In the group I run none of the six players have (to date) wanted to play a psyker and have all ended up playing very puritanical characters (which suits me fine). However reading the posts on the forum this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Is this the case with other groups?

At present the most experinced characters are rank 3, almost 4 - would you suggest that psychic assaistance becomes more essential further down the line? I know it will depend very much on the adversaries they face but I'm talking in general terms here.

In my opinion, very helpful but not essiential. They can be good for having psychic powers that could potentially add new levels to investigations.

It is far from essential to have a psyker as part of the cell. Not having one can avoid several complications. Few organisations make use of them as readily as the Inquisition does, so the presence of one working covertly raises several questions. That said, they can do things which no other man can, bending reality and influencing minds. Telepaths vastly improve your ability to extract information from people, Diviners open up an entirely different line of investigation and Biomancers, Telekinetics and Pyromancers can cause devastation if combat breaks out while often having a less violent bag of tricks as well. Even Minor Powers can be highly effective. Not that these amazing powers come without risks, of course. Psykers are an asset, but they're also a danger to themselves and those around them.

I think the players have always thought that the risks outweighed the advantages, and when they meet a psyker their default response is "burn the witch" - even when it's a sanctionite.

It has meant that I've been able to use Mordant Crimson (as mentioned in Disciples of the Dark Gods) as their inquisitor and led to a very interesting twist when one of their number was mutated by nasty chaotic energies. Puritans are fun.

I absolutely agree with everyone else whose posted and said that you don't need to have a Psyker in your party in order to have fun, successful adventures, using either the officially published materials or scenarios created by yourself or others.

That said, I personally think Psykers are some of the most interesting characters in the game and that they add tremendously to any story. It's hard to imagine that anyone in the Inquisition who has any intelligence actually believes the hardline puritanical position you're describing. Do your acolytes ever send or receive long-range messages? Do they ever travel to other planets? If so, then they must know those activities are entirely dependent upon Psykers. You obviously don't have to have a Psyker in the party, but I can't see how the acolytes can do their job without cooperating with NPC Psykers in at least those limited areas. And if you can cooperate with Psykers in those two areas, then why not in other areas as well? Psykers are just too handy and interesting not to use.

I personally subscribe to the shifting ideological view set forth in the Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogies, particularly by Ravenor during his re-appearance toward the end of Hereticus. While it makes sense and is probably healthy for young acolytes and even inquisitors to start out leaning more toward the puritanical side, anyone who's served for any length of time and doesn't come to the realization that the puritanical approach doesn't always get the job done, is either not paying attention or just wasn't very bright to begin with.

Not to say anyone else has to think what I think, but if I may be so bold, I'd say your players are missing great opportunities for development and interesting encounters. "Burn the witch!" is usually a pretty one-sided and predictable approach, and if they want to be static and unchanging, then I guess they should stick to that. But maybe they should try a different approach, especially when the situation would be better served by a different approach, and it's not hard to imagine situations in which it would be.

Interestingly enough, when I was looking for 40k figures to use as minis in my game on the GW website, I noticed that Inquisitors get Psyker powers standard in the 40k rules.

I dunno about essential. Running a Puritan campaign means you can use Sororitas easily, so that should make up any deficit you face.

The majority of DH games I've run have not had psykers in them. When psykers were present, it was both welcome and worrisome for the other players. I think the reason it feels like everyone is playing psykers on the board is because there are so many questions about the psychic powers.

As far as having fun and being able to accomplish the mission, you don't need a psyker. In fact, the "burn the witch" could be used against them by an evil GM. The psyker they fry is not only useful to the mission, but also has powerful allies (Fleet admirals, Planetary Governors, Inquisitors, Grey Knights...).

In my group, the most psyker fun we have is every time he does anything the other players start muttering death threats. "If you summon one more deamon I'm going to stuff this bolt-gun down your throat..." So he's always using Inspiring Aura to get them to say something nice about him. Which they twist in nasty ways "Your shoes match and you haven't gone totally over to the warp. Yet."

There are always career paths not chosen. My group is without a Tech Priest. I'm sure it would be cool to have one in the party, but everyone is happy with their current characters.

@Rheist

Puritans may see psykers as a necessary evil, always to be watched for signs of corruption. If they serve in a cell they are second class acolytes, if they are even considered to be people at all. A school of thought called Polarism is detailed in the novel Blind. Polarists believe that the human and the psyker are polar opposites. Only in the Godhead of the Emperor can they be united. Thus, psykers must be robbed of their humanity, lobotomised, modified and made into tools for the human to use. It's the sole mention of it in fluff to my knowledge, but it's an example of how the puritanical could make use of psykers.

