First, I would like to give some context to these two questions. I am relatively new to the WH40K universe (but I played Space Crusade 20 years ago! Ahem ). I actually like the universe in itself: I like this dark world where really, the "good guys" would be considered pretty bad by anyone else's standards nowadays. I really like the Chaos Gods, what they stand for, and how they act as forces of nature, etc. I truly do. I've read a few novels too (the Grey Knights trilogy and am finishing the Eisenhorn trilogy as we speak). In other words, I have taken a real liking to the whole WH40K universe, even though I am not much into the figurine part of the game. I do not currently play with anyone, but I acquired Rogue Traders, Only War, and Black Crusade. I am currently reading through BC, which I find extremely interesting on its own.

In addition, I am not new to role playing and in particular with playing "adult-themed" RPGs. I've played nice and less-than-nice or even nice-turned-monstrous guys in the context of Vampire: the Mascarade games (and in particular, I've been a story teller in a small campaign for a Sabbat pack), I've been a "white collar" slave master in games of Kult, etc. In other words, I am not a stranger to playing games with ambiguous themes which involve people with less than pristine minds. Yet, I find it hard to see how to use BC on its own, without a "wider scope" where other WH40K games possibly intervene later in the story.

What follows may seem off-topic, but please bear with me, there is a reason I dedicate a full paragraph to a game that is not BC.

To go back to the Vampire/Sabbat example: sure, in-game, the Sabbat is a violent sect, which strives to set itself on top of the proverbial Darwinian only-the-fittest-survive food chain. Yet, a vampire must obey whatever "moral" Path s/he has chosen to undertake, lest the beast inside takes over. Moreover, while the vampires of the Camarilla (which is the default setting used by most GMs) believe the older, powerful demi-godish Antedeluvian vampires to be legends, the Sabbat exists specifically because they believe in their existence, and think they're going to be snacks for them when they decide to awaken. And so they want to take the battle to them, by any means necessary. They believe in a quasi-fascistic way of ruling themselves, with a fanatical dedication that is terrifying. Yet, they do so because they believe their very survival depends on it. Are they considering regular humans as cattle? Sure! (and the fact that they used to be one of them is of no consequence). Are the Paths followed by Sabbat vampires leading them further and further away from their former human selves? Definitely. Are they right in believing that the legendary Antediluvian vampires are out there to eat them? Well, it depends on your GM, but if you read the material written by the game designers, it seems that while their methods of operations are extreme, they are justified in their beliefs at the very least.

Back to Black Crusade. The way I see it (and note that I have not yet read any Horus Heresy novel, nor have I read any Codex — truthfully I want to read a bit more of the 41M novels first before I read the former, while I don't intend to read anything from the latter), the Imperium of Man is already a very dark place to be, and in many ways "evil:" psykers are either exterminated or forcefully indoctrinated to become tools to navigate among the stars, or maybe become inquisitor material (or space marines). It looks like some people are "grown" just so that their organs can be collected and help created "intelligent" machines to better serve the Imperium. From a 2nd Millennium point of view, this is utterly terrifying, especially when one learns later what happens to people who openly criticize the cult of the Emperor-God, and how easy it is to be labeled a heretic. Yet, at the same time, whether they are right to have built their empire like this or not, they do have a true foe to defeat: the forces of Chaos and their Chaos Gods. They are a corrupting influence on all of Mankind, and no means are too strict to get rid of the corruption they bring to the Imperium.

In that respect, it looks to me that the Imperium in WH40K is very close in many ways to the Sabbat vampire sect of V:TM. While you may find their methods extreme, and utterly despicable, you can understand where they come from: after all, there is a Big Bad Wolf lurking in the dark. Its fur is permanently reddened with the blood it bathed in, and it wants more.

