After seeing a recent topic of a player dropping out of a campaign, and writing a 7200 word essay, it brought to mind a recent problem I've been having.

Basically, I've had a problem player, who has had a lot of experience in DH, running his own game, and who is now playing in one of mine. You see, he understands everything within the DH universe, probably better than I do. He got me into the game that I now enjoy so much and have been playing for about a year now. He loaned me a copy of Eisenhorn, to give me a better idea of how the universe works. He collects, and occasionally paints, and I believe even plays the miniatures game from time to time.

The problem stems from a Psyker he brought into my game. He did put two items down on the character sheet, that I had problems with, but didn't catch at the time. One was an ability from the Radical's Handbook. The other was an item in the Ascension book, that no Psyker of his level would have had the Influence to get, but because he thought it was cool, a telekine's weapon, he put it there. (FYI the item was a Damaskine Kineblade, an item listed as very rare, which would be a -20 on the chart to get, and while I didn't see a stripling Psyker on the chart, I thought such a character would have no more than 5 or max 10 points of Influence). His reasoning was since he saw it used in Ravenor by a character in that book, I should allow him to use it.

When I had looked at his character sheet, I was just checking stats, and general weapons. I know I had made mention previously that the only books that I wanted players to use for character creation was the core book and the Inquisitor's Handbook, although to be fair, he might now have heard that previously.

Now, I am the kind of GM, that I dislike to stop a game on a dime, to deal with issues during the game. I much prefer to go over issues after the game, so as to not ruin everyone's evening, over ruleslawyering. Am I overreacting?

I don't think so, since it is MY game, and letting one player get away with something like this is setting a bad precedent. After discussing it wth him, he seems to think the issue is dead, and that I should not have any problem with it. I am considering leaving his game over it, and banning him from my game. Again, am I overreacting?

For the time being, I had to invent a way that his character got the item, and the training for the radical minor power. If word of this gets back to anyone outside his group, it could have long term repercussions, such as group loss of Inluence, assuming they survive to Ascend.

Input by anyone and everyone would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Some things stand out here:

>> His reasoning was since he saw it used in Ravenor by a character in that book, I should allow him to use it.

Ravenor is an inquisitor. Ask him why an Inquisitor wielding such a weapon means that a lowly acolyte will be able to acquire one.

>> I know I had made mention previously that the only books that I wanted players to use for character creation was the core book and the Inquisitioner's Handbook, although to be fair, he might not have heard that previously.

Not hearing it doesn't let him ignore the rule.

>> After discussing it wth him, he seems to think the issue is dead, and that I should not have any problem with it.

You bringing it up should tell him that you do have a problem with it.

>> I had to invent a way that his character got the item, and the training for the radical minor power.

Shouldn't that be his responsibility ?

>> I am considering leaving his game over it, and banning him from my game. Again, am I overreacting?

You are overacting a bit. A better solution would be to find an in-game reason to remove the problems. I'm thinking that after a mission that their inquisitor gets their minds deeply scanned to ensure they haven't been corrupted. The Inquisitor finds out about the Kineblades and that minor power and decides:

- He has another minion who would make better use of the Kineblades than this acolyte. So he confiscates them.

- The power isn't one he likes his acolytes using, so he has it removed from the characters memory. He is fair though, so he replaces it with a different minor power (let the player chose).

If any of the players complain, you just remind them that these items did not fit your rules for making a character and it wasn't fair for one player to get an exception to your rules. So you removed the problems.

In saying that, kineblades don't look that powerful a weapon for an acolyte. Especially when revealing them (or being the only person without a visible melee weapon) lets everyone know that he is a psyker, and thus the PC they should be trying to kill.

>> One was an ability from the Radical's Handbook. The other was an item in the Ascension book, that no Psyker of his level would have had the Influence to get, but because he thought it was cool, a telekine's weapon, he put it there.

I would not (and do not) allow anything from the mentioned books for beginning acolytes. For the very reason that they are neither 'radicals' nor 'ascended' (yet). If they start as acolytes in the retinue of an openly radical Inquisitor I might allow the former though. In the end it is the GMs decision though and only his.

>> His reasoning was since he saw it used in Ravenor by a character in that book, I should allow him to use it.

Strange reasoning, especially since Ravenors "acolytes" are most probably more likely en par with Throne Agents than 'lowly' Acolytes. Anyway, seeing something in a book does not make it automtaically viable for a PC in my opinion.

>> I know I had made mention previously that the only books that I wanted players to use for character creation was the core book and the Inquisitor's Handbook,

That is fine and the way I also handle it.