Snidesworth said:

Yea, I love the Shira Calpurnia books. They're all three great. As far as that point of view, sure it exists, but in a game it doesn't seem like it would be very much fun. Of course, I subscribe the Polypsykana offshoot of Xanthism. Muahahaha!

Nojo509 said:

Well the cell are currently in the warp on a small ore scow and have discovered a whole host of strange goings on - including ghiliam, an Astral Knives cultist, a rival group of acolytes and a sanctioned psyker who is on the run from a powerful but corrupt member of the administratum. The psyker was being forced to use her abilities to "assist" in some very heretical experiments. In order to get to him they need the psyker but their immediate reaction to her has been one of fear and revulsion and are unsure whether she's had something to do with all the other odd goings on. Plus they've had to keep the group's Redemptionist Cleric busy with a purge of the mutants lurking in the bilge tanks so that he doesn't take his flamer to her...

Does that make me an evil GM?

Rheist said:

Pah! Monodominant all the way!

Nerd King said:

Im a genuine Xeno Hybrisist myself.

Rheist said:

Thing is, you needn't use that sort of approach across the board - doubtlessly some Puritans suscribe to that line of thought and others don't. Have the players run into this sort of heavy handed treatment and see how they react - it would be quite interesting if there were a psyker in the group. While one can certainly run the game without a psyker, I would be most disappointed if we didn't have one in the group ... there is so much potential such and individual brings with it.

And I just started reading the Shira Calpurnia books - I'm quite impressed. The author adds some great levels of detail and description which will help me in depicting elements of the world. Already I have a much better understanding of what to expect in a Mechanicus temple.

Not having a psyker in the group makes the game a lot easier for the GM as psykers are massive wildcards, both intentionally and unintentionally. Every manifested power carries the risk of phenomena or perils, the nastier of which have a tendency to monopolize the plot, and the threat a skilled diviner/telepath poses to an investigative adventure is obvious. A GM in a group with a psyker had better be good both at improvising and revising modules when it comes to what the players should and shouldn't be able to learn and do.

(The latter obviously walks on a narrow line to railroading and antagonistic playstyle, but it's not exactly a fulfilling evening when every whodunit is solved by the psyker mindraping everyone present and pointing at the culprit.)

Varnias Tybalt said:

Wow I feel abit like the lonely heretic. I'm a Seculos Attendous myself. As for the whole situation involving Psykers or not, I can see where both sides come from. Though personally I feel having a bolt-magnent never hurts to have in a group, 'specially when you've got a few crazed sorcerors or daemons trying to turn the group into crispy critters.

I'm honestly suprised that the group haven't just shot ours yet.

Doing up the numbers, he's given them at least double the corruption and insanity points I've ever handed out just from PoTW alone... course thats offset by the staggering amount of healing he poops out on demand that makes them hard to kill, so its a trade-off in a way. He's also the one with big willpower that will remain functional when something scary jumps out and bites someone.

The group that I GM for did have a psyker character but the player has now dropped out as he has had a new baby.

The group has really noticed his absence, combat encounters are now that little bit tougher and I have to say a little less fun as all of us used to enjoy the randomness of what could happen from the psyker using his powers. It also opened up alternative avenues of investigation.

I guess it is akin to running D&D/generic fanasty game with no spellcaster.

My group started out with a psyker. He went Daemonhost during the 3rd mission, changing it from solve the brewing insurrection to run for your lives from the daemon and flee before it nukes the place. (Although 1 acolyte did make a pact with the daemon to get out alive)

In the year and a half or so since then the cell has killed more psykers than they have worked with, but at least haven't taken open shots at any sanctionites that were not actively trying to kill them.

Recently had another character gain access to psyker powers (long story) and what do you know:

Power use -> Phenomena -> Perils -> Daemonhost

From my experience psychers are useful, but backfire at the worse times. More than half of my characters corruption and insanity poins came from the psycher we had in the group. I guess the effect on the group depends on how the psycher is played.

Every group I've had has included a psyker. And every group I've had has at one point or another wanted to kill the psyker. It's particularly interesting watching everyone at the table squirm when the group's resident psycho... erm psyker makes the walls in Solomon Haarlock's crypt bleed.

And by the way... Istvaanian all the way.