My apologies if I posted this in the wrong thread but I thought the topic was more appropriate for GMs as opposed to a Rules Question, but how is rank promotion handled in your campaign. A colleage of mine (of ours I suppose) allows his players an almost instant rank promotion, citing pg. 42 of the DH Corebook:

"Characters automatically gain Ranks by spending xp. Once a character's total spent xp reaches the necessary amount, the character's Rank increases."

Usually this allows his players the opportunity to purchase additional Advances of Sound Constitution in mid play. I, on the other hand, prefer my players to roleplay the situation. Reasoning that not every imperial citizen, not even those in the employ of the Inqusition, can stop by the place of their current occupations and simply demand a promotion. I currently impose an xp cost of 100xp per current Rank to advance to the next Rank. If the pc roleplays the situation well this cost is either reduced or waived in its entirety. One of my players plays a Tech-Priest that simply informs me that he reports to his superiors in the Mechanicus, by his own design, playing a double agent of sorts. Our Assassin regularly visits his cult's temple for additional teaching (ie obtaining advances) and, to advance in Rank, is given a mission to prove his worth (which undoubtedly involves the whole group). In our capaign, when a Psyker gains a Rank, he or she is examined by representitives of the Inqusition to determine if additional sanctioning is required. Several of the current discussions deal with the crunch of game mechanics, just curious how this situation is handled in the context of your campains. Thanks!

My campaign is finished, but i viewed the 'ranks' as a tedious and pointless rules conceit, tied to a clunky 'level access to skills' mechanic.

So 'ranking up' existed only in the metagame and not in the game itself. As a result, i simply allowed xp expenditure to be freely available to any rank-accessed skill/talent. In addition, i gave a lot of access to more appropriate 'elite advances', and indeed these constituted probably 30% of all advances.

As for 'training', or rationalising skill/talent gain ingame, well my Pcs had established a residence or 'HQ', and had access to library resources, training programmes, and could buy in teachers, advisors and specialists at will.

Limiting character development simply wasn't a part of the game i was running and so i saw no need to impose restrictions. Why would you want to?

I have been pretty liberal about handing out 'elite advances' as well. If a character could conceivably learn a skill and the player works into the background and has the required XP, he get's it, period. IMHO the whole character creation process and the rank system is far too inflexible compared to what I'm used too. In my game the amount of XP a character has spent has nothing to do with his actual in-game status and position in the Inquisition or any other organisation he happens to belong to. If I run another DH campaign I'll probably rework character creation and advancement from the ground up, since neither I or my players really have anything positive to say about it.

Luddite said:

Perhaps I was being too literal in my descriptions...sorry, years of playing D&D have left their mark (you can't teach us old dogs too many new tricks!). But some of my in game abilities such as requsitioning Arbite suppression squads or access to restricted data slates and info require a specific "Rank". I understand that the stratisfication of experience levels is a metagame phenomanon that is sometimes a necessary evil, especially in my case with a group with relatively little rpg experience. Imho, a bit of pomp and circumstance here and there in a character's career provides some memorable experiences, as well as some measure of psychological accomplishment. I use Ranks to simulate what would happen in the "real" world, where a fairly competent individual would be promoted based on his or her performance. Certainly, almost absolutely in the case of Psykers, a pc's peers would notice some sort of development. To elaborate with Psykers, perhaps some of the NPCs would notice the Psyker's increasing power and would probably begin to fear him or her given the social stigma Psykers bear. Thus, in my logic, the Inqusition would send representitves to reexamine said Psyker. This would simulate the character gaining a rank. A little roleplaying icing to top the game mechanic cake. Rather than limit character growth, I tend to use Ranks as a measure of said development. After all, how thrilling would it be to play a low level flunkie for an entire pc career? Members of the Assassin's death cult have recently recognized the character's growing skill and devotion and deemed him worthy for the honour of a special missions. Just as none of us would abide languishing stagnant at the bottom, an acolyte aspires to rise to the upper eschelons. I allow pcs free access to any Rank appropriate skills or talents. I whole heartedly support the liberal use of Elite Advances as well. I have conceded that, as agents of the Inqusition, the pcs have access to any form of training that they would require (I rule that pcs belonging to a specialist group such as Assassin death cults or members of the Cult Mechanicus must contact their respective groups). The majority of this happens in down time between game sessions. We acknowledge these little side stories for fluff and atmosphere. The gist of my "How is Rank promotion handled in your campaign?" question was not to inquire about game mechanics but to ask, what kind of fluff do yu use to simulate character growth?

