I was wondering how the rest of you were planning on determining who will actually be THE rogue trader in your gaming group. In other words, how will you determine which player will actually hold the Warrant of Trade and the deed to the star ship your group will be tooling around in?

It would seem that this player might wield an unusual amount of athority over, and responsibility for, the other players. Therefore, it is not a choice to be made lightly. An incompetent captain will bring catastrophe down on the other explorers. On the other hand, its sort of hard to justify direct disobedience of the captain by the crew or even his closest confidants. Furthermore, the game would not benefit from an adversarial atmosphere amongst the players. Therefore, your wisest, most creative, and most decisive player should probably play the part of the captain.

How are you all planning on making this choice?

Well, the easisest method would be to let your players decide.

I don't think the GM should decide this issue by himself. Because one of the other player could feel bad about it.

He should explain the responsibility the RT has, but also that in the end all PCs share the same equality.

I tend to agree with Massaker, this is something the players should largely decide for themselves. And hopefully it should go to the one who would have the most fun and the other players trust as the party leader; other then a class it's not really much different from old school D&D. Unfortunately; I also know some power-gaming players who would only wield that kind of power over my dead body and one player in particular who would make a fuss if he isn't in the position to constantly save the party from the "sadistic GM" (although to be honest I've stopped gaming with him.) And in those cases, I would consider stepping in and not-so-randomly nominating a player based on skill level.

Ideal canidates for the Rogue Trader when in that kind of position are the player who's familiar with the rules and the setting or the player who's completely new to both. In the former case, the player could assume the mantel of a strong and competent leader; in the latter case, more experienced players would hopefully have rolled up fairly competent advisors who can nudge the new guy in the right direction.

I also have to agree that the players should be the ones to decide. However depending on the type of game i decide to run would also change who would be RT. If it was a more serious game then i would want the more serious gamer to be RT. Now if i was running a game slightly off then i would want the gamer who is alittle more unrational when making decisions. Just my two cents.

Well you could leave it up to your group (just be sure to keep a veto power lest the munchkin gets the role).

Alternatively you can have a competition to see who gets it. Perhaps a Captian Kirk impersonation contest?

My group is actually toying with doing this.. we would all sit around doing star trek (OS of course) bridge crew impersonations while we get the game set up. Best Kirk gets rogue trader, best scotty gets the explorator, etc.

I think the first time through I'd actually have a situation where the Rogue Trader is an NPC, and the first session be the party figuring out what to do once he died/went insane/revealed his corruption/etc. The situation would be an interesting way for the party to really get a feel for their own dynamic, and figure out who would be the actual RT proper.

Of course, once I see the actual book, I'm sure that idea will go right out the window.

Aureus said:

I agree, though ill probably wait till i read the rulebook before finally deciding.

Aureus said:

I think this is a strong idea, less likely to create out of character resentments. This is similar to running a "how you met the inquisition" - type of character prelude for DH, which is also a great way to lay down ground rules.

Psion said:

I also like this idea. One could have a very decisive, wise and competent captain, but you could also have a 'George Bush' type of captain, who would be largely controlled by his advisors. In this case, the most decisive player could still end up shaping the game despite a lack of an official command billet. (I think Cheney is probably a 'Seneschal' class build). Therefor a very experienced or totally inexperienced player could be equally effective as captain.

You just don't want a munchkin to play the role.

I think for the first game i run i'l just NPC the RT, as i know my regular group will squable about who is in charge. Actually i think this could work not as a prelued but as an actuall long running game without making the experience less fun. Just say the RT never leaves his ship, or is intergrated into its command systems so he cant ever leave his ship. This would mean the PC's had to do all the away missions anyway. The players would still be descovering/searching for/making up Endeavours and the 'Captain' would pick the best one. As long as the GM (me in this case) is carfull not to rail road them too much it should be fine. It wouldn't even stop people from playing a RT Class as who sayes you can only have one RT on a ship. Again the book could de-rail me but i think it could work.

I am also tempted to run my first couple of campaigns where the Rogue Trader is an NPC, and I don't think it'd be that bad for the players.

I've been toying with either the RT being a played by the group as a whole. (Sort of troupe play.) The group as a whole selects who plays him in combat or handles speaking for him. The other option is that the PCs are investors in some fashion. Maybe the missionary brought in 80% of the crew, and they are more loyal to him than the RT. The tech priest commands the tech priests, and lay workers. The Navigator might represent his house's shares in the ship. (money, equipment...) That way the RT must listen to the rest of the PCs, and coldd even be out voted on a given matter.

Dalnor Surloc said:

That seems like a wise arrangment. Giving the other players some political cache aboard the ship would solve the problem nicely.

An Ad Mech member would wield almost automatic political athority for the same reason their order does. If they don't do their thing, technology ceases to functioon.

The priest could have been the primary motive force in aquiring the funds and the warrant for the expidition. This would lead to the classic and entertaining 'meddlesome priest.'

