Greetings,

I am an utter newb. I've never GM'ed anything before, and I've barely played a few sessions (PnP) as a player. That said, I have followed roleplaying with interest for a long time now. I am about to start my own campaign of DH2 with several players (who are similarly inexperienced - but I'm actually glad for that!). I'm quite familiar with the WH40k setting, and have been on a GM-research kick for about a month. I'm just brimming with ideas (not a few of which came from these FFG boards where I have been lurking since DH2 was released).

I finally sat at the grindstone last night to start creating actual content when I hit a brick wall. How does one create their inquisitor in DH2? The section entitled "Crafting an Inquisitor" (pp. 354-6) has some neat backstory questions and ideas, but literally nothing about how to mechanically create the inquisitor. I know there are probably other scattered tidbits, like the bit about the Inquisitor's Influence such as the inset box (p.361) which mentions double the party starting Influence.

Should I not mechanically create the Inquisitor (as the GM Sheet would seem to suggest)? (As in no Characteristics, Background, etc.)

Should I roll an acolyte then award them enough XP to simulate their entire career prior to ascension?

I started trying to simulate an acolyte ascending, but was unsatisfied with how I was getting characteristics. So, I put it to the GM's here:

How do you (mechanically) create your Inquisitors?

Thanks,

Gaius

What do you plan on doing with your Inquisitor character that necessitates a full NPC statblock?

It really depends on on factor: Is your Inquisitor an active participate with this group? If yes, he'll need stats if nothing more than to know when he gets wounded in action. If not, leave it to a narrative device.

Edit: When I create my Inquisitors, I typically make a profile, just so I know what to work with and how he stands among his peers. I generally do a quick char-gen with a higher set point-buy. Alot of it also is just doing what I feel like, as well.

Exactly, what do you want to use the inquisitor full. If you expect them to be in the field then worry about the stat block. If it's a behind the scenes then just describe them.

Thanks for the swift responses!

At this early point of campaign design, I don't know exactly how I intend to use the Inquisitor all the way through. I suppose that I was envisioning the Inquisitor as an NPC (much like any other, mechanically). As such I wanted to fully stat him out. I have a second reason for wanting to do this, but it will take a wee bit more explanation.

After loads of research (I've been through all of the GM'ing series I can find at The Alexandrian - what a phenomenal resource!, I'm currently reading Gygax's 1st ed AD&D DM Guide, and have extensively trawled every forum I can find with DH specific and general GM advice - stackexchange for example) I've decided do run a hybrid DIP/DAS character creation for my players. Here is what I have envisioned so far in one-on-one sessions (I imagine this process will take ~1-3 hours per character):

• Have the Player select of roll for Homeworld.
• The fun begins in a series of short scenes/vignettes:
  • I broke the 9 characteristics (not counting Inf) into 5 groups:
    • WS/BS = Weapons
    • S/Ag = Physical
    • T/WP = Resistance
    • Fel = Social
    • Int/Per = Mental / Astuteness
  • Each of these five groups gets its own mini-scene. Each scene will have a narrative reason for discovering/determining the character's raw level of ability. E.g., The resistance scene will effectively be a 'mock'-torture session with the PC in the hotseat!
  • The Mental / Astuteness scenario is a bit different. The other four will occurr in order. If, during any scene, the PC notices something funny and tries to suss it out, they will trigger this scene. If they never do, it will come last.
  • In each scene, the player will at some point roll their character's characteristics. Basedon player RP and PC decisions, I will have 'bonus' points that I will add to characteristics (e.g., if they trigger the mental scene early, they will get a slight boost (single-digit) to Int, Per, or both - depending on what they used).
  • I am working on getting a total point floor so that no one ends up too weak relative to the other players. If a player rolls below this floor (total points across all [except Inf] characteristics), the difference will be added similar to the 'bonus' points.
• Once the 9 characteristics are determined, we will take a pause to consider the numbers together. What do these abstractions represent in the 'real' game world. Once we have an idea of the character's raw abilities, the player may either select or roll their background.
• The next step is my fuzziest and least worked-out. But I want to collaboratively develop a 'backstory' at this point. By backstory in air-quotes, I mean that we will set the very broad strokes history and some hooks. I would also like to determine how the character came into contact with the inquisition. I also want to develop (in conjunction with the players?) at least one 'hidden agenda' for each character.
• Next, I want the character to experience a series of 'training missions'. My players are all new to both RPGs and the setting. I want them to experience a little taste of different play styles. I also want them to see how well/poorly their character performs in various situations. I expect to develop a set of +/- minor modifiers again based on these missions. I would like one per role, as it is basically a series of teasers for each role.
• Finally, the player selects/rolls their character's role, and we walk through XP spending together.

