Interesting that there are people here who clearly believe DW is just a game solely about taking SMs thru an endless round of combat encounters. That I believe that SM characters might sometimes also offer a different kind of experience to just pure combat missions and could even challenge players to complete some missions without even resorting to using their bolters and chainswords, is seen as too 'absurd' to even consider - and yet these are precisely words taken from the earliest design diary.

Perhaps FFG need to restress this aspect of the game, as some posters don't seem to remember or accept it was always intended that unremitting combat was not going to be to the whole of the game ...

Btw, I can't keep restating the same thing over and over again, so for the last time, I have never said I want a SM rpg without combat. Never. Not once did I say or imply that.

Atheosis said >>>

As a side note, why are so many on these boards so quick to try to marginalize views that are at all critical of anything FFG does?

Indeed. I think that the repeated straw man suggesting that Adam France is criticising Deathwatch the game rather than Final Sanction the demonstration adventure clearly points that out more than anything else. Forgive me, but I have begun to think of this as "Overwatch" or even "suppressive fire." N0-1_H3r3 pointed it out on the other forum as the demarcation of "lines in the sand," something that he notes as a relatively recent phenomenon in RPG forums, though in my experience something that is most noteworthy in GW hobbyist forums (my experience is limited, however).

As an example, one of the way that I would "massage" Final Sanction away from the implication that it is a "Bug Hunt" would be to make sure that the pod would land near the Governor's Palace, with the Deathwatch squad tasked with initially coordinating with the Imperial authorities on the world. Finding the Palace empty, a search might reveal that the Imperial Commander has retreated back the stronghold of his mansion, where he has also taken the elite of the PDF, his personal guard. The Marines go to the mansion, where they are faced with the reality of the Imperial Commander...

Etc.

One very minor change and the Marines are in the thick of the social interaction from the get go, and not—if you will forgive me—a combat that seems specifically geared towards demonstrating the Horde rules. It would also put the Marines into a more decision-making, proactive stance rather than one that is reactive.

I'm not saying that Final Sanction is bad, I'm just saying that there are certain changes that I would make so that it would live up to the promise of that Designer's Diary. Anyway, a more detailed list of my thoughts can be found on Dark Reign. Make of them what you will.

Kage

Kage, when even the most cursory glance back through Adam France's posts shows him being negative about the game. Repeatedly so, and continually attacking its design, art and direction maybe, just maybe that's why people think he's criticising the game as much as the adventures. After a while all of that negativity starts to bleed together.

There's been plenty of ignoring of posts and line drawing from both 'sides' on this one. Many people have pointed out their persona play experiences with the adventure(s) and been ignored or dismissed in favour of yet another cheap shot at it. As such, I'm entitely unsurprised that some posters have gotten tired of having something they personally liked diminished (and in at least one case, their own gaming preferences and style dismissed/condescended to).

These are just a sample. Yes they're taken out of context etc. etc. But they're not taken out of the context of continual negativity.

Adam France said:

Adam France said:

Adam France said:

Adam France said:

Adam France said:

Evilref said:

My question for you is why is Adam's pessimism a problem? He's simply voicing his concerns over the direction he perceives the game to be headed. I got the same treatment when I voiced my absolute loathing for the way FFG handled the whole Chapter situation. Now, being in the group that actually likes these intro adventures, I don't have to deal with that, but I'm still bothered by the group think approach so many here are taking.

Bottom line is that this is a public forum. Adam has a right to post his opinions on these boards. He has consistently been polite and courteous in doing so. If you disagree with him so be it. Voice those disagreements. Trying to invalidate or marginalize his views because they aren't in keeping with your own is a different matter.

Atheosis said:

I have voiced those disagreements. And many other people have. And Adam has on numerous occasions ignored those points or paid lip service to them in favour of asserting his same opinion over and over.

