And remember to do trade and criminal at the same time. Do a bit of smuggling with every normal trade route! It just means that you REALLY have to play the minigame of keeping the crew pacified or content. And a Rogue Trader would have, you know, incentive to do so, because of the absurd amounts of money they'd be making.

Question is, though... assuming you did, yaknow, boring trade/smuggling routes and focused on getting enough of these ships, actually just BUYING them (which should eventually be possible if you go to a forge world with a huge profit factor, get some connections, and tell them, 'I am going to be regularly returning here for refit and repair and to buy a ship exactly like this one, possibly tradind in looted prizes for some of the value', to get a gaggle of them to get profit factor into the mid hundreds (and, with missiles on a keel mount, which you could hypothetically get some nuclear tipped or seeking missiles or nuclear tipped seeking missiles, and fighters and bombers and an active CAP at all times, these ships should be really really good at the interlocking fields of fire thing...), how would it work? How would starting with two of these ships with the 70 sp / 20 pf work? Just delaying the bigger part of adventuring until you are absurdly wealthy with a traditional way, and have a few cruisers to go adventuring with?

My current game started as one of the high SP low PF games. The players couldn't much a ton of cool stuff outright, but they can definitely push people around in space a bunch easier, and they had to take what they wanted. Instead of outbidding their rivals at an auction, they waited for them outside with a bunch of guns. Instead of buying new ships, they take anything human shaped. You're not limited in the scopes of your adventures, as much as you are in buying power for new gear(even with 25PF you can still get nice stuff), and occasionally the hows of your adventures. It works best with martial and/or high adventure type campaigns I imagine.

But to me at least there's not many adventurers or ideas I'd say they can't do because they're just billionaires not multi trillionaires. At least not many I can think of right this second.

The Conquest is too powerful for a starting ship. There's nothing to work towards, other than a grand cruiser. It is ideal for almost any endeavor type, meaning there's no carrot to dangle in front of the players and almost no shortcomings they have to overcome.

Frigate. That's where you want to start the players. Light Cruiser at most.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

I mean, I made this item:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/127227-houserule-ship-component-idea/?p=1359692

Specifically to enable, yaknow. Adventure. And plot hooks. And exploration.

And I made some ships that are the sorts of things that Rogue Traders might actually, you know, want.

Like the Swiftwind, Vaught, Harvest, and Victus, here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/127634-on-the-virtues-of-the-lathe-cruiser-or-why-not-just-get-a-dauntless/?p=1343727

And an Astartes-style ship, probably the best that a Rogue Trader could fairly regularly get their greedy little hands on:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/129101-homebrew-strike-cruiser-stats/?p=1392418

Though some OTHER Astartes-style ships are also in that post, they're probably supposed to be out of reach, like another ship I made:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/131886-ifrit-heavy-cruiser-modern-heavy-cruiser-pocket-battleship/?p=1405719

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Traejun, the point of Rogue Trader is not to simply have one "perfect" ship. As impressive as a fully kitted out Conquest is, it is far more impressive if it leads a fleet backed by a private empire. Mercantile or otherwise. I'm not worried by players starting with a great ship and low profit factor (or even high profit factor) because they still have all sorts of areas they can improve their dynasty.

Since reasonable people could not define "the perfect ship" specifically,

the best ship for a group will always be a compromise between what

• their goals are
• their methods
• their PF lets them afford & support
• they find abandoned in orbit around some god-foraken hell-hole of a planet

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

Uhh... my ships aren't perfect ships?

Well, other than the Astartes ones. And that almost-battleship. Those are perfect at what they are. And probably shouldn't be available for player characters at game start!

Consider the Victus and my writeup for the Temple of Knowledge in a relatively high Ship Point game (60 or above, preferably above.)

It's not a PERFECT ship. But it is a solid ship that is good at what it does. That's kinda the point -- there are gaps in the lineup of ships, that should probably be filled, and can be filled with balanced ships. Hell, look at the Vaught that I wrote up. It is specifically designed to be WORSE than the Dauntless!