As a side note, I would like to personally thank Luddite for his contributions. I make extensive use of his many supplements and whole heartedly beseech any who read this post to do likewise. Thanks again.

I don't give players any experience points until they finish their mission and report back to base.

Then they can freely use their exp.points and gain ranks. ( normally I give them 200 points per session [6 hours] plus roleplaying- and other bonuses; about 250-350 points depending what a player did or did not do)

But they have to earn the skills and talents they want to buy. If you haven't used any flamer in that mission, you can't get that skill. (Unless he spends time between missions and learns it. At the moment they have spent long times at the hospital when their mission is over and when they get better, there is new mission waiting )

So they have to at least try to use the skill they want to buy.

elPANTERA said:

I follow a similar vein of thought, either the pc can state that he is spending xp between missions in downtime to gain a talent/skill or he or she could use the "trial by fire" method (Huh, how appropriate!) and, in the course of the game, repeatedly use the flamer with the associated penalties. After a few successful attacks, I would allow the character to purchase the appropriate skill or talent on the spot. This would allow the character to attack without penalty but I would not allow any other uses such as maintenance or any other noncombat use until the pc could get adequate training in between missions or during the mission itself, should the oppurtunity arise. All of this assumes that the character has sufficient xp to spend and is at a current Rank where the appropriate skill/talent is available.

I just use it as a guideline. If a character who has "commander" rank in the guardsman career, he is not a commander over a battalion or whatever, only that he has the same "experience" as a Commander(as i told my players if we are going for downtime playing some time and they want to join the imperial guard again that PC will advance faster in the "real" ranks of the imperial guard i.e.).

I usually just ignore the rank system as much as possible. I especially ignore the titles of the ranks. For example, on the guardsman path they have the StormTrooper at like 8000 or so XP. Which is so ridiculous. There is nothing in the fluff, tabe top, RPG or other sources/media of this setting that would suggest Stormtroopers are that skilled and experienced.

Trust be told, Stormtroopers would have a higher BS and possibly Fellowship/Willpower and some access to a few special weapons, things that should be available to all guardsquads at lower ranks.

I think guardsmen need a rank 2 alternate career rank of "Weapon Specialist" which provides a handful of skills and allows the rank 2 guardsmans to take one of the following advances...

Heavy Weapon Training (Bolt) 300XP, Basic Weapon Training (Melta) 300XP, Basic Weapon Training (Plasma) 300XP, Basic Weapon Training (Flame) 200XP, Basic Weapon Training (Launcher) 100XP, Heavy Weapon Training (SP) 100XP

Again, they would only be allowed to take one of them. This would represent how some guardsmen wind up weilding special weapons in a basic squad level, not some 3000XP character.

Anyway, as I said, I generally use the rank/level system as a basic skill/talent selection system because I havent really had the time to redo the entire chargen/advancement rules, but I am working on it. But in general Ill sit down with the players and try to figure out what character they want and we attempt the best we can to build it and fudge some of the skills and talents and elite advances.

whisperer in the vault said:

I'd normally respond in a PM but we can't do that here...so, thanks mate. I do try.

Our current GM gives out experience after every scene (A minor goal achieved in the plot) and we're free to use it as needed.

Works extremely well for our group. People tend to buy skills on impulse when doing so in the middle of the action, instead of carefully deliberating between sessions, which results in interesting non-combat skills - at least in our case.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Generally, I think that is what most of us do. The Rank titles are there just for fluff, I only use the occassion of gaining a Rank as an excuse for pcs to roleplay a significant milestone in their carreers. I tend to view the profession system in the game as a base line for other careers. The Imperial Guardsmen is a starting point for several other careers such as Mercenary or Body Guard for example. The Scum career is the basis for several other "everyman" professions such as Factory Dreg or Shop Owner. I tend to draw pcs from ordinary lives into extraordinary lives (or in most pcs cases, extraordinary ends). This may be a carry over from my Call of Cthulu days but given the lethality of Dark Heresy, I believe a little celebration in a characters career is warranted, if only to make the pc memorable. One day a common shop owner, a few years later an unsung Imperial hero whose death kept the forces of Chaos at bay, for few years at least. I once had grand plans to overhaul the entire Rank System but in the end sitting down with a player and trying to map out a career outline seems to have the best overall results thus far.