What's more, as it doesn't seem to be clear, I wasn't invalidating or maginalising his views (I am, however, I'm entirely free to do so if I wanted to, just as he's done to other people). I was pointing out to Kage, using the examples, why several posters have thought Adam was attacking the game and not just the adventure (because he has used language that would easily lead one to think so).

Evilref said >>>

Kage, when even the most cursory glance back through Adam France's posts shows him being negative about the game.

I took the criticism in context with the thread, i.e. all about Final Sanction. As I have mentioned elsewhere, he can only comment on what he has seen and read and like the majority of us plebs. This means the Designer Diaries and the demo. If he has erred, it would be IMO over-arguing a point in the face of so much protection of the works of FFG. In the specific context of Final Sanction, I think that he raises some good points. It is not hard to be able to make some minor changes that would have illustrated the non-combat focus, rather than relying upon the GM to turn a "Bug Hunt" into a non-combat game.

After all, it is a demonstration to presumably demonstrate what the game is going to be like. At the moment that means it is a game that is going to be all about combat. Sure, there are ways that do not require the addition of extra material that the adventure can be altered to live up to the Designer's Diaries. That they didn't make such a simple fix does make one at least consider the implications. Was it just because it was a free demo? One has to imagine that a purpose of the demo would be to show people what the final game is like... For a game that has been received with some large degree of suspicion, one would imagine that this would have been vital.

Evilref said >>>

Repeatedly so, and continually attacking its design, art and direction maybe, just maybe that's why people think he's criticising the game as much as the adventures. After a while all of that negativity starts to bleed together.

I would accept that point. Please understand, however, that what similarly bleeds together is the "FFG can do no wrong" flavour that tends to come out rather strongly in the many posts. Again, this is N-1_H3r3's "lines in the sand."

That and I have a weakness for the underdog, always cheering for the team that isn't being supported, etc. I'm quirky that way.

Evilref said >>>

Many people have pointed out their persona play experiences with the adventure(s) and been ignored or dismissed in favour of yet another cheap shot at it.

To be fair, one could certainly view the replies to the voiced concerns as a cheap shot at Adam France. For example, if I were inclined to one could certainly see a degree of, "You're not a good roleplayer, since a good roleplayer will be able to take this and make it awesome." From his perspective, perhaps there is a degree of, "Well, I am a good roleplayer, at least in my mind, and I see this flaws and yet the only argument that is being presented is, 'The game is great, how can you not see that?'"

Again, just throwing it out there. I have posted some suggested "fixes" for Final Sanction elsewhere.

Evilref said >>>

As such, I'm entitely unsurprised that some posters have gotten tired of having something they personally liked diminished (and in at least one case, their own gaming preferences and style dismissed/condescended to).

I can definitely understand that. It is, however, seemingly something that can go two ways. One imagines that with discussion the idea of negativity might be seen in another light. It is ever hard, though, to see something that you love be criticised. When I eventually get around to hitting "publish" on my own interpretation of the 40k universe in another rules set I'm probably going to get a bit non-chuffed with the "negative" criticism.

Atheosis said >>>

My question for you is why is Adam's pessimism a problem? He's simply voicing his concerns over the direction he perceives the game to be headed. I got the same treatment when I voiced my absolute loathing for the way FFG handled the whole Chapter situation. Now, being in the group that actually likes these intro adventures, I don't have to deal with that, but I'm still bothered by the group think approach so many here are taking.

It's always hard to be a "rogue element." Now that I think about it, it certainly does give me a new appreciation of Dezmond/ErikBoille/UselessThing.

Atheosis said >>>

Trying to invalidate or marginalize his views because they aren't in keeping with your own is a different matter.

I would be more impressed by healthy debate.

Evilref said >>>

And many other people have. And Adam has on numerous occasions ignored those points or paid lip service to them in favour of asserting his same opinion over and over.

Have you considered that he might feel that his points haven't been addressed?

Ah well. Maybe being aware of a trend will be sufficient to stop it, or if not stop it, ameliorate it?

