So i was talking with one of my players the other day. And he suggested something really neat and i thought id share that.

The players start as disenfranchised crew aboard the RT ship (playing level 1 DH characters) probably redshirts or something like that, and basically after a few games they would find out the RT they serve (and his cohorts) are actually in the thrall of chaos. Thus they would have to help lead the take over of the ship. Once this is done they assume the persona's of the former RT and his cohorts becoming proper RT characters.

So i was wondering 2 things.

Is this as neat as i think it is?

and have you had any plaers suggest awesome ideas for campaigns (whatever)

It's the kind of setup that I'd walk away from...

1) it puts the PC's directly into death sentence territory for mutiny, a capital charge
2) If they retain the proof of the justification, theny they get burned for keeping chaos relics and/or not having turned them in earlier.
3) If they manage to survive both 1 & 2, they now have his whole lineage to deal with, along with his navigator, and the techpriests, over the Explorator.
4) it presumes the starting characters to be far less important than is implied in character generation
5) it makes the mistaken presumption that the crew wouldn't back the boss
6) it puts the PC's out of the actual action for half the campaign.

#6 is the worst of them. Sorry, but it sounds like a situation for the GM to strip players of the power that is rightfully theirs and mary-sue the hell ut of the campaign.

In such a situation, the character's best hope is to jump ship at the first opportunity, and narc out the boss to the inquisition, and never look back.

That could work Malkavian- but for the muiny to work dramatically I guess you'd have to establish the details of starship life, indicate areas of importance which will need to be seized, introduce other officers who could be swayed one way or the other and deciding who can be trusted and who is a rat.

But yes, sounds like a fun season of bascally "Prison Break"!

SJE

@aramis

1) it puts the PC's directly into death sentence territory for mutiny, a capital charge
Because Rogue Traders who plunder xeno crypts and are captured are usually invited to a cup of tea?

2) If they retain the proof of the justification, theny they get burned for keeping chaos relics and/or not having turned them in earlier.
Then maybe getting on the good sides of an Inquisitor might be worthwhile.

3) If they manage to survive both 1 & 2, they now have his whole lineage to deal with, along with his navigator, and the techpriests, over the Explorator.
The lineage might indeed pose a problem - if there is one that isn't dealt with during the mutiny. They'll likely have a navigator among the PCs who could influence the others into supporting the "usurpers", especially if it becomes apparent that the head navigator is corrupted and it serves the best interests of the house to quietly remove him. The techpriests should be the least of the problems.

4) it presumes the starting characters to be far less important than is implied in character generation
Er... yes. So? Changing that is an immediate goal of the campaign.

5) it makes the mistaken presumption that the crew wouldn't back the boss
Then maybe the characters should erode that support before making their move.

6) it puts the PC's out of the actual action for half the campaign.
Half the campaign? Where did the OP say that it would take that long? If I was the one GMing, I'd take about two sessions to establish the setting, a third one to reveal the corruption (slightly hinted at before) and two more for the mutiny. After that, it's nearly regular Rogue Trading.

@SJE

That could work Malkavian- but for the muiny to work dramatically I guess you'd have to establish the details of starship life, indicate areas of importance which will need to be seized, introduce other officers who could be swayed one way or the other and deciding who can be trusted and who is a rat.
There's a thread around here devoted to fleshing out ship crews. Investing a little time into that might be useful since the mutiny's preparation will likely require a lot of diplomacy - which is easier to portray if the GM knows what the factions actually want.

aramis said:

What if they were approached by an agent of the Adeptus Arbites/ Inquisition (depending on what you mean by "corruption") with suspicions regarding their Rogue Trader Master, but no proof? The players could be tapped as moles, with an assurance that their mutiny trial will be a formality to bring the master's treasons to light, and a promise that, once acquitted, they will be awarded a Warrant of Trade. For this to work, there would have to be a player who was distinguished enough to be worthy of the Warrant, so they'd probably have to be more then "red shirts". I think one would have to be more then that anyway: a midshipman wouldn't have enough access to the Rouge Trader or his records to prove high treason. A bridge/security Officer with a Noble background or Naval/Custodes decorations would do.

Undoubtedly, they will find an enemy in the house whose honor has been stained. I'd go with the above scenario: bestowing a new Warrant on the players and awarding them the ship and it's inventory. The treasonous Rogue Trader's Warrant can be passed on to his heir, once they watch their father hang. Of course they'll feel raw about the whole thing... Hey, a good RT is defined by his enemies. Yours will be off to a great start!

I like your (and your player's) concept because the campaign will really bring their ship to life. Later, there would be tense moments when the player's have to treat their former peers as underlings, even sacrificing them to complete a mission. Criticals during ship-to-ship combat will mean the death of dear friends... There's a reason fraternizing is frowned upon.

I also think it's cool that one of your players came to you with this idea. There is an inclination (I catch myself doing it too!) among players to want to start off as the "grizzled veteran bad-ass" with as much power as they can get out of the gate. It's a fun way to play, but it seems like your group is willing to let it unfold over time. It may take a while for them to get the Warrant, depending on how far you all want to take this, but it seems it would pay off with a uniquely rich background on which to build the later campaign.

To me it seems like a great setup. Flesh it out with as much fluff about the ship as possible, and lay up a few key NPCs the PCs have to overturn and you'll have a great scenario. As to the "stripping Players of what is rightfully theirs", strip away, it's your story!