I'm another one for the post mission xp. My players only get xp after a mission or, if it's big enough, mid way. All skills have to be justified though and like the example in the book for learning a gun talent I get them to buy some ammo for training. Mid game skills really have to be justified though.

My players havn't really got into the idea of asking for elite advances but I won't deny any that seem ok. In fact I've already offered 1 or 2 so far.

Personally me and my players seem happy with the structure but we're not above overruling any strange bits in the book.

Personally I don't use ranks. Than again I don't I use Dark Heresy so that's really not that useful!

Kage

So does ANYONE use the ranks and character advancement rules as written? ( Elite advances being not used or only used very rarely as they are supposed to be, as defined in the rules )

How does using the RAW on character advancement work for your group?

E.g. How do you justify a guardsman never having picked up a grenade launcher suddenly developing the skill to use it?

Luddite said:

Yup - I do.

Luddite said:

Seems to work just fine - of our four regular players we have two at rank three, one at rank two and another at rank one. I tend to give out individual roleplay related xp awards then and there during a session (otherwise I'll forget) and then a general mission based xp award at the end of a scenario or significant story arc.

Luddite said:

As there is downtime between missions players can then spend the xp (in line with the advancement rules as written) but we (each player and I ) come up with narrative reasons for the advancements. It's never an "oh look all of sudden I've got Quick Draw" we develop reasons in the backstory.

For example the scum in the group fell foul of a grenade at the end of a session but due to the good favour of a local Magos and his Inquisitor he managed to gain Cybernetic Ressurection. Folllowing that he has now taken the Alternate Rank of Reclaimator - it makes sense that having been saved my the wonders of the Adeptus Mechanicus he has had his eyes opened to the majesty of the Omnissah and is "specialising" in tech. He also looks more "tech preisty" when it comes to scamming the unsuspecting plebians...

But it works both ways - there are many stories and plot lines that have come to mind since involving "additional features" that the Magos may have had implanted in the scum's new body, and the path of tech heresy (for a quick buck) has a great allure to a young scummer. If the player has a good rationale for the advancement and I can see potential story mileage out of it I'm prepared to write in methods to achieve it.

I think it's important to discuss with players how they see their characters advancing in future so that you can write plot with that in mind, both ensuring that if you have a guy who wants to play a sniper he gets the chance to learn the skills and talents he needs but also ensuring that the missions teh acolytes are called to perform require target's to be sniped.

Currently I know that our guardsman wants to be versatile but is looking towards specialising in sniping (which is how he already plays the character), the scum is very happy with the reclaimator idea (a tech focused "dealer"), our Moritat assassin is working towards becoming a full Moritat Reaper and our tech priest wants to go down the militaristic route from the IH (I can't recall the Alt. path name...). Now I know that I can write adventures with those goals in mind.

Luddite said:

As do i, to an extent.

I don't see the ranks as actual in-game career ratings, just meta-game dividers for meta-game numbers. I have yet to hand out one elite advance. Only one player has ever been interested in one but never enough to actually get it.

In my games, in order to get an elite advance, they must "practice" the talent/skill they want before I will let the purchase it. If they want Ballistic Weapon training (bolter0, then they got to get their hands on an instructor in game or at least a bolter, some ammo, and actually fire it a god few times, screw up a lot, have it jam and repair it, etc before they can buy it. They have yet to be lacking in something that much to go that extra mile and have stuck with their trees. However, i will be introducing peacekeepr's Role plug-in's for careers to my group. I really just love the idea.

As for how I justify a guardsman never having picked up a grenade launcher suddenly developing the skill to use it -simple, he's always known how to use one. If he's never picked one up, then it's probably never come up in game that he didn't know how to use one.

