So here we all are > playing DH > accordingly a visceral experience as is 40k

Regardless of RPG and or Setting you have some players that will crop up time to time and gripe whenever an Encounter or Challenge is presented - and when I mean gripe > like "why is the GM doing this to us"...

Why would you play a game if you don't want to fight, climb, interact, or otherwise be "challenged"

WTF is with all the cakewalkery these days

Sure you can sure cheese the hell out of any video game you come across but as soon as you eneter the realm of PNP RPGing and challenges are well... challenging > bitchery and an overall sense of "its punishment" comes into play...

That's some "crazy" mindset right there > that's like wanting to join the track team then complaining that you gotta run?! This mindset spans many genres and I have seen it countless times from both the player's side of the table as well as the DM/GM's

Its just absurd, funny, and a waste of time...

RANT Ova

Stay GAMING

Morbid

You're assuming that it's some new idea that players don't want a challenge really.

Some people play rpgs to feel powerful, to escape from their daily lives where they aren't what they play.

I mean I was running DH2 and a player was a little concerned/upset that and I paraphrase, "Everything seems to be getting worse and worse, nothing is getting better no matter what we do."

...Yeah, it's the 41st millennium and you work for the Inquisition, I think I am doing my job.

Some people play rpgs to feel powerful, to escape from their daily lives where they aren't what they play.

This is a valid point > its why I used to play as well as a "player"

I guess its a style preference - which is cool - everybody should play the way that's most fun to them

There's a difference between being challenging and being adversarial and people have a different threshold. This is why communicating with your players about how you intend to run the game is so important. Nobody likes being surprised with "Oh you failed the test? You fall to your death, see you next session with a new character." Setting expectations at the start goes a long way to maintaining harmony in a group.

There's a difference between being challenging and being adversarial and people have a different threshold. This is why communicating with your players about how you intend to run the game is so important. Nobody likes being surprised with "Oh you failed the test? You fall to your death, see you next session with a new character." Setting expectations at the start goes a long way to maintaining harmony in a group.

Very true, but it's also fair to think that if a character is in that situation and they don't have anymore fate points then it's possible they aren't picking something up about the way the GM is running their game as well.

At least in the case of 40k rpgs.

Very true, but it's also fair to think that if a character is in that situation and they don't have anymore fate points then it's possible they aren't picking something up about the way the GM is running their game as well.

At least in the case of 40k rpgs.

I think a lot of these kinds of issues arise from players and the GM being on different pages. In a case like this, as a GM, I'd pause and say something like, "btw this is super dangerous and if you fail you're burning a fate point or it's game over man" just to be absolutely clear what the stakes are.

Especially with players who don't know you or how you run your game or exactly how the themes of 40k play out it's really easy to have this miscommunication. A lot of games nowadays have the PCs as superheroes but 40k is still just a step up from fantasy f-ing vietnam and relying on players to simply "pick up" on how the GM is running things is just asking to fall into this trap.

Well said CPS...

I think my most interesting experiences are when D&D or Shadowrun players join my games - It's a whole new world to them and what they expect, both about how you play your "role" or how negative consequences are, is completely different.

With any player that's new to you as a GM, or any new group, you need to go over what expectations will be; this can be democratic, as part of a discussion, so you can cater to what the players want - or otherwise you can go full dictator on how the game runs, which is equally acceptable, but you've just got to have that conversation with your group and make sure they're on the same page!

That being said, I did have one player in my games a long while ago, who I had so many gripes with. These include:

- "How are we suppose to beat that? It's overpowered!" in a very openly disrespectful and witch-hunty way, just because he'd built a glass-cannon ranged character.

- Perfectly happy to rules-lawyer when it benefited him, but hated anyone who wanted to play by the rules if it was even-remotely disadvantageous for his character.

- "I don't know what to do. What am I suppose to do? **** it. Nevermind. I end my turn doing nothing." just because he wasn't in a situation where his plasma gun was useful.

- Being one-dimensional about his character. Not being a puritan-*******, oh god no, but just being unable to roleplay anything he didn't expect to have to roleplay/participate in. Apparently attending a masquerade party in search of heretics was "deeply uncomfortable for me[him] as a person".

He was, supposedly, experienced. It's dickish, but we even made a shot-game out of it. Each session there were always at least 3 things that bugged the rest of us.

More quotes:
"How are we even suppose to do this?"
"I literally cant do anything."

"Nope. Nothing. Gonna just stand here - I guess."

He was the tankiest of the party, had a plasma weapon loadout, and a load of cybernetics too. Can't tell you how many times the other players complained about... Idk. The "entitled" nature?

There was also this one time, while we were on break and my mic was muted, that I arrived back to my seat while said player was trash-talking my GMing and asserting how much of a control-freak I was, as well as how unbalanced the enemies were. (Note that he didn't even hit critical. Pretty sure he only went down to 4 wounds by the end - and this stuff was said only halfway through.)