Kage

Evilref said:

I went back and read the various responses to his points, and all I really got from it was "This isn't the final game, the final game will offer plenty of ways to run less combat-oriented games, so stop complaining." The problem is that we really don't know that, and I think that's Adam's main point. Obviously inventive GMs will be able to address the issue no matter what, but in terms of what is actually provided within the core book, we just don't know. That the sample adventures have been so combat heavy Adam feels is a bad sign, and I can't say that's an unreasonable conclusion, whether or not it's actually correct.

To echo another thread...

Well said.

Kage

That the sample adventures have been so combat heavy Adam feels is a bad sign, and I can't say that's an unreasonable conclusion, whether or not it's actually correct.

Meh. Based on sample adventures, Dark Heresy is a dungeon crawl with minimal roleplaying and even lesser chances of success and Rogue Trader is about exploring ghost ships. I think it's been amply demonstrated that you can't press all of the selling points of an RPG into a single adventure. The more interesting question is which ones you choose to present and where you present them. In the designer diaries aimed at the people who are with the RPG while its developed, you dispel the fears about it becoming a pure hack&slay. In a free adventure that will be played by those spontaneously appearing at a FLGS and enticed by "You play a Space Marine", you present good combat mechanics that captivate the feel of super soldiers without the action going tedious.

Cifer said >>>

Meh. Based on sample adventures, Dark Heresy is a dungeon crawl with minimal roleplaying and even lesser chances of success and Rogue Trader is about exploring ghost ships.

Indeed. Shattered hopes and all that. Perhaps this just illustrates the discrepancy between the official materials and what the fans can do with them? When coupled with expectation? I don't think that Adam France's comments are too unwarranted.

Cifer said >>>

I think it's been amply demonstrated that you can't press all of the selling points of an RPG into a single adventure.

You can, however, make the important ones stick out. Indeed, surely that's the point?

Does this mean that the "free" scenarios just need to come along a bit more?

Cifer said >>>

In the designer diaries aimed at the people who are with the RPG while its developed, you dispel the fears about it becoming a pure hack&slay.

On the other hand, for those that have followed the RPG while it is being developed, the free scenario actually suggests that it is a "hack&slay." It doesn't have to, which is a kind of the point.

Cifer said >>

In a free adventure that will be played by those spontaneously appearing at a FLGS and enticed by "You play a Space Marine", you present good combat mechanics that captivate the feel of super soldiers without the action going tedious.

Seems that the only way not to make it tedious is to have an experienced GM. At least based upon the arguments on this forum.

Kage

Cifer said:

Fair enough, though having put out two sample adventures, you would think FFG would have tried to address these concerns. They didn't. To me it seems rather odd that they would address such concerns in designer diaries, and yet completely ignore them in two full adventures meant to promote the features of the game.

They came out within days of each other - when would they have had time to address these 'concerns' with the second release?

BYE

Hi there,

I might be going against the grain here, but I’m kinda hoping the game IS mostly combat (if not, it will be when I’m running). Our group always seems to be a little combat heavy whatever game we play. In Dark Heresy we’ve got Investigation, but even then it nearly always ends with some epic battle. We’ve got Rogue Trader for the empire building, profit making (again lots of combat anyway), but with Deathwatch we’ve hoping it’ll be the type of game we can play if we’ve suddenly got some spare time but haven’t prepped anything. The GM screen looks like it might have a section on helping with this.

Our group defiantly finds the combat parts of playing the most enjoyable (hmm, maybe this says something about my GM’ing style, who knows what though), so this works out just fine. :-)

If people find it does have too much combat for their tastes, dial it back a bit if you can (or play good old Dark Heresy). I find that if the PC’s are constantly going up against situations that can only be fixed with violence or are getting beat up a lot, they tend to evolve into combat characters. So GM’s could always throw lots of non-combat solutions in to avoid this in the first place.