The point of this elaborate (at least compared to RAW chargen) is to ease my players into the setting and playing their roles. I belive that we will also get more interesting, multi-dimensional, characters from this process, and that players will bond more strongly with the characters (their own and each others'). This also allows me to start playing even though real life intrusions have killed our quorum for the moment. It also hooks well into what I have planned for after chargen, which will involve the PC's developing their networks (of contacts, etc.).

Whew! That was a long way to go for a simple explanation of why I want to stat my Inquisitor: I want to 'discover' the Inquisitor much as the players will 'discover' their characters in the above process. I was immediately suspicious of myself when I first set about making the Inquisitor without hard stats. I suspect that years of computer rpgaming have planted an insidious min/max tendancy in me,creating an Inquisitor is just an exercise in wish fulfilment - creating the most powerful PC (basically without constraints) that I have always wanted to play. Ugh, even typing that makes me feel dirty!

So, if my Inquisitor is likely to be in the background (most probably) but might pop up from time to time, is it worthwhile trying to fully stat him out for a more organic (and unbiased) chargen / development?

Pointers/tips/critiques of my planned chargen process would be appreciated as well.

Thanks,

Gaius

This:

I am an utter newb. I've never GM'ed anything before, and I've barely played a few sessions (PnP) as a player.

And this:

The point of this elaborate (at least compared to RAW chargen) is to ease my players into the setting and playing their roles.

Do.

Not.

Make.

Sense.

You are new at GMing. Your players are new to roleplaying games. Your plans for your first session are phenomenally overwrought, and you're expecting way too much from RPG newbies. Way too much.

Here's what you do: throw together some starting level pre-gen PCs covering a variety of roles (maybe player count +2). Hand them out. Explain the premise of the game ("You are officers in the secret police, this is your boss"). Ask each player to give you one sentence describing what their character is like and maybe why they got hired. Tell them what the mission is, then ask them what they want to do about it. Roll dice as needed. If you need to know the Str score of your inquisitor (you won't) just make it up.

That's it. That's all there is to it. Just hang out and have fun.

You also seem to have this strange impression that the numerical values on a character sheet have some deeper meaning:

Once the 9 characteristics are determined, we will take a pause to consider the numbers together. What do these abstractions represent in the 'real' game world. Once we have an idea of the character's raw abilities, the player may either select or roll their background.

What the **** does this even mean? What is the point of this? What are new players supposed to glean from this?

You're overthinking this way too much. Is the Inquisitor going to be an active component that the group regularly meet and interact with, or is he an absent figure who sometimes sends them a message? His stats suit his function, not just anyone can be an Inquisitor. If you decide he has a thunder hammer, you know full well that he can use it and he's no slouch when it comes to melee. If he's a Psyker, you know he's strong and well tempered to resist the lures of warp corruption. The Inquisitor (unless he's a PC) is a plot device, if your PCs aspire to advance in the Inquisitorial chain of command then he's something for them to aspire to. If not methodologically identical then at least an influence, nothing shoots these dreams in the cot like an inquisitor standing next to a Cogitator and turning to you guys and saying "Bugger, I've not a frakking clue how this works".

cps,

Thanks for the reply. I am going to try to explain my thought process a little, and ask for some clarification on yours - but I'm not trying to argue with you (just to be clear about that up front!).

You also seem to have this strange impression that the numerical values on a character sheet have some deeper meaning:

Once the 9 characteristics are determined, we will take a pause to consider the numbers together. What do these abstractions represent in the 'real' game world. Once we have an idea of the character's raw abilities, the player may either select or roll their background.

What the **** does this even mean? What is the point of this? What are new players supposed to glean from this?

I have to admit being baffled by this. I cannot imagine how my impression is strange. The whole point of these numerical values on a character sheet is to quantifiably represent the character. As in, each numerical value is an abstraction of some 'real' (from the perspective of the game world) aspect of that character. For example a high S value abstractly represents the character's ' real' strength. It's as if you rolled yourself in a game (from what I've read, this is basically how chargen in The End of the World ). There is no real meaning, in isolation, to any quantified 'characteristic'. It only has meaning in that it maps to 'reality'.