Youch... Apparently I needed to rant... Apologies for my hijack! Anybody else got any sorrowful/nightmarish stories about their players (fellow or otherwise) they'd like to share?

I had a player once who was playing as a someone who was training to be a commissar before joining the Inquisition. To say that he was trigger happy against everything was an understatement and he was pissed that the investigation was stalling because the primary heretic had gone to ground. I had to remind him that subtlety loss was a problem if you're trying to hunt heretics that don't want to be found. Needless to say that he was annoyed because things weren't working in his favour.

I also had to warn him that blamming NPCs (such as shooting the lackeys of a hive gang leader to send a message even after they had worked with the Inquisition) may result in Influence loss because no one would want to work with a stereotypically awful commissar. He had a real problem with the fact that actions had consequences.

Edit: I forgot to address the main point of this thread. In my experience, people generally want to "win" when they play RPGs and I've played with people who are well acquainted with 40K that still want to be the heroes and have everything work out in the end. While DH2 can support that style of game, I tend to run my games with victory being possible but often at a great cost.

If people want to win, there are so many other games that let them be the best **** heroes there ever were. I agree with everyone else that players and the GM have to be on the same page regarding what the tone and theme of the game is meant to be. I've stuffed that up in the past but it is crucially important to get that buy-in for a campaign so that everyone enjoys themselves.

I think a lot of these kinds of issues arise from players and the GM being on different pages. In a case like this, as a GM, I'd pause and say something like, "btw this is super dangerous and if you fail you're burning a fate point or it's game over man" just to be absolutely clear what the stakes are.

Especially with players who don't know you or how you run your game or exactly how the themes of 40k play out it's really easy to have this miscommunication. A lot of games nowadays have the PCs as superheroes but 40k is still just a step up from fantasy f-ing vietnam and relying on players to simply "pick up" on how the GM is running things is just asking to fall into this trap.

Yeah, it's important to have a discussion beforehand about what you expect in terms of lethality of play. Should that situation have come up I'd have mentioned beforehand how deep the fall was/how much damage they might take, but if I remember the climbing rules are somewhat forgiving as well.

But I rarely get the chance to run with people I don't know.

I just found it entertaining because they were surprised that it wasn't as pulply as normal, honestly I think it was the encounter rating and how it was working out. Not to mention they were utterly ineffective against the things they were fighting due to weapon choice.

But they triggered righteous like very other turned which honestly saved them all.

All I got to say is > you guys made my GMing day!

Another thing to consider is that there are GM's out there who are very adversarial and think that killing off / screwing over PC's somehow makes them clever. If you have a player who came from that sort of background, it can take some time for them to get out of that mindset. I have a player who got his start with that kind of GM and it took a year or two before he finally got it through his head that I wasn't out to get him.

Adversarial GMs are a particular bugbear of mine. I'm perfectly fine with them if death is cheap (Paranoia) or the setting encourages a mindset that the world is out to get you (Dark Souls). Even the Tomb of Horrors is fine if everyone is on board with playing a murder dungeon.

GMs who play to "win" shouldn't be GMing in my opinion. When GMs already have access to every tool in the box plus some more if they feel like it, "winning" is easy. I've read enough stories to know that adversarial GMs can get downright malicious when they feel like the players have outsmarted them. It's such a toxic playstyle and it's unfortunate that it seems to be fairly common. Thank god I've managed to avoid it so far.

Yeah, adversarial GM'ing never really made sense to me either. I mean, I get that some GM's (and players) like extremely challenging play, where the slightest mistake might mean death, but those situations are still basically 'fair' (as long as everyone agrees to it). If all you want is to kill the PC's, why not just open the session with: "Simultaneous heart attacks! You're all dead!" ? I guess I just get confused trying to fathom what might drive these people and what internal rules they operate by.

Definitely. You are not trying to "win" as a GM. But then the players should be trying to beat their (narrative) opponents, not the GM.

In something like Imperial Assault, the Imperial Player is essentially an adversarial GM, but that's because he has strictly defined forces and abilities. As a GM in an open 40k RPG session, you are not.

You have an essentially unlimited special effects and manpower budget, and if the story is best served by including a warhound titan, I believe Deathwatch included stats for one.

What you are trying to do is provide a positive gaming experience.

Which is why what CPS said is so critical, because the first thing you have to do as a group is define "a positive gaming experience".

If you're going to have the cybernetic-ed up, plasma gun toting combat muppet, he deserves to know that actual common sense, social skills and tactics will be required in the story you want to tell. And if he's not happy being part of that story, you need to figure out if you're going to change the story, the character, or the player.