In my game, I let the players buy what ever advance they want to as long as it's open to them. How dose the purchase get explained in game? Many different ways and a lot of time not at all. There's usually a bit of downtime between sessions and that usually takes care of any purchases that the character definitely in-game did not have. Sometimes it may be a skill that bites the character in the ass a lot and they seek out someone more knowledgeable them them as well as research it. Then between session, if they can, they buy the skills/talents already explained by their inquiries into such matters (they just go a bit further while the camera is off).

Most of the time, however, such purchases really have no in-game sign that the character took an advance. No one in-game would ever notice that someones strength has gone up by five points and someone suddenly getting quickdraw is negligible. Hell, they were probably kinda fast before, and now they just seem a little faster? Before they got quickdraw, they were still probably pulling a gun out and popping off a shot in the same round, now they can still do that but get a 10 because they aimed a little bit, or they can do some auto firing. No one in-game would ever notice the difference.

In the end, none of the people in the game world can read a meta-game character sheet and if the games we play were translated to a movie or book, the audience wouldn't have access to the numbers behind the character either. They would only know the character by what they've done and that's all I care about in my games. The only time anything really needs some kind of in-game explanation is when it's been clearly established that the character could not do something and then he clearly could such as screaming that he had no idea how to stop Mr. X's bleeding one session then the next showing up with Medicae and being able to do such without a problem. That would take a bit of explaining, but it's not impossible... it all depends on the circumstances.

Hell, if nothing else, when the character is cornered by another wondering what's up letting Mr X bleed to death and saving Mr Y the next session, the player, in a panic to explain his strictly meta-game purchase blurts out "I wanted the bastard to bleed to death!" Spontaneous character development point! I do so love those. Now, the player can end that conversation, and take some time to think of why his character would have wanted Mr. X to bleed to death when they seemed to be the chummiest of chums before that. Of course, I'll be thinking my devious little GM ideas as well as the character suddenly takes a turn that no one, not the player, not I, no one could have ever foreseen.

So, in my game, in-game explanations only come when they need to... and sometimes they lead to some truly unexpected character points. :-D

Kage2020 said:

Emperor **** me! Theres a heretic among us! lol Just out of curiosity, what rpg system do you use? For years my group used the Fuzion d6 system for Warhammer 40K games. Personally, I used Dreampod 9's Silhouette system to great effect as it allows for a seemless transition between table top and roleplay (admittedly a generous amount of house rules were liberally applied). I can respect you decision not to use Dark Heresy (rules I assume), I believe others share you sentiment (I believe there is a post/thread currently active). I never could come to terms with the tounge-in-cheek presentation of Orks. IMHO they seem out of place in the dark and grim setting of Warhammer 40K, I threw the whole ...boyz descriptions years ago and went back to my D&D roots, replaced Mork and Gork with Gruumsh, Luthic and the rest of the Orc Pantheon (anyone old enough to remember Roger Moore's tenure at Dragon Magazine will know why). Part of the problem I have with the rules is the flavour text of the Ranks and Professions. While they are very descriptive and imagination stirring, they are rigid. I use the professions for the basis for other professions. Perhaps if the professions were less strict and a bit more flexible, some of the current confusion could have been avoided. What I use in my campaign is what we like to call "skeletons". We (based upon the current professions) the basic structures: Scholars (Adepts, Clerics and Tech-Priest), Warriors (Arbitrators, Assassins, and Guardsmen), Psykers and Scums. It is up to the player to flesh out these structures into something that fits their concept of what their character should be. Ranks are used to guide the accumulation of talents and skills (can't let my noobs get too big for their britches to fast). Seasoned players can probably forgo the whole Rank system, but rare is the player that is willing to accept a character concept with flaws. The majority of the Dark Heresy rules are fine as the focus of the game is more of an investigation based play in an horror atmosphere as opposed to an action based rpg in a war atmosphere. But in the end the game is the game you make it, I'm just curious how everyone else plays the game.

Rank has no campaign impact in our game. It's simply a mechanical pace setter for crunching the numbers and pacing out how the players are able to learn abilities.