For some GMs such as myself part of the fun of running the game is the whole challenge and experience presented in most RPGs where threat to one’s self is a distinct and sure possibility (umm Fate Points are expected to be burned - as a supporting statement lol). Of that I like to apply a certain thrust or push to players in Rogue Trader which commonly includes (for good reason) them forming into warband with support. In this way the scope of play is somewhat more provincial or mundane if you will, but from that I am able to return the concept of danger and willingness to engage boldly and directly into the action in whatever form it may take from a “monster” to a “dungeon” crawl (keep in mind I have no other verbiage to use in lieu of “monster” or “dungeon” in this case – so please bear with)

In this latest I'd like to go over and review the whole premise of Risk vs. Reward - as is the trope of RPGs (heck half of the book is combat oriented mechanics and such)...

A. Leading from the Front

B. Doing what normal men Can't

C. Delving into questionable Actions

The Breakdown

A. Honor, glory, and pride; these are the foundation by which man seemingly copes with the awful truth that the 41st millennium has to offer. Mayhaps a survival technique at the end of the day, however its defined this outlook and overall ingrained premise of the Imperial mindset does not allow or suffer cowardice, disgrace, or indecency to mar their name of that of a given faction.

Mechanics: Of this concept I as a GM impose crew/troop Morale loss in this situations where PCs shrink from duty and prestige - their onlookers questioning the validity of such commanders and or their goals at hand from such Armchair Leaders...

Analogs / Tropes: Alexander the Great, Fritigern (Visigoth Chief), Roosevelt, Lawrence of Arabia, Che, Etc...

"A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the equality of his actions and the integrity of his intent." – General Douglas MacArthur

B. This facet of play I like to think of as all those Nameless Horrors whether they be events or entities; these are the things that normal men can't face - its symptoms include; denial, anger, fear, superstition, and the like...

A good example of this would of course be H.P Lovecraft / Robert E. Howard approach and over all flavor to this aspect of the human condition. Now this can range from things as lowly as ghosts (spirits) to more tangible threats and or phenomenon like possession or illusions (like supernatural Gaslighting).

Mechanics: Of this concept I as a GM impose crew/troop Sanity gains in this situations where PCs ignore the plight and or overall breadth of a challenge beyond the ken of normal men - those witnesses of command mayhaps thusly cope in strange and unusual ways ranging from substance abuse to utter madness...

"Look upon (your soldiers) as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death." – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

C. And Finally there is the concept of the Peerless Action; these could include anything ranging from the required use of Psychic Powers (i.e. Astropath / Navigator) to going alone to a site in order to shield / protect said crew / troops from either exposure or knowing – for the latter Knowledge when witnessed or applied as a site, spectacle, or event – such secrets should be kept within Command (i.e the PCs alone) and as such should involve only them in the matter.

In a regime as harsh as the Imperium I’m sure “tattletales” abound and would surely report the questionable actions – this being just a part of the human condition again, simple but true.

Mechanics: Of this concept I as a GM impose a cumulative Complication Test of +10% per game session – each time the lowly serfs, armsmen, thralls, and or generally any and all “bodies” that are dragged along and made to face or witness something not meant for their consumption, so to speak. When I do successfully roll a Complication in this case – it is applied locally and directly to the matter at hand rather than associated to the Table given for “complications” in the published material.

Example; Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark) – last scene when the “bad guys” open the Ark, their commanders are present at hand personally to see to the matter, another good example Hellboy, in the beginning the “bad guys” are searching for a prize and as such it requires the top command to accomplish this against the protagonists.

Summary:

Balanced play presents Pros and Cons to the decision making process herein – and thusly doesn’t restrict or stop your PCs from deploying “bodies” but rather makes that decision one they should weight carefully and strategically. And yes – I aim to push players themselves when presented with “special matters” meant for them to deal with – GMs who prep their games and adventures know what I’m talking about – if not I can provide a great example with the free adventure the Emperor’s Bounty (spoiler alert; where by the end of the adventure the PCs are expected as the script goes to be at the bridge to face the mad navigator; in that I can’t see PCs brining all their servants to deal with that moment / matter – easy I could rule each missed shot by your scrubs starts a fire on the bridge your fighting in… just saying).

I will leave off here for now in my presented concept, now before reminding me of what is allowed rather I’ll take a page from something I heard recently lol – I don’t embrace excuses only solutions!