We have a bunch of abstract numbers that are only somewhat related what they are supposed to represent (What, exactly, is being measured by Strength? Which muscle? Doing what sort of movement? Clearly it has no 1-to-1 real world correspondence. It is, instead, a loose approximation of the character's overall strength.). And then we have the character who lies behind the numbers. We have to look through/past the numbers to find the character.

Example: I believe that it is fairly common practice the world over to quantify a student's performance in a similar way. In the case of university students, (typically) four years of assignments, papers, exams, and such are abstractly represented by a single number: what is often called the grade point average. (I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence - I just know that there are many variations in these matters across different countries, and I imagine we have a fairly international group here.) This number can hardly capture the various success and failures or trials and tribulations faced during these years. It certainly does not capture what you learned, and it does a pretty poor job of capturing how well you learned. If I was an employer checking an applicant's C.V., I would be sure to look deeper than the G.P.A. I would be a very foolish employer indeed if I refused to do so. I would be even more foolish if I found the very notion of looking for the "deeper meaning" to be "strange". [cps - I am not calling you foolish. Just explaining why I am baffled by this part of your response]

You are new at GMing. Your players are new to roleplaying games. [1] Your plans for your first session are phenomenally overwrought , and [2] you're expecting way too much from RPG newbies . Way too much.

[1] How so? Nothing about the process is difficult or complicated. It just breaks up the rolls and inserts them in a narrative.

[2] Again, how so? This feels like (and as far as I have tested it, actually is) far easier on the player. They don't need to do very much. They certainly don't need to go hunting for every talent/skill they think that they might want later and backplan from there. All they have to do is show up.

Here's what you do: throw together some starting level pre-gen PCs covering a variety of roles (maybe player count +2). Hand them out. Explain the premise of the game ("You are officers in the secret police, this is your boss"). Ask each player to give you one sentence describing what their character is like and maybe why they got hired. Tell them what the mission is, then ask them what they want to do about it. Roll dice as needed. If you need to know the Str score of your inquisitor (you won't) just make it up.

I don't understand why this is better. I can see how it is lighter , but that does not necessarily make it better. Just a different style. Also, this entire approach to RP is different that what I am intentionally designing (what my players and I are attracted to). We want to go into, and then inhabit and explore, a living, breathing, organic universe. We want to discover the characters. We are not looking to use our characters like telepresence robots. Or, maybe my inexperience is just causing me to fundamentally misunderstand your comments...

That's it. That's all there is to it. Just hang out and have fun.

This is exactly what I am going for, based on what seems fun to my group.

Thanks again for your advice and insight. I look forward to learning more from the experienced GM's here!

Gaius

By your own admission, GPA is a terrible metric by which to judge a person's intelligence or capability. If you were interviewing candidates for a job position you would do well to completely ignore it and instead try to arrive at a judgement by other avenues (questions about things the job involves being a good start). There are plenty of genius with GPAs in the toilet and anyone who's been to college knows at least one person with a perfect high school GPA who was actually an idiot.

My point was that the numbers on the sheet actually don't tell you anything at all about the character of your character. That's really what you're looking for, isn't it? What kind of person is X? How would they react in [situation]? What are their values and personal connections? And so on. The numbers themselves are irrelevant to that kind of discussion (which, based on your post, is the discussion it sounds like you want to have).

I've introduce DH and other games to people who have never played RPGs and in my experience the kind of overwrought plans to just set up the story are a huge turn-off. People just want to play the game and have fun and your little vignettes only put off actually playing the game. Let them discover their character by playing the game. Let it evolve. You don't need a perfectly-realized world with perfectly-realized characters just to get started.

Also, nobody wants their first exposure to RPGs to be a scene where they're subjected to torture. I don't care if that's your story-explanation for their Willpower score. Don't be that guy.

We want to go into, and then inhabit and explore, a living, breathing, organic universe.

This is literally impossible.

I don't understand why this is better. I can see how it is lighter, but that does not necessarily make it better. Just a different style.