Anyway, I think what I’m trying to get at for this tread (sorry for going a bit off topic), is that as long as the GM and his players are having a good time, that’s all that really matters. :-)

Scotbloke

OMG this thread is just nuts.

The free adventures (nearly done first and be moving to the second tomorrow) have been a breath of fresh air. Having played a vast variety of "military RPGS" this by far has the most useable combat mechanics that achieve 2 things

1. Very quick combats that can be affected by decent tactical decisions

2. Showing Space Marines as truly epic as they are meant to be in the 40K universe

Not sure how many times it is quoted in literature but the Adeptus Astartes are like Gods. This is munchkin power game, simple as.

What the freebe truly lacked was maps (kindly supplied though by someone in these boards).

When playing "Military" style games there has to be objectives. Allowing the players to determine how and when they hit those objectives is the roleplaying aspect of the game - not just interacting with NPCs - but indeed each other.

The in-play between the marines is the single most important factor of the "Role Playing" aspect of the game. How they plan the mission - how they play the action is what will make the game.

The Combat is the background to the actual story. The film Aliens had very little plot per se, however the marines interplay made the film watchable. DW is to me is just this.

We have waited for this for 27 years, and I myself have very much enjoyed what I have seen.

FatPob said:

Yet FFG has stated the opposite.

Like every RPG out there, Deathwatch has a much, or as little "roleplaying" as the GM and players bring to the table. If your individual game lacks roleplaying don't look at the game, look at the people around the table.

An RPG's job is to provide a working mechanic, perhaps an interesting setting, and if possible a degree of inspiration. It is you, the player (and GM), whose job it is to provide the roleplaying. Everytime I hear someone knock a game for it's "lack of roleplaying" I have to question just what type of "roleplayer" is making the comment. Clearly someone who expects the game to do all of the heavy lifting for them.

The people at my table are looking forward to Deathwatch for two reasons: First of all because playing space marines in the 40K universe is just exciting. And secondly for the opportunity to play a role that most of them aren't used to. They are embracing the challenge of bringing to life (roleplaying) a genetically enhanced warrior-monk, a being devoted to a cause that will most likely end in death, a character virtually trained from birth to be a soldier and approach his duty with religous zeal. Not that's a role to play!

I've roleplayed for nearly 30 years and one thing I've seen over and over; if you want to see some incredible roleplaying, give someone a role to play. I've heard dozens of people complain about systems that are "too restirictive" and make them feel as though there is no room to roleplay. But that's ridiculous. A good roleplayer is someone who can create an interesting character and bring him to life. And that roleplayer may need (or prefer) to be able to choose "anything" he wants for his character. But, in my experience, the superior roleplayer is the one who can be given a role (you are a space marine) and bring that to life.

The irony to me is that if you are truly a roleplayer (one who can portray a role) how can you say that any RPG prevents roleplaying? You may not be able to portray the role and it's all to easy to blame a set of rules on your own short-comings, but don't blame the game for your own inabilities or even just your own preferences.

Might I suggest that yet another passive aggressive suggestion that someone who questions the specifics of Final Sanction is actually a poor roleplayer may be not be the most productive means of engendering reasoned discussion? Just throwing that out there for consideration.

It seems that everyone is clear about roleplaying and what can make it fun. Excellent. That was one of the great things about the FFG Designer Diary where Ross Watson illustrated how Deathwatch wasn't just going to be a combat-fest. Here, let me skim the archives and remind everyone about it here. Actually, that's different from the one that I was thinking about, but it serves to illustrate the point. The idea was that this game that had everyone worried about being a combat-fest, a "Bug Hunt," was in fact a game that would allow much more.

Cool.

People breathed a sigh of relief. FFG were on the ball responding to the worries of fans, whether those worries were misplaced of not.

