were exceptions, mind you, but all in all I've noticed a trend. As I said, I believe it is a matter of focus, as most people would concentrate either on creating a living world, or a character to move in it. Temporary NPCs as part of the living world are no problem, but permanent group members played by the GM have, in almost all campaigns I've played, either taken a backseat and were forgotten again and again, or they became the vessel through which the world was communicated. And neither felt particularly good.

If you know the movie "The Gamers", the GM there agrees to play the character of one of the absent PCs, but keeps forgetting about him so that he only shows up in 2-3 scenes of the entire film, and in one of them he appears only because the players reminded the GM of him being there, at which point the camera angle moves to show him standing on the side.

Of course I could say the same about people having issues with what I'd consider "accurate" roleplaying of challenging characters such as Commissars, Marines, Battle Sisters and Xenos, but that just means they are not for everyone. Maybe it's the same with GMPCs and it depends on the GM. And/or maybe it depends on the other players in the group and how much they care about those aforementioned effects.

My dad's also tried something else in the past where he's made NPCs which he does the roleplaying side of things for while letting players control them during combat and other places where skills and abilities come into effect.

To me, this might feel weird as without the roleplaying aspect I have no connection to the character and would probably just treat them like some sort of "bot". Even in combat there's room for a bit of roleplaying, but depending on the complexity of the character I might feel insecure as to how I could "replicate" what the GM had in mind when creating this character.

But this really depends on how much personality those NPCs would actually have. If it's, say, a squad of faceless Guardsmen or thugs to act as combat support ... sure, that shouldn't be a problem, there's not much that could go wrong.

Actually, this might almost be a sort of Comrade-mechanic for Dark Heresy, like it exists in Only War.

Anyways, a lot of this depends on the players making up the group, how they treat their characters, and what they hope to see in or get out of a game!

Now I gotta ask though, what exactly causes all of the bias against GMPCs? Is it the roleplaying aspects that make them bad or is it the gameplay that makes them bad.

In my case, subjective personal experience. Not mechanical, but the roleplaying. Over the past ten years, I've seen such characters being either poorly developed, or running a risk of stealing the show. There were exceptions, mind you, but all in all I've noticed a trend. As I said, I believe it is a matter of focus, as most people would concentrate either on creating a living world, or a character to move in it. Temporary NPCs as part of the living world are no problem, but permanent group members played by the GM have, in almost all campaigns I've played, either taken a backseat and were forgotten again and again, or they became the vessel through which the world was communicated. And neither felt particularly good.

If you know the movie "The Gamers", the GM there agrees to play the character of one of the absent PCs, but keeps forgetting about him so that he only shows up in 2-3 scenes of the entire film, and in one of them he appears only because the players reminded the GM of him being there, at which point the camera angle moves to show him standing on the side.

Of course I could say the same about people having issues with what I'd consider "accurate" roleplaying of challenging characters such as Commissars, Marines, Battle Sisters and Xenos, but that just means they are not for everyone. Maybe it's the same with GMPCs and it depends on the GM. And/or maybe it depends on the other players in the group and how much they care about those aforementioned effects.

My dad's also tried something else in the past where he's made NPCs which he does the roleplaying side of things for while letting players control them during combat and other places where skills and abilities come into effect.

To me, this might feel weird as without the roleplaying aspect I have no connection to the character and would probably just treat them like some sort of "bot". Even in combat there's room for a bit of roleplaying, but depending on the complexity of the character I might feel insecure as to how I could "replicate" what the GM had in mind when creating this character.

But this really depends on how much personality those NPCs would actually have. If it's, say, a squad of faceless Guardsmen or thugs to act as combat support ... sure, that shouldn't be a problem, there's not much that could go wrong.

Actually, this might almost be a sort of Comrade-mechanic for Dark Heresy, like it exists in Only War.

Anyways, a lot of this depends on the players making up the group, how they treat their characters, and what they hope to see in or get out of a game!

Your posts are a joy to read. They're pretty thought provoking. I like having everyone's ideas on the topic bouncing around in my head though

I'm not an experienced writer or GM like, I said, small amount of experience with GMing...which I think may contradict what I said in the Deathwatch forum, Iunno. I've run some games, but when it's come to running them, I've always felt out of my element. Star Wars was too light for me. Combat didn't feel heavy enough or brutal. Dungeons & Dragons didn't work out because I'm just not good with fantasy. I've even tried call of Cthulhu, but I am not good at bringing out the horror side of things, nor do I like the fact that all of my players *know* "Don't pick up that book and open, you'll go insane." even though they don't actually use that player knowledge. But when they do know that something bad will come of their actions, it just makes it feel weird for me.

I think what I'm most excited about with Dark Heresy is that it's 40k and everyone currently involved with this game likes 40k, and it's also something new and it seems like a pleasant enough system to play despite the daunting size of the book.

I feel like I know enough about 40k to make it feel like 40k, but the fact that the universe is so expansive gives me some room to do a few things I want to do here and there.

I mostly just want to make sure I go about everything the right way. The mixed comments I've had about the GMPC has given me an idea of what to do and I feel like it'll help out in making my adventures feel better.

It sounds like you've found "your game" then! A very positive post that promises a lot for your immediate future as far as fun is concerned.

Again, best of luck, and game on!