Yet, BC is about playing characters which despise the Imperium of Man so much that they would rather worship Chaos Gods than serve the Corpse-Emperor one more second. I can understand why one would stand up against the Imperium: it basically crushes whatever and whoever does not get out of the way fast enough, killing innocents (directly through bombings, etc., or indirectly by grinding them through the system's cog). I can see how a PC could end up being bitter and jaded and want nothing with the Imperium. I can understand how a PC could want the death of an inquisitor, e.g., because his son was a psyker and was taken away by the Black Ships, never to be seen again. I can even understand how that could lead a character to be seduced by the power of Chaos.

What I can't understand, is how this would make a good and enjoyable experience to play as a PC on its own. I can perfectly imagine an ambitious multi-WH40K campaign where the players start as heretics and achieve something of significance (release a daemon lord, find a terrible Chaos artifact and use it to corrupt people and start new cults for Tzeentch, spill the blood of countless people, etc.), and then switch to another game, e.g., Rogue Traders, where the players come to get said artifact (not knowing what it is), and somehow end up being paid to smuggle it (while being told this is "just" a xenos artifact). I can imagine how they end up realizing what their cargo is, and they must make a choice as to how they want to deal with it. And then, why not have a final mini-campaign using the Dark Heresy game where the players end up confronting their own previous characters. I can see all that.

But I have a really hard time imagining a campaign solely based on BC. Can someone help me understand?

Thanks!

As one who plays this line more than any of the others, shall try to enlighten the good sir:

This is a game where, you are the evil bastard and you know it. Your darkest whims are yours to indulge,where those lapdogs of the Imperium are enemies to be wiped from all existence in the name of glorious Chaos, to lay waste to a planet and rip the skulls from a billion innocents and be REWARDED for it.

tl;dr

Its a game where you at the unabashed horrible monsters and enjoy the whole ride to hell

Hello and welcome to the hobby!

Yeah, as filliman said, the attraction in Black Crusade - at least to me - lies in playing "someone from the other side" for a change. It is a different world where might makes right, which means your character has to exert a lot more caution navigating through society whilst at the same time having a lot more freedom to enforce their will, so long as they have the means to back it up. The simple allure of darkness - discarding your real world morality and drawing a certain fascination from testing the waters of evil certainly play a role, too. Especially if you're used to otherwise playing a "good" character. It's why I enjoyed playing a drow in D&D so much!

That being said, keep in mind that there are a lot of possible backgrounds and thus personalities for Chaos devotees, and not all of them must be driven by hatred of the Imperium. In the Eye of Terror as well as BC's own Vortex setting, a lot of people grow up never having heard of the Imperium, simply being born into this hellish society and having to find their way without ever having known anything else. These are the ones who will either be a cog or thrive in this kind of society, depending on their aptitude and personality, but likely respecting its peculiar rules.

On the other hand, "outsiders" who flee the Imperium or otherwise come into contact with Chaos due to dabbling with arcane rituals or outlawed organisations may be more likely to try and fight against the torrent in an attempt to establish their own rules, for they are unlikely to accept the chains of another culture when they just broke free from the Imperium because they felt constrained by its rules and regulations.

Lastly, there are those who simply do not understand what Chaos is. This can be the tribal warrior whose culture worships one of the Chaos Gods in the form of a local deity or myth (imagine the Aztec empire + Khorne), or the renegade Imperial who has a very twisted idea of Chaos, actually believing that they are the good guys and the Imperium is evil (such as warriors focusing on "honourable combat" in the name of the Blood God). These can also make for an interesting experience, for they will struggle with the true nature of Chaos, trying to deny it and looking for justification, all the while stumbling ever deeper into the vicious cycle, not noticing how they slowly change.

The most interesting BC groups may well be those where you have characters from all these paths in your group, and see how they will get along.

My groups first few games were mostly: "everybody is chaotic evil and you are out to eff up the local Imperial sector as part of a chaos invasion." (We skipped all that get to x infamy or you loose nonsense from the core book)

For our GM it was "Let's see what they'll do when I let them play the villains, and oh god what are you guys doing!" It was a bit of an eye opener for him concerning some of our group (Ok, including my slaaneshi marine going after the adepta progenium pupils any chance he got)

Afterwards we did more exploring weird chaos worlds and getting into fights with the locals. (and me playing against type with a (ex) World Eaters sorcerer)

I would say playing BC is a lot like playing D&D in wich people don't care about their alignment or everybody plays evil/neutral characters.