Then Final Sanction was released and... Well, you got a "Bug Hunt." Let's ignore the fact that it was Marines vs. Xenomorphs... errr, genestealers... since one has to wonder if that was a deliberate poke, but the demo game that was meant to illustrate the new game, well, didn't. Okay, that's not entirely true. We got a hint at Nature, Demeanors and, of course, the Horde mechanics. Surely, though, this was a great opportunity to highlight that Deathwatch wasn't just a combat game. I mean, all of us know that because FFG have told us that. On the other hand, random person that picked up the free demo? Not such much.

And that is, I feel, the point being made. Of course, we're all roleplayers here. Most of us are used to tweaking things, changing them to suit our preferences, etc. And the thing is, it's not that hard to tweak Final Sanction so that the written publication really brings home the social roleplaying aspect of Marines, or the idea that they're not just brutes with a bolt gun. In fact, it's so amazingly simple that the question is really just a thought: Why didn't FFG do this?

Of course, this is a fairly minor thing. As a GM if I were to run Final Sanction I would change quite a few things. After all, one cannot really complain since I paid exactly $0 for it, and can only gratefully acknowledge FFG's generosity. At the same time, it's not about people being poor roleplayers, lacking imagination, or whatever. Or, at least, I do not think it is.

Kage

I'm sorry, I just don't see what the problem is. Yes, they are demo adventures. Yes, they can't include everything. But, you can't say that either demo adventure ignores the non-combat aspects of the game. The sample characters have basic descriptions to give you enough to start with to RP them. No, they don't give you the entire backstory of the chapters and describe the rivalries, etc. But, they do describe several areas for social RP encounters and the broad strokes of personalities along with Demeanors.

Off the top of my head:

From Final Sanction:

Interaction with the Governor and/or nobles. Possibility to make him an ally and get support from him, or to decide he's incompetent/complicit and execute him.

Interactions with Syndalla.

Investigation of the traitor PDF officer

Interactions in the bar with the veteran PDF officers.

Talking their way into the Astropath's tower and talking to the Astropath in general

Random morale boosting or information gathering with various PDF regiments found along the way.

PC to PC interactions along the way.

From Oblivion's Edge:

RP w/ the Governor, if he's coming with them. Deciding who can come, and who is dead weight/stays behind.

RP with the Admiral, Tactician, and Storm Trooper commander while/before attacking the fleet.

RP with any civilians they may meet during the break out.

These can be expanded on as much as you like. The Governor and Syndalla encounters are reasonable fleshed out for a sample adventure already. Yes, a group could storm through the town and bypass all RP/non-combat interactions. But, if that's what the group wants, so what? That type of group would not like a game that forced a 'who dunnit' or similar on them.

Personally, I think these are great demo adventures. I think the Horde rules are really fun. The Turning points are a cool idea. And the possibility to find clues (run off location, PDF in the bar, traitor investigation) are all good. Oblivion's Edge has fewer opportunities, but I'd say that's somewhat due to the due to the nature of being a very intense struggle against an overwhelming foe, more so than the genestealers.

You can't deny that they are combat heavy adventures, but they are not only combat. As people have said in this thread, with some modifications they could be very RP heavy as well.

Radomo said:

All of this probably comprises less than 10% of the actual gameplay in either adventure.

i would say if you flesh it out i would be more like 15%-20% of the game play with all the talking and deciding that needs to go on.

but even using the 10% means you think it is all combat because 90% is?

Atheosis said:

And...?

Regardless of how much or how little you use those RP encounters, they are there. There's enough to show that it's not all about combat. There are other things to do. Plus intra-party interactions. Yes, there aren't many rules for using non-combat skills. That was a poor choice. But, I'm sure they will be there. Not to mention that there are generally 3 groups of people that would be drawn to this game/demo. 1. People who play/are familiar with DH/RT. They have the rule for non-combat skills already, and can use them as needed. 2. Fans of the TT game. They would expect a Space Marine focused game to be about combat. 3. People who go 'oooh...super soldiers in massive armor? shiny' they would be drawn more to the combat as well.