You are right, here, it is lighter and different. But you're a total newbie and you're making your job a lot more involved than it needs to be. Feel free to rush down the double black diamond slope but don't be surprised when you panic 5 minutes in when you realize you didn't plan for [thing] and you wake up in the hospital (or the game goes poorly, whatever metaphor you want to use).

By your own admission, GPA is a terrible metric by which to judge a person's intelligence or capability. If you were interviewing candidates for a job position you would do well to completely ignore it and instead try to arrive at a judgement by other avenues (questions about things the job involves being a good start). There are plenty of genius with GPAs in the toilet and anyone who's been to college knows at least one person with a perfect high school GPA who was actually an idiot.

100% Agree

My point was that the numbers on the sheet actually don't tell you anything at all about the character of your character. That's really what you're looking for, isn't it? What kind of person is X? How would they react in [situation]? What are their values and personal connections? And so on. The numbers themselves are irrelevant to that kind of discussion (which, based on your post, is the discussion it sounds like you want to have).

So I think we were talking past each other, as illustraed by this bit. First a wee quible with the first sentence. The numbers tell us hardly anything - not nothing - about the character . Other than that, I agree until the "And so on." To me, at this point Homeworld and numbers are the only thing we know about the character (assuming we are actually creating the character at this point and not just importing a character we designed outside of the game).

That's why I wrote about the need to consider what the 'reality' of those numbers could be. In that consideration, at that moment, we are seeing the character for the first time, though it is still pretty hazy. In a backwards sort of way, I think we were actually taking the same (or at least similar) position on this particular point.

I've introduce DH and other games to people who have never played RPGs and in my experience the kind of overwrought plans to just set up the story are a huge turn-off. People just want to play the game and have fun and your little vignettes only put off actually playing the game. Let them discover their character by playing the game. Let it evolve. You don't need a perfectly-realized world with perfectly-realized characters just to get started.

I can see how that would be unattractive, if that is how you see it. To me, going through this whole chargen process is playing the game. They are discovering by playing. I'm just starting my game a bit earlier in the PC's timelines than usual. Granted, I am mixing in meta-gaming and OOC aspects. So maybe my perception is unusual. The players seemed pretty excited by this idea when I pitched them. But maybe they just don't know any better. But if none of us do (know better), and it seems attractive to us, why not try it? Maybe we'll be the ones who go in for it. I don't know.

Also, nobody wants their first exposure to RPGs to be a scene where they're subjected to torture. I don't care if that's your story-explanation for their Willpower score. Don't be that guy.

Seriously? It sounds pretty awesome to me - there's no lasting damage, the character is barely an outline at that point (so you can't be too attached to it yet), it shows off some of the rare and exciting situations we can experience through RP, it is well in line with the setting, and it allows me to add some emotional pacing to what could (if played differently) be a very boring process.

What guy? (I honestly don't know)

Quote

We want to go into, and then inhabit and explore, a living, breathing, organic universe.

This is literally impossible.

Fair enough.

But you're a total newbie and you're making your job a lot more involved than it needs to be. Feel free to rush down the double black diamond slope but don't be surprised when you panic 5 minutes in when you realize you didn't plan for [thing] and you wake up in the hospital (or the game goes poorly, whatever metaphor you want to use).

Message received!

I am going to try to implement something along these lines at least. But I think that I can maybe make it a little easier on myself by incorporating some of your advice.

Gaius

To me it sounds a bit like a char gen sequence from a computer rpg. I remember Fallout 3 having something like this. Using computer rpgs as a guideline is not a bad thing for beginner GMs, but be prepared that something WILL go other than you planned. Players get different ideas than the GM has planned for. Sometimes these ideas are brilliant, but most of the times they are pretty stupid and f*** up all your pretty, well crafted adventure outline. I can't even count the times anymore I had to improvise to keep the session going and not let it devolve into railroading.

I think what cps meant with the nobody likes a scene with torture, is that being submitted to torture in the beginning with no experience and no character to cling to makes the character feel powerless, wich is not a good note to start with into a new game. You can play around this by letting the character escape through their own action and power, but this is much easier (and a bit more satisfying [at least in my experience]) if you have stats to roll against, so you really did it with your characters own power and not because the GM just said so (not so satisfying).

My advice for the fist session would also be, to just make up some pre gen, standard characters and play. Then, when you got a feeling for the rules and can actually say what talents and abilitys are important for what, go for the elaborate char gen you described. That way you and your players will have a better over all experience.