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

How about you just give the players a small-medium ship that they simply can't deck out. Don't have them roll on the stupid chart - everytime you leave campaign set up to chance, its like taking the easy way out. I give my players a set SP and PF to start with. It's almost always very low on both ends. Often, I'll hand them the hull for free, and they can use the SP to kit it out. I don't cripple them, but I also don't hand them a win button. I want them to work for it. My players appreciate that.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

How about you just give the players a small-medium ship that they simply can't deck out. Don't have them roll on the stupid chart - everytime you leave campaign set up to chance, its like taking the easy way out. I give my players a set SP and PF to start with. It's almost always very low on both ends. Often, I'll hand them the hull for free, and they can use the SP to kit it out. I don't cripple them, but I also don't hand them a win button. I want them to work for it. My players appreciate that.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

Even if the players have everything they want ship wise, you can still challenge them, just need to try a bit harder.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

How about you just give the players a small-medium ship that they simply can't deck out. Don't have them roll on the stupid chart - everytime you leave campaign set up to chance, its like taking the easy way out. I give my players a set SP and PF to start with. It's almost always very low on both ends. Often, I'll hand them the hull for free, and they can use the SP to kit it out. I don't cripple them, but I also don't hand them a win button. I want them to work for it. My players appreciate that.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

My players wouldn't. They're extremely adverse to being given any less than the rules entitle them to. The most likely answer from the most vocal subgroup wouls be 'if we're starting with jack s***, why aren't we just laying Dark Heresy instead, a game that's, you know, is designed for starting with jack s***'.

Even if the players have everything they want ship wise, you can still challenge them, just need to try a bit harder.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

Yeah, I have no tolerance for rules-lawyers. It screams "I don't want to think, just let me roll the **** dice."

Challenging them is never a problem, both because they have to work their way up the power scale and because my focus is challenging their minds, not their stats. I have no interest in a campaign where all I'm doing is making bigger, badder bad guys for them to kill as the only means of challenging them. My system also allows for a much more graduated power creep that doesn't start at 8/10 right off the bat.

No interest in trying it... I don't GM for that kind of player.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

How about you just give the players a small-medium ship that they simply can't deck out. Don't have them roll on the stupid chart - everytime you leave campaign set up to chance, its like taking the easy way out. I give my players a set SP and PF to start with. It's almost always very low on both ends. Often, I'll hand them the hull for free, and they can use the SP to kit it out. I don't cripple them, but I also don't hand them a win button. I want them to work for it. My players appreciate that.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

My players wouldn't. They're extremely adverse to being given any less than the rules entitle them to. The most likely answer from the most vocal subgroup wouls be 'if we're starting with jack s***, why aren't we just laying Dark Heresy instead, a game that's, you know, is designed for starting with jack s***'.

Even if the players have everything they want ship wise, you can still challenge them, just need to try a bit harder.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

Yeah, I have no tolerance for rules-lawyers. It screams "I don't want to think, just let me roll the **** dice."

Challenging them is never a problem, both because they have to work their way up the power scale and because my focus is challenging their minds, not their stats. I have no interest in a campaign where all I'm doing is making bigger, badder bad guys for them to kill as the only means of challenging them. My system also allows for a much more graduated power creep that doesn't start at 8/10 right off the bat.

No interest in trying it... I don't GM for that kind of player.

Or it might just scream 'we want to play Rogue Trader, not your homebrew system that happens to have the same name'. Coming to a game expecting ttit to be played as described in the rulebook is not an unreasonable expectation.

You've found a way to play that works for your group. Great. It doesn't mean it's the superior way to the lay however, nor that it's appropriate for all groups.

So we have established people have different groups with different mindsets, no point in duking it out, they are different.

My guys started with an obscenely tricked out Orion, has medical bays, laboratoriums, murdertors, cargo holds, teleportarium, librariums and melodium etc etc, it is a thing of beauty, however without the math-hammer house rules from this forum it just outright dominated in combat also, void-master with 60bs for a start and the ubiquitous sunsear macrocannons against a npc ship leads to very short, none-dramatic combats.

However I have NOW introduced the new house rules and the ship has effectively 0 armour, done this because of the sheer power of the Orion.

So now they are flying in an ultra-competent but -specialized- craft, they can do everything they put their mind to, except a straight gun-fight, they have teleporters so they do the star-trek thing, but this is balanced with the into the storm limitation of 'once per important encounter'.

And to be honest I am happier with this, makes void-encounters much easier to balance, a raider is a significant threat now instead of target practice.

So my advice would be make a ship great in one area and good in another, the areas they have the most interest in but leave it open for improvement, personally having a 'complete' ship has proved to be alittle boring, speaking as a GM, it's hard to reward the players with cool shiz if they already have something cooler.

I still am infatuated with a low PF game with a huge ship made of low quality components that is genuinely difficult to keep safe, like any rpg, upgrading, improving and developing the ship is akin to a shared character, it sounds cool but I have no experience of this sadly. A grand cruiser alone, with an incomplete load-out full of crap sounds exciting.

they have teleporters so they do the star-trek thing, but this is balanced with the into the storm limitation of 'once per important encounter'.