And really, if you're playing a game as Space Marines and expecting a courtroom drama, you're probably playing the wrong game. Yes, there will be combat, and probably the majority of the game will be combat. That's what Space Marines were created for. If you ignore the RP opportunities, that's your choice. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

To reiterate, the adventures are combat focused. That makes sense, since they are about Space Marines. The adventures have several good RP and non-combat encounters. I agree there could have been some better support for these encounters, but complaining that they are nothing but combat is foolish, imo.

Sorry for coming in so late to this post but here goes:

Adam wrote:

I find that combat works best in rpgs when it's not a long, regular and grinding process.

From playing Final Sanction I can echo some of the sentiments already laid out on the boards here: there are plenty of roleplaying opportunities that each individual group can do as much or as little to take advantage of as they wish. The GM running for us had to actually accelerate the last hour of gaming because of how much time our in-character dialogue and discussions cost us.
I love combat as much as the next guy, but it should have context, tension, be descriptive, and preferrably over fairly quickly in real time.
In our roughly 6 hour game we ran through the following scenes/encounters (in order):
• The initial landing
• Discussions with the PDF and Syndalla (non-combat)
• Outside the armory
• Armory interior
• The rebels between the armory and the palace
• The palace encounter
• Discussions with the Lord-Governor and then dealing with the Astropath (non-combat)
• Directing our PDFs to re-secure certain portions of the city and scouting between the initial landing zone and the spaceport (non-combat)
• Securing another PDF outside the Fabrica district
• The rebels in the Fabrica district (combo stealth and utilization of PDF = non-combat)
• The promethium plant and the Broodlord
Counting the 30 minutes of breaks we took, that averages out to about 30 minutes per encounter with 4 players who were immersed in the setting. If we remove the non-combat encounters, we are looking at 40 minutes per. This is ignoring the time spent choosing characters, waiting for everyone to settle in at the table, and setting up the adventure (in-box text, if you will.)
There were 2 reasons we didn’t experience more “roleplaying” as opposed to just combat; time crunch of the hobby store’s hours and time pressure in-game influenced our choice to cut corners. I know that most of our experiences in gaming have to do with what GM is running, but I was left with the impression that there is plenty of room for roleplaying here.

SpawnoChaos wrote:

From a purely mechanics perspective, the "roleplaying skills" have been hashed out over Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader. There would be no reason to include those options in the limited space they had for their demos. I have no doubt that the "typical" set of skills available in Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader will be available in the Death Watch book (yes, I think Forbidden Lore: Xenos will be available to the Space Marines).

Thank you, Spawn! With the quick-play rules, I think that it is safe to assume that DW will have the exact same core rules as DH/RT. Is it inconceivable that you will then be able to do the exact same things, enjoy the exact same level of roleplaying in DW as you can in the other two?

Atheosis wrote:

Another thing that kind of bugged me was the treatment of the Lord-Governor Thorsholt. The guy calls the majority of the availble PDF to his manor to protect him, while the rest of the city burns (which would be very obvious to the tactically experienced eyes of all the Battle-Brothers), and yet there is very little within the adventure that indicates what the proper steps would be to deal with him from a Space Marine or Deathwatch perspective.

How much setting fluff is FFG obligated to provide for the DM to hand out to players for them to make the “right” choice as far as the setting goes? If your players are already familiar with the setting, they’re armed to make whatever choice they deem appropriate. If they are not familiar with the setting, they’re going to make choices that may seem ridiculous to a “true fan."

As far as I'm concerned, his life is forfeit at the point that the Kill-team arrives. Their duty, as I see it, would be to put him to death for a deriliction of his duties and cowardice, and then to place the city under the command of either the highest ranking PDF commander or the local Arbites. Now obviously, as a GM, you don't want to lead the players by the nose, but I think it would have been good to play up the monumental crime Thorsholt is guilty of from the greater Imperial perspective.