That's why I wrote about the need to consider what the 'reality' of those numbers could be.

There is no need to do this. Just play the game. The dude who pumped Int will succeed more often at the things that take smarts compared to everyone else and he'll be the Smart Guy of the party. You don't need to sit down and collectively reflect on the difference between Cory's Int of 32 vs Taylor's score of 38. There is no point to this. Unless you want to alienate newcomers who heard about how d100 works 10 minutes ago and you're asking them what their 27 says about them.

I can see how that would be unattractive, if that is how you see it. To me, going through this whole chargen process is playing the game. They are discovering by playing. I'm just starting my game a bit earlier in the PC's timelines than usual. Granted, I am mixing in meta-gaming and OOC aspects. So maybe my perception is unusual. The players seemed pretty excited by this idea when I pitched them. But maybe they just don't know any better. But if none of us do (know better), and it seems attractive to us, why not try it? Maybe we'll be the ones who go in for it. I don't know.

If your friends agree that going through the 5 steps of character creation constitutes 'playing the game', who am I to argue with them? If your friends are people who have never played an RPG before, though, their expectations may be more in line with them actually doing things.

You're proposing several hours investment as the preface to playing the game. How does that not sound crazy to you?

Also, nobody wants their first exposure to RPGs to be a scene where they're subjected to torture. I don't care if that's your story-explanation for their Willpower score. Don't be that guy.

Seriously? It sounds pretty awesome to me - there's no lasting damage, the character is barely an outline at that point (so you can't be too attached to it yet), it shows off some of the rare and exciting situations we can experience through RP, it is well in line with the setting, and it allows me to add some emotional pacing to what could (if played differently) be a very boring process.

What guy? (I honestly don't know)

That Guy . There's a thread on reddit detailing That Guy's exploits. Inviting your friends over to a game you told them would be about them investigating evil and kicking its ass but instead opens with you describing how they're being tortured is peak That Guy behavior.

madMAEXX ,

The intro sequence of Fallout 3 was a bit of an inspiration for this type of IC character generation, as was the origins bit of DA:O. Thanks for your clarification on the dislike of torture - that makes great sense and I think your point (of making the 'problem'/challenge be solvable by PC's) will be a good one to remember in a variety of situations. Thanks for the input!

cps ,

I'm not sure how to respond at this point. It's quite clear that you don't like what my group and I plan to do. I'm not trying to start some forum flame war over this.

There is no need to do this. Just play the game.

There's no need to play any game in any particular way. We want to at least try playing the game this way.

The dude who pumped Int will succeed more often at the things that take smarts compared to everyone else and he'll be the Smart Guy of the party. You don't need to sit down and collectively reflect on the difference between Cory's Int of 32 vs Taylor's score of 38. There is no point to this. Unless you want to alienate newcomers who heard about how d100 works 10 minutes ago and you're asking them what their 27 says about them.

You have missed my point by so far, that it must be intentional.

If your friends agree that going through the 5 steps of character creation constitutes 'playing the game', who am I to argue with them?

Exactly.

You're proposing several hours investment as the preface to playing the game. How does that not sound crazy to you?

Because, as just established, it is playing the game.

That Guy . There's a thread on reddit detailing That Guy's exploits.

I am aware of the meme. When used properly, it points to a specific, cliched, assholish behavior. My question was trying to identify what classic 'that guy' behavior I was engaged in.

Inviting your friends over to a game you told them would be about them investigating evil and kicking its ass but instead opens with you describing how they're being tortured is peak That Guy behavior.

You're right, doing that would make me into 'that guy'. Of course what you described is not at all what I am doing.

If you want to help or guide me, I am all ears. If you think that because I am new to the forum, and outed myself as a novice GM, that you can bully my group into adopting your preferred playstyle, then I am afraid that you are going to be disappointed. I respect your opinion as someone more experienced than I, but my group will play as we please.

Thanks all, and please keep the wisdom coming!

Gaius

It seems you have some high-flying plans, Gaius, but I say go for it. There is a risk of crashing and burning, but you seem to have accepted that risk. If this works it will certainly be more memorable than the standard "five pre-generated characters meet in a tavern."