Stay GAMING

Morbid

I have often played the party's rival RT as a Baron Harkonnen, lead-from-behind, sacrifice a million mooks just as long as I'm safe and sound, kinda guy. So I can't very well, in good conscience deny that possibility to my players. Of course, they won't do as well as if they'd led from the front. There will be many outright failures, and PF will grow slowly, if at all. And the greatest treasures will never be realized.

That demon-infested ruin makes the Joes all run away.

"The landing party got wiped out...again. No, we don't know who did it."

"The lieutenant reports there was nothing planet-side."

"Our men came back with the cargo of corpse starch, sir, but the crates of archeotech were blown up in the firefight."

P.S. Please don't quote Dougie when citing examples of leadership. Thousands of American men had to die for his greater glorification. Read Brute Force by John Ellis. As to the apologists' justification for his abandoning his men in their greatest need...

"Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."

-Sun Tzu

Very Nice Errant!

I enjoy the example you present - lol

I think absent mindedly making 'your npc people' fail this sort of thing is alittle disingenuous, if the players put hard work into it then they send 'the right men' etc sure they may not reap as much as if they personally did it, but it should absent mindedly be a total loss, or make it a command test or extended social test to get effect your men, using them as a remote 'hand'.

'Forcing' your players into being cool is alittle iffy.

Then again if they send in a bunch of white shields into the 'deep dark' then sure, total loss should be expected.

Gm's taliing about rocks falling and people dying has always irked me.

I agree with your viewpoint Godgolden - though I wasn't presenting an all or nothing approach, rather a balanced one where the players should expect to have to get their feet wet - its why the game system gave them stats most notably Wounds and the capacity to fight (i.e. careers assign a whole grade of weapons as proficient rather than the specific model or type like in Dark Heresy -I might add)...

Crew should not become a crutch rather a tool like any other available to the players - there's a right place and time for everything...

Falling rocks does sound pretty sucky tho LOL

Stay GAMING

Morbid

Update...

This week I began to detail out what I'll call "squads" better known as Hordes - for the Players to use in deploying crew, serfs, troops, in this way if and when PC want to utterly avoid pitting their characters directly - player interaction is still viable and thus in essence they control their "squads" when a battle begins - in this way I dont have to force players to fight in order to achieve a combat encounter - the PCs can thusly take over the appropriate Hordes and deploy them instead...

The best analog that comes to mind is the Table Top version of 40k and/or Vassal-esk combat.

This is only performed when not hand-waving or delegating events to a few rolls - where outcomes and random chance + stratagem become important to the success of a given goal or campaign.

I think absent mindedly making 'your npc people' fail this sort of thing is alittle disingenuous, if the players put hard work into it then they send 'the right men' etc sure they may not reap as much as if they personally did it, but it should absent mindedly be a total loss, or make it a command test or extended social test to get effect your men, using them as a remote 'hand'.

'Forcing' your players into being cool is alittle iffy.

Then again if they send in a bunch of white shields into the 'deep dark' then sure, total loss should be expected.

Gm's taliing about rocks falling and people dying has always irked me.

I don't really see anything absent-minded in my reasoning. Given that the Mooks usually have skills lower than 30, their chances of scoring the Big Prize would also seem <30%. Sending overwhelming force might prevent outright "losing" a battle, but it doesn't lessen the chance of an ambush, or increase the chances of doing things correctly. I, too, don't believe in arbitariness in GMing.

I can give an example from a past campaign wherein I used fan-generated but published materials. The party didn't want to deal with clearing the crazy astropaths out of their warren on Grace and sent their combat-engineer equivalents to do the job. Demo charges and flamers made short work of the 'paths, but the party was in need of a new batch of engineers afterwards. Sure, they had a cadre to build from, but it was severely depleted. And that makes perfect sense to me.

One thing I'm NOT into is making everything dependent on the RTs Command skill. That leaves other players out in the cold and let's face it, coming up with a Command skill of 100+ is not very challenging.

I run a game that leans heavily on player description input, followed by a skills package negotiation process, with a final narration. Since players are involved in all those steps (and especially since the inclusion of dramatic moments - we used actual cards before I made a table) they seem to come away happy. I haven't had a game collapse of its own weight since going to the roll20 venue.

people who grew up with t-ball and time-outs may take longer

to realize what leadership means in the 40k universe.

seeing strong persons act inspires strength of action in others.

Well said Egyptoid!

On a side note D20 had too much game creep - just saying lol