How did that limitation work out for you? Asking because my group found that limitation to be really bad. We started with a Teleportarium that we used without restrictions, and it made most encounters pointless (Winning easily? Carry on. Having trouble? Teleport away and come back later or just teleport reinforcements in.) Then we tried the ItS limitation and it was even worse: we always kept it in reserve for when **** would hit the fan. This meant we almost never got to use it, but encounters were atill pretty trivial because we had the Teleportarium waiting in case we faced trouble.

Well to be honest the limitation has done much what it has for you, put it on the backburners for emergencies, and I am happy with that, if I really need them to stick around I use Ashen Stars as a learning experience, they get hit with Mazon Shrapnel (jargon for no, you cant teleport), I cant see myself doing that often but rules be damned when story takes the stage.

The difference between your group and mine is, you started without limitation and I started with, I also talked to them before hand telling them the limitations and they all understood, so it just hasn't been a problem at all.

Thematically I think my players enjoy the 'tour', the journey to a planet in all its description etc instead of turning up ready for action, the drama of deploying.

Well to be honest the limitation has done much what it has for you, put it on the backburners for emergencies, and I am happy with that, if I really need them to stick around I use Ashen Stars as a learning experience, they get hit with Mazon Shrapnel (jargon for no, you cant teleport), I cant see myself doing that often but rules be damned when story takes the stage.

The difference between your group and mine is, you started without limitation and I started with, I also talked to them before hand telling them the limitations and they all understood, so it just hasn't been a problem at all.

Thematically I think my players enjoy the 'tour', the journey to a planet in all its description etc instead of turning up ready for action, the drama of deploying.

We actually found the limitation so bad that we all started pushing the GM to swap it for anothet piece if Archeotech (little point of having simething that has next to no use). Insteasd we homebrewed a Teleporting Mishap table that duscouraged spamming somewhat but still allowed frequent use.

Two things:

1st I might just steal the large ship made up of poor quality components for myself and

two: One thing to remember is that if the party is trying to use the teleporter to get out of trouble, who is on the ship working it? Normally all my PCs are in the same area so it is up to the ships crew to make the tech-use test to turn the thing on. It's fun to say beam me up, but when the guy at the console is more scared of hurting the arciotech than his boss, can lead to some really dangerous moments, especially if it needs to be done in a hurry.

Two things:

1st I might just steal the large ship made up of poor quality components for myself and

two: One thing to remember is that if the party is trying to use the teleporter to get out of trouble, who is on the ship working it? Normally all my PCs are in the same area so it is up to the ships crew to make the tech-use test to turn the thing on. It's fun to say beam me up, but when the guy at the console is more scared of hurting the arciotech than his boss, can lead to some really dangerous moments, especially if it needs to be done in a hurry.

Unless I missed something, there's no Tech Use required to activate a Telwportarium by the rules.

Probably just more for theme, as I don't remember that, either, even in ItS. Still, in a book set where some stuff is spelled out six times, in four different lines (sometimes even copy-pasted wrong ), some stuff was more vague than me looking into the bottom of a cup to read the future off of the crushed tea leaves, and I found the teleportarium to be one of these. I'm very glad they have it, and also that they used it, but do you need to lower void shields? Is there a test to hit your target? They basically just said "if you've ever played Warhammer 40K, you, or your opponent, have probably deep striked in some Termies, and this piece of equipment is how you do that." How DO you do that? Why would you want to slap arbitrary rules onto a piece of archeotech so mysterious. even your in-game tech-priests probably don't know ALL the rules for how it works.

As I see it, GK teleport jumpers, and also Eldar WJGs use some sort of test to activate their "you're in the warp, you're out of the warp. Hope you didn't catch anything" effects, so maybe the ship-based unit SHOULD require a test, and it is archeotech, so it might be tough, meaning your "average crew" AdMech might not be up to the snuff. Don't know.

The problem is, Frigates don't have room -- mostly -- for the components that make gameplay...interesting. That's part of why I started homebrewing components and ships...

THAT is the point. Giving the players a ship to start with that is essentially perfect for all they could possibly engage in removes a huge element of gameplay in this system. RT, more than almost any other game, requires players to think their way through problems. By handing out a perfect ship, what do they have to think about? Other than where to store all their free PF, that is.

You mean that, in your opinion playes should earn better ships in game, or that they should be deliberatly kept in a sub-par ship?