Unlike in the other 40K RPGs (except RT) in BC you are truly free ( if you want to be...) No Inquisitors, No death watch missions, no imperial guard command structure... You are free out to go out into hell and make it worse.

BC is a lot like the way most people play RT aparntly. FREEDOM! Except you are more evil and less powerfull.

(Seriously the RT stuff I've read on this forum!)

I highly recommend reading the Nightlords Omnibus.It gives a good example of "bad guys" that atleast in their mind are....well bad but have their reasons for it!, and have no shame in why they fight the imperium.Then you have the Thousand sons who have a justifiable reason for being ticked off...esp/ at the space wolves.The opportunity to explore people that are on the wrong side of gray makes for alot of interesting possibilties in a 40krpg...at least to me.Their's paragraphs of reasons why BC is such an awesome RPG but I won't bore you with details.....After all..The auspex scanner just registered a sword frigate "The Imperial Light" carrying that troublesome Inquistor and is retinue.Looks like an ambush for my band of World Eaters aboard our Strike cruiser "Red Fury".We will continue your re-education..er..discusion alittle later.

For all the Long War thingy, methods used by Imperium and Forces of Chaos are closely matched from the point of morality. You will hardly find any atrocity performed by followers of Chaos which wasn't tried by Imperium a few times.

There are, however, some distinctive features setting those two apart and making a difference from gameplay perspective:

-Imperium stands for collectivism, chaos is extremely individualistic. Imperium is a monolyth state with established command structure, regular military, centralized economy, bureocracy and religion. Chaos is a bunch of separate domains contested and controlled by rivalling warlords, dark magi, daemons and the like, uniting only out of convinience or because they were intimidated/ceduced into cooperation by even more powerful individual, and even then alliance is over the second after one party believes it can backstab another and get away with it.

-For the very same reason, in Imperium, while you can rely on billions of comrades standing with you as one, social advancement is extremely hard, no matter how good or competent you are. In realms of Chaos you are always on your own, even if you lead a Black Crusade - you simply cannot trust anyone and hope to survive. But at the same time, if you really are competent, ruthless, charismatic, strong and smart - you will skyrocket from lowly cultist to Chaos Lord or even Daemon Prince in no time.

-Imperium loves rules and regulations. In fact, it loves them so much that personal initiative is generally frowned upon or punishable, with precious few exceptions (some space marine chapters, guard regiments and inquisitors make a point of not going by the book). Chaos, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite, no rules exist other than those you enforce and might always makes right.

-Imperium has more or less unified religion, which is mandatory for everyone, and common ideology. Chaos has 4 gods, countless lesser entities which are worshipped by some, lots of people who don't worship anyone at all, either ignorant of the gods or trying to use the powers of the warp, not serve them, and no common ideology exist.

To clarify a bit further, I have no problem with players playing bad guys. I will definitely check out the Nightlords omnibus to see how heretics can be depicted with a bit more depth, which is what I guess makes me wary and worried: with a true bad guy dedicated to the Ruinous Powers, it seems that a lot of depth is potentially removed, which is not helped by the fact that there seems to be no loyalty lost even between team-mates. I realize that that is what compacts were created for: even though the players' characters may hate each other, they have a reason to at least collaborate for the duration of their mission.

This leads me to a last question, more geared toward GMs, which kind of overlaps with some of the conversation which happened in another thread ( http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/127841-what-are-the-borders-of-the-allowed-in-your-black-crusade-game/ ) :

While I understand the appeal to play a truly bad guy, I've always played RPGs with the idea that all players involved (including the GM) were basically telling a collective story, if only with a canvas initially provided by the GM.

Admittedly this is why I will probably never play this game except with some confirmed players I've met over the years: the risk of having a player simply play out his/her frustration in-game at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment seems rather high (especially with younger players).