As you are eschewing the ordinary character generation for this introductory sequence, I would recommend taking a cue from the introductory montages of various ensemble films, and use this as a point of reference for your players. The important part is showcasing the main characteristics of the characters as well as some defining traits of the universe they inhabit. Use slightly more free-form systems such as Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, or even Fiasco, as inspiration and play the action fast and loose when you need to, present challenges for your players and try and get out of them not just what their solution is, but how they perform that action. The entire point is discovering the character, after all. As for advice for the players, I would use my Fiasco mantra - when in doubt, exaggerate your personality!

And be very, very careful about torture sessions, they can easily become a situation where the players, not the characters, feel powerless and betrayed. The GM is responsible for creating and maintaining the players' sense of agency, and that is crucial to the enjoyment of any role-playing game. I have had a GM for a couple of campaigns who is very fond of capturing and torturing us without us being able to do much about it until after the fact, and I can tell you, those sessions ended up with me wondering what the point of playing even was, as the GM had supreme power anyway. What is the point of playing when the characters life can be whisked away at any second by the almighty ruler of the game universe? So I would give the players a way out before the real bad things happen - start with the classical "strong light on face, stern interrogator whose face is in shadows" scene. The characters are isolated, do they trust each other not to break? Does the Arbitrator budge when told that the Noble sold him out? Let there be some hints as what can happen if the character does not comply - some suspicious stains on the walls and floor, a terrifying technological device visible through the window in a door, and so on. Perhaps they can try and talk their way out? Escape the magnacles and overpower the interrogator? Simply refuse to tell anything? The scene can certainly work, but you need to keep the player's sense of agency intact, even though the character has few options left.

Torture sessions rarely give you what you want from them. It's like having them be knocked unconscious and having them awaken naked in a dungeon. It generally only serves to make players angry at their GM.

Gaius, if you have played your first session, could you post your experience with the expanded char gen? After the discussion here I'm rather interested in the outcome.

Hey Gaius and welcome to being a GM and I hope you find game mastering enjoyable, and fun.

Well how I created my Inquisitor for my campaign was I printed a new character sheet and started from the beginning like making a new character I already decided which ordor he came from so that altered my creation a little. I rolled for the name too mostly because I suck with making my own names. What I did was rolling off a Forge World Adeptus Mecanichus Sage who became a Inquisitor for the Ordo Xenos. Also after the background and home world was picked I decided to pick the role because a mechanicus warrior who became Inquisitor did not sound right to the character I wanted. My inquisitor is suppose to be intrigued by alien crafts and technology, he is a ample fighter but he uses his mind more for strategy than strength and brutality. Before you make a Inquisitor think about who he/she is, puritan/radical, brains/bronze, cautious/reckless, and more this will make u feel easier when picking what characteristics, talents and skills you want your Inquisitor to have. I simply gave mine 3000 experience points not including the 1000 i used to make him a Inquisitor (pg 88). I gave him both knowledge and martial skills stuff that made him more for what I intended. For his war gear and tools and such I mostly gave him random equipment I saw in the book, my assumption was that since he is now an Inquisitor and has been experienced for some years now he has collected the proper tools he needs for everyday use so he has some rarer gear, but I did not pile everything I think he needed or I wanted on him I kept it modest to make him realistic. I used the book and kinda started at core mechanics but I did not try to give him anything for free unless I felt he needed it for the sake of being an inquisitor time as an acolyte could account for some of the stuff he knows. Hope it helps in anyway.

Good Luck Gaius on your Inquisitor, and happy gaming!

ThenDoctor ,

Have you got any advice on how to produce one of those rare times? Are there common trends across all the different torture scenes you have seen/played/run that did work?

madMAEXX ,

After the strength of the negative reactions I've gotten here, I pulled myself back a bit. I've gotten a very experienced GM (from Pathfinder though) to agree to playtest this with me (once has got to be better than nothing!). I've also gone back to the drawing board a bit to try and tighten up my concept. So it will probably be a week or so until I get my test round in, and then I'll start getting my players run throug it.

I will definately write up the experiences. If it does work out, then the method should get out to the DH2 GM community. If it doesn't work, then I should be sure to confirm what several here suspected. Either way, I'll post up a description of the chargen module, then of (at least) some of the play-throughs. If nothing else, spending enough thought and effort to write it up will cause me to really meditate on the lesson I've learned, and make me a better GM.