The Void Master could be such a respected and high-ranking old 'Salt Dog' amongst the crew of the vessel that he could easily incite a mutiny if he were so inclined. He also knows more about direct command of the rank and file than the Rogue trader does, and his counsel would be invaluable.

Navigators would wield athority over the RT for similar reasons the Ad Mech does.

The Arch Militant probably commands the military brach of the fleet and therefore would be a dangerous companion to alienate.

I think a balancing act like this would serve admirably as a curb on the RT's power should one find one has no player up to the challange of the role. After all, the RT enforces his athority through force of personality, not necesarily by fiat (like inquisitors do).

Hmmm, I like these ideas. I'll have to keep them in mind if I ever get a chance to start a Rogue Trader game.

Nullius said:

Not exactly what I would like to think up for an example but it certainly works.

For my game i (the GM) will be the rogue trader, the players will be the rogue traders advisors/go to team. The rogue trader himself will very rarely get activly involved, the players will do most of the work but may have to check in and get clearence from the RT for major decisions. So my players will have all the usual power of the rogue traders ship/resources but it means if they keep falling back on the same plan i have an easy way to deny them it and force them to get creative.

Lol, I remember the whinging about DH not allowing a player to be an inquisitor. I also remember the arguments given as to why not and ironically they were pretty much all the same as those given here in regards to who gets to be a rogue trader.

I'm of the opinion that it solves more problems than it causes to have the ultimate leaders as NPCs in RPGs. However, so long as the players can hack it anyone can be the rogue trader.

The fairest method would be to allow each one to be an RT in different games.

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

Though that's to be rectified by Ascension, according to Ross...

ho hum.. ignore this post.. I just accidentally posted on my husband's account.

Okay let me try this again on my OWN account!

I agree with the prevailing sentiment that the group should at the very least be heavily involved in the decision.

In my group, it was pretty easy, since one person already knew what he wanted to be (not the RT), and the other has a character in a leadership position in two of our other games (eldest born in our Dark Elf game, and Prime in Dark Heresy), so he'd had his turn.

We also expect that the rogue trader player being married to the GM will make things more convenient, since the RT player is likely to have to collaborate more with the GM than in some other game frameworks.

Millandson I have no doubt that the same questions will arise when ascension comes out too...

We live in a selfish world. It is very hard to balance something as inherently unbalanced as 'who gets to be the rogue trader' considering that no matter how well the other characters do, they can never be a rogue trader. Unless of course we are going to get into the Dan Abnett school of Rogue Traders and rogue traders...

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

To be fair, all the people here sound like a fairly mature bunch so perhaps we all have "perfect world" syndrome. Although I'm not that familiar with the Dan Abnett take on Rogue Traders...

Well Abnet has both types of rogue traders in his books..

The version of Rogue Traders that we see shaping up right now. The Marco Polo and Cortez type. Out for Gold, Glory, and God(Emperor).

He also has others that are more merchants and traders than explorers and conqurers.

Although Abnett usually describes such minor traders a sort of poseurs. The Inept, babbling captain in Ravenor, for example, is obviously a merchant of dubious value. Abnett writes, however, that he likes to think of his ship and, by extension, himself as a Rogue Trader. He is obviously a far cry, however, and this notion is characterized as a kind of delusion of grandeur.

Tobias Maxilla fits the bill a bit better, but he seems to keep to a rather safe trade route. He does, however, speak of runs out into the halo stars. The character presumably must have a charter of some signifigance in order to travel so widely -or he does so illegally. In any event, he has a literally priceless vessel which is capable of making these trips with little difficulty and in great luxury.

A lot of Abnett's generic categories are a bit complex and, in a sense, a bit less artificial than many Gamist RPG conventions. What is a Rogue Trader, specifically? That depends on who you ask. Its a big galaxy.

Was Francis Drake a Rogue Trader? Was Cortez? Odysseus? Aristotle Onassis? I like to think the concept embraces them all.

Nullius said:

This raises an important point: The PCs are going to spend most of their time outside the Imperium, meaning the title of Rogue Trader will have little, if not no, real power behind it. The real power of the Rogue Trader is the loyalty earned by the actions of him and his advisors. A good RT will do fine, a bad RT will do well if his advisors protect him, a bad RT without the protection of his advisors is likely to suffer a nasty 'accident'.

If a RT ship returns with their RT dead, how much effort does the Imperium put into verifying the accuracy of the crews story of how he died ?

I don't thinkl there are many ways they could verify how the Rogue Trader died; assuming there are not remains, and shooting a corpse out into space with the garbage doesn't seem THAT hard.

It's just a question of eliminating anyone who refuses to corroborate the mutineers' story.

Assuming my group votes me in as the Rogue Trader (and somebody else will GM for a change), I've been trying to decide whether I'd be a heavy-handed or more "beloved" leader... both have potential for interesting conflicts.

We're working it that the players are beholden to a senior RT.

Whilst they hold there own warrant, it's a subset of the senior RT.

Everyone seems happy with the arrangement thus far.

Although whether or not it will actually work out in play is another matter entirely.