Thanks to all of you for answering. It helps to have some insight as to what people like in games that are purposefully very dark.

which is what I guess makes me wary and worried: with a true bad guy dedicated to the Ruinous Powers, it seems that a lot of depth is potentially removed

It depends a lot on the type of heretic. For example, my current BC character is an "Astromancer Witch-Priestess" (yes, I made that up) from Q'sal, a rather interesting place described in both the core rulebook and, in greater detail, in the Tome of Change. That's just one of many societies that easily rival an Imperial world in what they have to offer in terms of a backstory and ambitions. The latter is even embedded as a mechanic in chargen, and I'd say provides excellent guidance in adding depth to both a character's background/history, as well as how they would be played during interactions.

There are some types of characters where depth is limited, especially when it comes to combat-focused archetypes, but in the end it really just rests with the player and how much depth they actually want to have. Want to be the crazed maniac who mindlessly slaughters their way through all opposition? You can have that in BC. Want to be the scheming manipulator of the masses who secretly just craves a specific relic and sees everything else just as a tool on their way to get it? You can have that in BC as well. And in general, the same is true for any of the other 40k games, too. The character is always what their player makes of it.

Admittedly this is why I will probably never play this game except with some confirmed players I've met over the years: the risk of having a player simply play out his/her frustration in-game at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment seems rather high (especially with younger players).

While true, you run this risk in any game. In Dark Heresy, it is the Lulzpsyker who intentionally triggers Perils any time they can, in Deathwatch it's the Space Puppy or Fleshtearer who just loves creating carnage a little too much, and in Only War it's the Commissar who loves baiting squadmembers into some silly trap to generate the tiniest justification to BLAM them. Some characters are just more difficult to play "right", and can be the cause of many problems at the table just as much as they can add a lot to the atmosphere, depending on how they are played.

I'd say it would be sad if you would let yourself be dissuaded from possibly ever trying BC just because of such a possibility. Sometimes, you just gotta jump head first into the water to see how deep it is, lest you run the risk of ever getting to swim.

While true, you run this risk in any game. In Dark Heresy, it is the Lulzpsyker who intentionally triggers Perils any time they can, in Deathwatch it's the Space Puppy or Fleshtearer who just loves creating carnage a little too much, and in Only War it's the Commissar who loves baiting squadmembers into some silly trap to generate the tiniest justification to BLAM them. Some characters are just more difficult to play "right", and can be the cause of many problems at the table just as much as they can add a lot to the atmosphere, depending on how they are played.

Agreed. However, some games make it clear that certain behaviors are truly unacceptable. For instance, Star Wars D6, 2nd Ed: if you are force sensitive, you simply can't let someone be tortured, even by your friends, unless you're willing to go one step further in the Dark Side; in the Call of Cthulhu, reading forbidden lore will cost you Sanity points; D&D has the whole alignment thing, and states that ideally, players should never play evil aligned characters; Vampire has the Paths of Enlightenment which are chosen by the players, but which must be followed lest they risk losing their character selves (plus, vampires in a modern society have to fear rocket launchers, demon hunters, werewolves, etc. : they simply can't be too overt about what they are in most contexts); getting negative enlightenment points in Kult is easier than positive ones at first, but reaching -500 points is much harder (you're supposed to already be a monster when you reach -200) on the long run than reaching +500 to finally be enlightened; etc .

In other words: some games are more or less on the "Disney" side of the story, but impose a set of rather strict-ish rules to empower the GM a little bit and prevent a player from completely spoiling the game for others. The more morally ambiguous the game, the more you have to rely on your players to be responsible.

All the questions I have asked are rather here to help me see what drives both players and GMs and how they perhaps self-restrain themselves from turning a game into a let's-gore-things-up free-for-all.

I'd say it would be sad if you would let yourself be dissuaded from possibly ever trying BC just because of such a possibility. Sometimes, you just gotta jump head first into the water to see how deep it is, lest you run the risk of ever getting to swim.

