i.e. "I make a socialite who can't fight vs. i am the ultimate munchkin"

Soo in going over some of this - I am seeking consensus on the topic.

Say a PC makes a Socialite who can't fight (wears no armor, maybe carries a Las Pistol, etc.) - are you as a GM going to shield that character from the violence commonly expressed throughout the imperium (heck this is a reality where ship officers actually "consider" going for their guns when presented with BS - like in the audio tale Heart of Rage ).

This would then set the bar - as the most civilized men under duty can be expected as GM to attack another person regardless of where they are at and what they are doing?!

As GM are you to "shelter" such characters in keeping with player expectation?

This has always concerned me whether it be 40k, Cyberpunk, or Shadowrun...

Morbid

I don't encourage anyone to make a specific kind of character, nor do I shelter them. I do always suggest picking up some DODGE, though. I mean, how else are they going to be any good at the Inter-Ordo Dodgeball tournament? That, and if a fight does break out, the sparsely armed socialite is going to be less of a target than his armed, armored Guardsman friend. He won't get ignored or sheltered, but he isn't a primary target unless he skylines himself somehow. Or, if the enemies are trying to take people alive, he'd be the first target, since he'd be the easiest to take. Get him, maybe use them as leverage against the rest of the party.

I like the way you think MijRai!

Well, the way it tends to go down with my group is that the combat-oriented characters tend to make a lot of noise and/or get right up in the enemies' faces as soon as the *#%@ hits the fan. In doing so, they make themselves priority targets over the others, who are then free to seek cover and/or shoot from a distance.

If there is one socialite in the party, I make sure that he is aware of suppressing fire so that he can be useful in a fight.

I'll leave it up to the players to ask him about his armor choices. Though I'm expecting my players to have at least two loadouts. A combat loadout where they take the best armor and weapons they can, and a social loadout where they try to blend in with the population by only taking what the average citizen carries or stuff they can conceal. If the socialite doesn't take armor when it's time for a combat loadout, he's probably going to regret it.

Hello MorbidDon,

first and foremost, I always explain to my 40k-players that, while this RPG has investigation elements, there always seems to be one big fight in the end (at least, in regard to the adventure modules sold to us), and that they thereby need to consider what they do when it comes down to violence.

In regard to “shielding”, I (would) tend to shield a “pacifist” PC somewhat, but would share this duty with the “combat PC” by explaining to them that it is their duty to make sure that the “brainy”/”socialite” stays alive. In regard to “civilized violence” (duel, etc.), it means that the “socialite” needs to be aware that he better keeps it polite or has to trust on the combat PC to step in for him in matters of honor.

BUT, I don´t extend this to “glass guns” and I -ALWAYS- tell players that they should wear at least SOME armor. They have a violent job in a violent world, and they have to expect a fight and/or assassination attempts to happen sooner or later. It would be foolish to dogmatically never wear any armor at all. To take a real world example, news reporters (who refrain from taking up guns) will wear protective vests when in a combat area, just because they want to stay alive. A throneagent should do so on the double, because he cannot serve the Emperor no longer when he is dead, twice so if they don´t serve by fighting (and dying) for him, but in a different role.

“Shielding” doesn´t mean that somebody is “100% save”, so. To me, it is a good thing to open up fire on and deal damage to the “non-combatant” at times. The character should be busy taking cover, running or hiding while the combat PC should be aware that they need to act to defend the non-combatant.

On a side note - maybe FFG should of give "social" types some sort of effects they can dispense in/on the Battlefield...

What comes to mind are Social Attacks - something I remember from Earthdawn - and/or the Kender's "Taunt" ability from Dragon Lance AD&D Second Edition.

Like doing a FEL "DECEIVE" Test

- Taunt; basically focuses the aggro onto you

- Impression; divert aggro off of you ("do you know who I am")

- Graceful Move; allows them to move around without incurring Melee combat from moving thru and adjacent opponent

Just from these three examples - it would seem the socialite type can effect the battlefield and how the opposition "acts"

I may be already stating something that the Skill does already - if so ignore this suggestion - I'm just brain storming

Something D&D 4E called the Controller Role (I know I know I'm sorry for mentioning that system SHESH lol)

Morbid

I don't have any fully non-combat PCs in my group; my players made it clear from the start that they were more interested in combat than anything else. BUT, some of my players are pretty hard-core MinMaxers, and the rest aren't. Hence, a straight-forward combat that would challenge my power gamers would likely insta-kill everyone else. So, I sort-of 'shelter' them by building the major combat scenes to allow for the widest variety of actions possible. Hence, some characters can hug cover and snipe, others can simply hide if necessary, and others can go full-Rambo. If I've done my job right, those should all be equally viable options.

I like your method Adeptus-B!

I try to cater to every players character fantasy in each session. By this I mean, there'll be an opportunity for the Untouchable to realise his power over Psykers, the Tech Priest can scare some people and wave about some incense and shout "IT'S GOING TO BLOW!" and the Guardsman can act all smug in his stormtrooper armour infront of lesser troops. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But this relates to your point. I put these opportunities for an individual player to succeed, to realise their character fantasy, which may well be stylish. But just as the GM giveth, the GM taketh away. I try not to ever run a session that stomps on one players fun to enhance anothers.

In all of the 40k RPG games its easy to be competent at anything, and combat is no exception. Back in 1st ed, new players would cry "Why would I play an adept? I can't get dodge until * rank, I can't live in a combat! BS upgrades are too expensive!" And they're wrong. All anyone needs to survive a combat is a bit of cover, a grenade or two and an autopistol. You state that you're laying down a suppressive fire, and every enemy is suddenly rolling to pin. If you beat them in initiative, you can throw a grenade on your next turn and they'll still hopefully be rolling pinning. If you lost initiative, you lay down another hail of fire. The dust clears, your trusty door-frame has saved you yet again. Doorframe and combat-savvy -1. Heretics - 0.

If the players don't immediately know things like that, it's fine. But as a GM you have an obligation to help your characters understand the rules of the game they're playing. Maybe they'll surprise you, maybe they won't and only time will tell.

I wouldn't. Ravenor had one of the biggest socialites in 40K stories I can think of and he was more than effective in combat. He just out thought the enemies he was facing. Admittedly he ended up as the human bridge for a greater daemon/god thing, but he was effective when he was around.