Huh? A GM should never deliberately keep players in anything. It's up to them to earn it. The former comment is accurate... they should earn better ships that are more suitable to performing the tasks they want. Let them scrape up from a dynasty in name only to a massive mercantile/military empire. That, after all, is what RT is meant to be.

Although, I suppose it would be easier for you as a GM to just give them gold and watch them spend it. You wouldn't ever have to deal with them failing. That probably keeps you warm at night, doesn't it?

How is that any different than starting with a big ship that is underequipped and 'earning' the equipment you want?

Frigates are cheap. There's nothing stopping the players from just starting off with a Frigate perfectly configured to what they want to do and never touching it again. If anything, a big ship offers more growth opportunities.

How about you just give the players a small-medium ship that they simply can't deck out. Don't have them roll on the stupid chart - everytime you leave campaign set up to chance, its like taking the easy way out. I give my players a set SP and PF to start with. It's almost always very low on both ends. Often, I'll hand them the hull for free, and they can use the SP to kit it out. I don't cripple them, but I also don't hand them a win button. I want them to work for it. My players appreciate that.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

My players wouldn't. They're extremely adverse to being given any less than the rules entitle them to. The most likely answer from the most vocal subgroup wouls be 'if we're starting with jack s***, why aren't we just laying Dark Heresy instead, a game that's, you know, is designed for starting with jack s***'.

Even if the players have everything they want ship wise, you can still challenge them, just need to try a bit harder.

Try it... your players will love you for it.

Yeah, I have no tolerance for rules-lawyers. It screams "I don't want to think, just let me roll the **** dice."

Challenging them is never a problem, both because they have to work their way up the power scale and because my focus is challenging their minds, not their stats. I have no interest in a campaign where all I'm doing is making bigger, badder bad guys for them to kill as the only means of challenging them. My system also allows for a much more graduated power creep that doesn't start at 8/10 right off the bat.

No interest in trying it... I don't GM for that kind of player.

Or it might just scream 'we want to play Rogue Trader, not your homebrew system that happens to have the same name'. Coming to a game expecting ttit to be played as described in the rulebook is not an unreasonable expectation.

You've found a way to play that works for your group. Great. It doesn't mean it's the superior way to the lay however, nor that it's appropriate for all groups.

Agreed. As GM's, we tend to find the players that enjoy not only what we do, but how we do it. Similarly, players find GM's that do what they enjoy, the way they enjoy. There is no such thing as a superior way. There is only the way that works for your particular group.

For me and my players, ROLEplay is playing the character you made through RP (not through a simple tossing of dice). It's a no-brainer. The idea of ROLLplay (and I hope you understand the difference) is heinous. If all you want to do is roll dice, go play craps.

Agreed. As GM's, we tend to find the players that enjoy not only what we do, but how we do it. Similarly, players find GM's that do what they enjoy, the way they enjoy. There is no such thing as a superior way. There is only the way that works for your particular group.

For me and my players, ROLEplay is playing the character you made through RP (not through a simple tossing of dice). It's a no-brainer. The idea of ROLLplay (and I hope you understand the difference) is heinous. If all you want to do is roll dice, go play craps.

There is however a ton of middle ground between 'Roleplaying only' and 'all you want to do is roll dice'. The very fact that a group decides to pick up an RPG and play (as opposed to free form RP in the setting) means they're willing to accept some of their actions will be dictated by rules and dice as opposed to just RP.

Agreed. As GM's, we tend to find the players that enjoy not only what we do, but how we do it. Similarly, players find GM's that do what they enjoy, the way they enjoy. There is no such thing as a superior way. There is only the way that works for your particular group.

For me and my players, ROLEplay is playing the character you made through RP (not through a simple tossing of dice). It's a no-brainer. The idea of ROLLplay (and I hope you understand the difference) is heinous. If all you want to do is roll dice, go play craps.

There is however a ton of middle ground between 'Roleplaying only' and 'all you want to do is roll dice'. The very fact that a group decides to pick up an RPG and play (as opposed to free form RP in the setting) means they're willing to accept some of their actions will be dictated by rules and dice as opposed to just RP.

Absolutely. It's when players start citing to rules as a means of contradicting what the GM has in mind that it goes from playing within the system to something altogether different.

Perhaps its an unpopular position, but as GM, it's my universe. I choose the rules that get used (and how). I decide where the players start in terms of stuff, location, etc... The players can choose to work within it... or find another GM. My method is designed to do away with things like power players/Mary Sues. It does not allow for group to simply bully their way through problems. It also rewards them for intelligence and creativity.

I've tried both methods. Only one seems to consistently work.