And as a GM you are free to offer that information to your players for them to make a more informed choice. This way your players have to choose between what they think is right: summary execution of a planetary governor guilty of dereliction, or utilization of a resource to deal with the greater threat that is there sole purpose for coming to Avalos. Remember, the recruited members of a Deathwatch squad have been handpicked for a variety of reasons. Demonstrated ability to judge when the Codex must be adhered to and when it can be flexible could be one reason. Failed judgements, leading to a last shot at redemption through service to the Deathwatch could be the flipside to that coin. The point is that the choices players make and the motivations behind them are at the heart of roleplaying; right and wrong choices will be handled by individual GMs and should not necessarily be the purview of the module/demo to provide all consequences (especially given limited the limited space available.)

That there is so much written as to actually rescuing him, as well as greater tangible in-game benefits, kind of drove me crazy.

Then hopefully your players just decide to kill him, and then there is no burden of managing said “rewards.” Okay, that was a bit harsh, but the point is if you think in your game that the Marines should have killed him, what are the ramifications (in-game) if they don’t? Are there any penalties in-scenario or post-scenario that this squad will have to deal with? Do they suffer a loss of Renown from their poor choice? Ultimately that is up to you as the DM. Have fun and go with it.

No offense, but I was criticizing certain decisions that were made in the writing of the adventure, not asking for GMing tips...

Seriously. Must it always come down to the idea that just because you feel that things could have been better arrayed in Final Sanction that you're somehow an incompetent roleplayer, incapable of figuring out where one might include "social roleplaying?"

Kage

Kage2020 said: Published on - 08:04:42
Seriously. Must it always come down to the idea that just because you feel that things could have been better arrayed in Final Sanction that you're somehow an incompetent roleplayer, incapable of figuring out where one might include "social roleplaying?"

I don't think this is the case at all, I think it is down to intepretation - and knowing what will work well with your group.

I also believe several people are offering advice and further clarity on how the game can be played - in the thought that people may want help on how to run the game as it is written.

It also seems that this is a very emotive topic. Who would have thought eh.

TL:DR included

I write adventures for my group all the time, in fact we rarely play any pre-written adventures for whatever reason. I have run several tournement games at conferences also.

When determining NPCs they are usually given 1-4 lines of notes about them, enough to jog the mind when they are encountered (good old seat of your pants GMing). True goodies and baddies get a fair amount more based on how important they wil be in the game as it is originally planned. Usually included is their hopes and goals, and there passions and hatreds to ensure they are fully immersive.

Many times I have written reams on a particular baddy for them to get one shotted on a scabby crit. Other times the 1-4 liners have come to be more then the original plan due to how the PCs interact with them. It's a swings and round abouts.

FFG in this adventure has written a fair amoutn (IMO) for all the NPCs that contribute to the game. How the GM at the time inteprets the NPCs motivations, how the players intepret their orders, and more so how the mission has been represented to them can lead to many many different takes of the same adventure.

In fact most well written adventures work when they are somewhat open-ended, and leave the true determination to the GM, who will gauge their actions based on the type of people who play in his game.

Having run the same Tournemant adventure for a Dark Heresy for several different groups, it was very interesting to note how the different players reacted to the same encounters, as well as to each other. In one go one of the players got it in his head that another player was a secret heretic. He spent a fair amount of time trying to discover the truth.

In another version (same characters - different players) these 2 PCs worked well to conclude the adventure.

In the Final Sanction version I ran the PCs thought the Governor's decision to pull the pdf to the manor was a sound tactical decision, keeping the planetary buraucratic command structure in tact. They may have felt he could have done more to quell the rebellion, but they decided it was not their place to question the Governors motives - better to leave it to the Inquisition.

I am sure many feel the Governor is culpable and blow him away as soon as look at him - again it's the PCs choice, and their motivations to do so.

TL:DR

The NPCs in the FFG game have enough information to RP them as the GM. It is the GMs choice on how the implement that.