DrangarOrtega ,

Thanks for the post! That is what I started doing, but I ran into trouble on the characteristics. I couldn't think of a good way to simulate the whole career of progression (of characteristics) that didn't end up with an Inquisitor that was either wimpy or seemed arbitrarily powerful. It looks like you just left the characteristics out? (I have so far rolled up a Hive World, Arbites, Seeker and given him starting skills/talents/etc.) Was 3k XP enough? I believe there is another thread on the forums here that suggested something like 8-12k for building an ascended Inquisitor PC. Thanks!

Thanks all for the great posts. There is a wealth of wisdom here, and I am glad that I get to bask in its warm glow.

Gaius

I think you don't really need to roll the characteristics. Just give him stats that reflect at what he is good at. Keep in mind that a score of 40 means that he succeeds at standard tests 50% of the time. So I would start with a score of 40 in every characteristic (Inquisitors are jacks of all trades). Influence has to start at 75.

Then just increase (or decrease, if neccessary) the relevant stats until you are satisfied with the percentages he succeeds at tests.

For example if the Inquisitor is a meant to be a full on, punch them in the face, melee guy, I'd raise his WS to somewhere between 60 and 70, maybe even higher. This Inquisitor might not be that much of a genius, so I'd either let his Int sit at 40 or maybe even decrease it to 38 or 39 (So he has the lower IntBonus, but still has a decent chance to succeed at standard tests).

Depending on how experienced the Inquisitor is I'd raise his Influence. 75 is a newbie Inquisitor, so for a moderatly experienced Inquisitor it'd be somewhere around 90 I think.

This way you have more freedom and are not slaved to the dicerolls, which can f*** up your concept badly, if you roll bad. In that case you most likely roll again until you get a roll that supports your concept. You can save yourself that time and hassle if you just set the characteristics according to your concept.

What purpose does building an NPC using the PC chargen rules serve? Why do you even need stats for a character the players aren't going to be fighting?

What purpose does building an NPC using the PC chargen rules serve? Why do you even need stats for a character the players aren't going to be fighting?

Can be useful, especially with things like Intelligence or Perception. My own group's Inquisitor has missed a detail on occasion, when trying to figure someone out or recalling a very obscure detail (in our case the name of an Acolyte that wasn't even his). Never know, the Inquisitor could be chatting up with the PC's, giving them their orders, and the place get hit by a cultist raid (because the PC's were sloppy and got followed of course), and the GM wants to show off just how far above the PC's he actually is, using the actual in-game system (ie. "Oh, your inquisitor rolled an 87. But he still hits with two DoS).

Can be useful, especially with things like Intelligence or Perception.

For example if a character tries to keep something a secret from their Inquisitor. Then you can roll for the Inquisitor to see if he gets it and not have to resort to arbitrary GM decision.

ThenDoctor ,

Have you got any advice on how to produce one of those rare times? Are there common trends across all the different torture scenes you have seen/played/run that did work?

It's more dependant on the people you play with over the situation you set up. People don't like having agency taken away from them. They play roleplaying games to interact with a world, not to have someone tell them what happens to their characters. I know that reads oddly, but I hope you get what I'm trying to put across.

Allow them to resist. Forget the idea of explaining that's why their WP is the score it is. Have it be an explanation that they resisted torture, so they can serve because the Inquisitor knows they'll hold up under pressure.

Even then. They may hate your inquisitor, they may hate the game. People don't like the idea of torture for the most part let alone someone putting a character they're supposed to feel invested in being tortured.

It's just such a better idea to not do it and have them been interviewed by a psyker or something and during the interview they were testing their fortitude against psychic invasion subtly. Almost any other option is better.

Allow them to resist. Forget the idea of explaining that's why their WP is the score it is. Have it be an explanation that they resisted torture, so they can serve because the Inquisitor knows they'll hold up under pressure.

Even then. They may hate your inquisitor, they may hate the game. People don't like the idea of torture for the most part let alone someone putting a character they're supposed to feel invested in being tortured.

If you have to do a torture scene, let them have the gratification of revenge. That gives the power back into the players hands (and sometimes brings up disturbingly creative ways of inflicting harm).

What revenge is there to have against an inquisitor or an interrogator?

I guess if the Inquisitor set it up for the characters to be captured by a cult and then they killed those people, but that'd make for one sick and sadistic radical inquisitor.