I did not mention this in my initial post, because it was not directly relevant to my questions. But this last remark ( which is very true! ) requires me to add a little bit: I currently live abroad, in an English-speaking country, and of course English is not my native language. I would feel relatively confident being GM for some RPGs, including other-than-BC WH40k games. But I would like to make sure that everyone understands me very well (and vice versa) for games that are more morally ambiguous.

It would probably be best if I first found a group of players with someone who already is GM (rather than maybe play only online with some of my home country friends)…

>>All the questions I have asked are rather here to help me see what drives both players and GMs and how they perhaps self-restrain themselves from turning a game into a let's-gore-things-up free-for-all.

The setting, Screaming Vortex, is a powerful restraining factor in itself. Sure, there are no laws out here, but there are plenty of powerful individuals who don't need no conclave meetings or formal denunciations to kill (or, even worse, capture) the troublemakers or even possible future rivals. As your power grows, so too does the number of your rivals for glory, while allies are rare, not trustworthy and temporary. You go out there and start butchering people left, right and center, and you'll find your head cut off in record time, and even if you won't, you'll give the dispersed warbands of the Vortex a good enemy to unite against, casting off their blood feuds for a short period of time while you stay alive.

>>It would probably be best if I first found a group of players with someone who already is GM (rather than maybe play only online with some of my home country friends)…

Well, I'm GMing BC.

In other words: some games are more or less on the "Disney" side of the story, but impose a set of rather strict-ish rules to empower the GM a little bit and prevent a player from completely spoiling the game for others. The more morally ambiguous the game, the more you have to rely on your players to be responsible.

Ohh, that is true. Of course, this can be a problem for all 40k games, and many others - but that is why I like the more "ambiguous" games and settings such as the Dragon Age P&P. Not just because they are more interesting and feel more realistic, but also because it makes for deeper characters, as shades of grey tend to evoke far more interesting and varied reactions than as if things were truly black and white (as much as they may seem that way for the characters ).

It would probably be best if I first found a group of players with someone who already is GM (rather than maybe play only online with some of my home country friends)…

Yeah, that would probably be best. Got to learn to walk before you can run, to borrow another saying!

When it comes to language, I'm in the same boat as you are. And I've got that silly fear of not being able to hold up to the standards I'm setting for myself in my native tongue. Alas, we have to start somewhere, else we'll be stuck on the spot.

Speaking for myself and my gaming group; we play BC mainly as a 'release' after playing Rogue Trader or another game for a extended period of time. Being the GM, it is pretty much a full on free-for-all when I pull out the BC manual and screen; my friend's are all smiling and planning on much backstabbing, etc. That way the group can vent all of their simmering rage, hated, etc. that they had to keep in check during our RT campaign. It may not be the best use of BC, but it's working for the time being (at least to buy me time to finish a actual campaign).

And for clarification, the group is playing as mainly Night Lords space Marines; with some Hereteks and human support crew along to handle the 'lower' duties like keeping everyone fed and full of ammunition.

My group used to play Paranoia to blow off steam. I can certainly see that as a good use of BC.

I would say playing BC is a lot like playing D&D in wich people don't care about their alignment or everybody plays evil/neutral characters.

Unlike in the other 40K RPGs (except RT) in BC you are truly free ( if you want to be...) No Inquisitors, No death watch missions, no imperial guard command structure... You are free out to go out into hell and make it worse.

BC is a lot like the way most people play RT aparntly. FREEDOM! Except you are more evil and less powerfull.

(Seriously the RT stuff I've read on this forum!)

Don't you mean LESS evil?

I would say playing BC is a lot like playing D&D in wich people don't care about their alignment or everybody plays evil/neutral characters.

Unlike in the other 40K RPGs (except RT) in BC you are truly free ( if you want to be...) No Inquisitors, No death watch missions, no imperial guard command structure... You are free out to go out into hell and make it worse.

BC is a lot like the way most people play RT aparntly. FREEDOM! Except you are more evil and less powerfull.

(Seriously the RT stuff I've read on this forum!)

Don't you mean LESS evil?

Ive read about RTs doing stuff that would make Slaanesh proud, and Arch militants get up to some serious khornate caranage.