Well... I have to say that I don't like it. The sort of men (or women) who eventually become one of the PC classes in Rogue Trader are unlikely to be found as junior members of another Rogue Trader's crew. I can, however, see ways to get around that by having them 'undercover' in some way. I definitely wouldn't start them as first level Dark Heresy characters though.

Gaidheal said:

Other than low-ranking officers working their way up the ranks to command staff, skilled pilots being searched out and employed (EG. Han Solo), and any other number of ways for people to get promoted.

You don't get promoted to Rogue Trader or ArchMilitant or Missionary, so no, not really. In RT the PCs are not just 'a cut above the average' they are literally the stuff that "Heroes of the Imperium " are made of - another league altogether.

Gaidheal said:

Indeed and the truth! Archmilitants aren't promoted to their position or even raised to such, they are born that way, plasma pistol in hand and all! They litterlay fight their way out of their mothers womb, their carapace armour protecting them from the worst while their chainsword makes short work of her pathetic womb. They were never a lowly troop slogging in the ditches winning conflict after conflict until the brass realized their potential because they were born with their medals already attached. When Archmilitant Bob was 10, he didn't even need to train in hand to hand combat, he could already take down any pugilist who came his way by shear dent of being Bob! Why, when he was 12, he was a general, but that was only because he was born a general and will die as one. And don't even get me started on the wonders of spontaneous missionary generation; the greatest of all miracles!

In the end, Heroes of the Imperium were born fully formed bad asses and taught their masters a lesson or three for free. Hell, they're such big damned heroes from day one, they wiped their arse with the concept of The Hero's Journey! Of course, that's only because they're all made from the Geneseed of other Heroes of the Imperium, but, well, it's got to come from somewhere.

Sarcasm aside, I agree. The rules do have an extensive origin path system that tells the story of the RT and his crew before they came to their lofted position. Some are born to it with extensive family connections. Others crawl themselves up from the gutters and after a journey full of events they finally reach this level of power.

This could well be people from inside the same RT vessel. Promotions go fast once battle start to happen and when the RT gains a new vessel he needs to put aboard a prize crew. Which is a great opportunity to become part of the Dynasty. Impress your betters that you make a good captain and unless they have a sycophant waiting in line why should they want to replace you?

See, that sarcastic rant is sadly wasted in a setting with... Primarchs. Sorry, but character creation has already handled all that fluff as pointed above, however, as always it's up to the GM and a good GM anticipates what his players want and tailors appropriately, so fair enough. As I said, I don't like it, I think it misses some of the essence of the specific game setting and ignores the implications of character generation as written but people are free to do what they like, of course and one size rarely fits all.

For my part, Dark Heresy almost bored me - acolytes might be favoured far above the teeming masses of the Imperium but if I'm going to roleplay someone in the "Grim, Dark, Far Future" I want it to be an Inquisitor, Space Marine, Rogue Trader, Naval Captain or something like that, not a guardsman who made sergeant and then got handpicked to be a lackey. A 40K game where I have to seriously consider the cost of my ammunition and whether I should melee an opponent to death on grounds of cost, didn't grab me.

However, since you don't seem to have grasped this important point:

You not liking it =/= it being wrong.

There are numerous mentions in the novels about people pulling themselves up to positions of power from humble beginnings, so your adement denial of this is incorrect, because the setting says it happens.

Since you players were the ones that suggested the idea, I wouldn't worry about the negative responses about how "boring" such a game would be. It obviously sparks your players imagination's, and thats all that really matters.

"people are free to do what they like, of course and one size rarely fits all." - Is this where I said it was wrong? LOL Get a grip, mate. I said I don't like it (which I don't) and that I don't think it fits the background as presented in the rules. As for the novels, many of them are badly written trash, in my opinion, which is saying something for the 40K setting, and I'm unconvinced of their 'canon' status. In any case, it's up to the GM (or entire playgroup, really) what game to play and what the setting is like, as I also said.

Get a grip? I'm hardly angry, though if you find it easier to think that people who disagree with you are obviously annoyed or angry at you, that is your prerogative.

As for the novels, you obviously haven't read many of them, as a large number of them are very good, and, as GW themselves have said, all of them are canon. Given that they go into more detail about the setting than any of the rulebooks do, I'd find their contents more compelling.

As you said though, it's your decision what you do with your group, but suggesting your opinion is anything like fact would be incorrect on your part.

No, I didn't think you were angry, I think you were losing the plot and that you are the one misascribing motives and emotions. Anyway, you're right, I've not read many of the novels because those I did try and read were rubbish. It's perfectly possibly I chose (well, actually they were mostly presents but nevermind) badly but I can only speak from personal experience and feelings about the background character (as opposed to writing quality) are obviously subjective and personal. I'm not the one claiming that there is such a thing as fact here, though, you seem to be that person. I simply explained that I don't like the suggestion and I gave my reasons, including that as fleshed out in the rulebook it doesn't seem in keeping with the background. However, we're talking about a setting that falls apart in moments if scrutinized at all closely, as a whole, so I, like many others, just take it at face value - eight-foot super-soldiers, demons and Gothic cathedrals in space fighting 18th C naval conflicts in an empire with supposedly millions of inhabited worlds all ruled by a half-dead demigod on a gold commode.

Also, I wouldn't trust GW to organize the proverbial in a brewery, much less actually look after their IP in any sense beyond litigating against anyone who looks like they might be using it. The company(ies) associated with the WH40K line are a standing joke within the hobbyist community, as you probably know, with the notable exception of FFG and their excellent, recent, RPG products.