If he's just "I don't know what to do", then it's fair enough to make suggestions. It's surprising how effective you can be without being 'combat competent' (someone with BS25 and no weapon training talents is still able to use an autopistol to provide suppressive fire quite effectively, for example).

One of the things to remember to talk people through is Reinforcement characters. The rules exist for a reason, and one of the reasons is to give people access to 'cameo roles' who are good at things their 'normal' characters aren't.

But, yeah, it's the dialogue more than anything. Watching people come into 40k RPGs from D&D type games where they are conan-esque superhumans in a world of cardboard cutout targets is....a bit of a culture shock. And people who've come from the 40k tabletop game can sometimes be worse:

GM - "The barman yells at both parties in the brawl and yanks a short-stocked lasgun from underneath the counter. What do you do?"

New Player - "Why should I care? It's just a lasgun..."

Other Player - "Err.....maybe because it's a frickin assault rifle ? Ducking might be good!"

If the challenge doesn't make sense in the context of the story/setting, sure people will complain. Nobody likes a roll-playing GM.

However if the challenge does make sense (i.e. going into the Tyranid hive after being told it was a bad idea and getting bugstomped) and they still complain, it sounds like the issue is with the players.

You're assuming that it's some new idea that players don't want a challenge really.

Some people play rpgs to feel powerful, to escape from their daily lives where they aren't what they play.

I mean I was running DH2 and a player was a little concerned/upset that and I paraphrase, "Everything seems to be getting worse and worse, nothing is getting better no matter what we do."

...Yeah, it's the 41st millennium and you work for the Inquisition, I think I am doing my job.

I think you won at being a Dark Heresy GM

As for player problems, I have one player who is slightly like that, but it's not too bad. My main concern (and I could be wrong here), is I feel that sometimes the players assume that just because there's an encounter, there must be some way to beat it. I don't know if they will actually run when that is the only viable option.

I think you won at being a Dark Heresy GM

As for player problems, I have one player who is slightly like that, but it's not too bad. My main concern (and I could be wrong here), is I feel that sometimes the players assume that just because there's an encounter, there must be some way to beat it. I don't know if they will actually run when that is the only viable option.

One of the other players mentioned that when I asked them about it.

The major issue was that they didn't do any real looking into the issue before they went right into it.

I managed to make them run eventually, but a couple encounters were supposed to be combative in nature.

I think having an encounter where the only option is to run is my greatest lesson, and fear, that I want to do but probably never will. My party certainly aren't ones to retreat... And I'm unsure if they'd even consider the option.

In my "sandbox mode" of play > I'll present the players with clues and or hints that certain places and locales are "tough"

Sure you could enter that den of vice run by that cargo cult gang and sure you could conceivably defeat a number of them but not all of them at once > but to go into the vipers nest and get angry that the "scrubs" in full force on their home turf TPW (total party wipe) the group due to player RPG arrogance LOL

A clue might be > they've got a wall of "peacekeeper" helmets on trophy display with word "around town" that backs that up (if Inquiry and such are used in this case)... (just off the top of my head per say)

On a side note: If you reading all this and are looking for "that game" that will empower the players towards these styles of play that we GMs are going over in this thread > have a look at Palladium Rifts - it might be your ticket!

The next time the party steps up to the plate with their miniatures and they find out the mission is ON a Warlord titan "mini" I shall certainly be grinning like a maniac.

We do have a GM, great guy, needs to chill, who runs his missions as the party sitting there and watching his mega-npc's slaughter everything around us (a different batch of npc's with enormous amounts of backstory each time)unless our PC'S have the firepower to crack small planetoids.

I kind of feel bad about the whole huge things going on in the background as the party does little things to make a difference in the foreground. Partially because of that GM. Partly because my last party would go after the demi gods stalking the battlefields, and probably win with a shotgun, an autocannon, and an explosive concussion mace, to the surprise of myself and probably half the sector.

Last time I had a really horrible player I just kicked for three points soooo... I'm not sure of the problem.

Also I tend to give my parties the brown pants run like hell lesson in the training(simulation) scenario(they don't know it's training) in which the last exit door has a "Mr. Voted most in need of anger management through brain vaccuum" Khorne Berserker between it and their lvl1 arses.

Oh, I agree. Not necessarily a Khorne Bezerker, but I fully agree with the Inquisition's 'training activities' being potentially lethal. Learning to judge when you're in over your head and to fall back and call in support from Hired Guns/Magistratum/PDF/Arbites/Imperial Guard/Militarum Tempestus/Adeptus Arbites/Collegia Titanicus/Sly Marbo (delete as appropriate) is an important skill.

I refer you to one of the best quotes I recall describing a Deathwatch training scenario when someone made a comment to the Inquisitor to the effect of "we know it's not designed to kill us".

"It's intended to be survivable . That doesn't mean it's not designed to kill you."