>> Now, I am the kind of GM, that I dislike to stop a game on a dime, to deal with issues during the game. I much prefer to go over issues after the game, so as to not ruin everyone's evening, over ruleslawyering. Am I overreacting?

No, I would also deal with it after the session (ie. maybe a day later).

>> After discussing it wth him, he seems to think the issue is dead, and that I should not have any problem with it. I am considering leaving his game over it, and banning him from my game. Again, am I overreacting?

Why is he thinking the issue is dead if it is still an issue for you? Leaving a game or banning someone is only the last option in my opinion, so you might be overreacting indeed. This way an 'in-game problem' becomes an 'out-of-game problem' and thus should always be prevented. After all, it is only a game and should not have a bad influence on real life in my opinion.

>> For the time being, I had to invent a way that his character got the item, and the training for the radical minor power.

As mentioned, this should be his job. Taking 'prohibited' stuff from books being mainly GM-books and then having the GM to invent a reasoning and fluff for that is kind of bad style in my view anyway.

Make clear that you have the authority in the game you GM and what is allowed and not allowed. And if a player does not like the way a GM handles it, it is within the players discretion to leave this game.

By the way, which ability did he take from RH ?

It might be overreacting to ban him from the game. It sounds like you have discussed it with him, but I didn't get the impression that you really told him to remove it. It might be a communication thing where he things you have your doubts about the item and skill, which is not the same thing as you having decided that they should go. So first of all you should just tell him that the item and skill is off limit for the time being, for whatever reason you feel appropriate, and tell him to exchange it for something else.

If he refuses a simple request from the GM, then it might be time to break out the banhammer, but that should never be needed between friends.

That said, I have once or twice, many years back, dropped on anvil on the characters of a player who started acting out to much (and I mean that quite litteraly. "An anvil falls from the sky and kills your character, bye"). He stopped being an ass after a few times, and then we could keep playing like usual

Can you post the essay, or PM it to me? I am quite curious about its contents, given its sheer length.

He should have asked before taking that stuff from those other books. Ask him how he would feel as a GM if players just did that without permission.

I must admit if one of my player's did that to me I would not have been happy.

If I was going to let him keep them then I would have asked that he come up with a very good story (complete with downfalls / plot hooks / disadvantages) as to how his character got them. It is certainly not fair to make you do all the work.

The other thing would be to make it possible to "loose" the blades, and make the acquisition of new ones an adventure itself, or make replacements come with a "price" (or both ). As an example: he uses a blade to slash a foe and criticals - lots of damage and have the blade stick in the bone, and target falls off a building / falls in front of a auto-train etc; or maybe the blade is parried by a power weapon...

Good luck and please don't let one player ruin it for all the rest of you.

DW

I'm curious... apart from the fact that you said the player couldn't use rules from books other than the core and IH, is there are reason this power and this weapon are unacceptable? Do they make the character overly-powerful as compared to the other characters? Do they, in and of themselves, disrupt the game? If not, then they aren't really an issue.

The issue, perhaps, is that this player is challenging your "authority" as GM. You should perhaps talk to the player from that perspective. Tell him that you are GM for this game and, as GM, you have guidelines that you expect to be followed in your game. Remind him that he owes you the curtesy of respecting your rules in your game, if he wants to continue playing.

Venkman said:

My apology, I posted in the wrong thread.

As far as I am concerned, he should not be adding anything from outside books without your explicit permission, especially considering what he has added to his character. There are no reasonable means in which he could have obtained it. Obviously it is not a "dead issue" if you have come to the publisher's forum to ask others for their opinions. Although it might be disruptive to your overall style as a GM to halt the game to deal with the player, it is something that needs to be done. You are establishing bad precedence if you allow for it to happen, for no player should be able to sneak something like that past the GM.

You can either OOC simply remove it, or IC have your inquisitor confiscate the weapon, it being a "relic" of some sort and exchanging it for a much more reasonable item. " You can have it back when you prove your worth. No mere acolyte can wield such a weapon "or something to that effect.

Your complaints are perfectly valid, but I would only kick him out of the game as a last resort. Politely explain to him that the ability and weapon are not available to rookie agents (Ravenor's cadre are most definitely Ascended) and let him substitue them with something from the DH Handbook. If he doesn't accept this, then threaten to kick him out of the game...

Be lucky you only have that ONE player to deal with, I regularly have to deal with worse multiplied by 5. It speaks volumes about players when they keep stalling the game because someone decided that

A) A Schola Progenium character can be a techpriest

B) Said Schola Progenium Techpriest is allowed to have 3 bionic vaginas

C) Said Techpriest then proceeds to ignore the quest and constantly tries to sell his body to every NPC

For this reason, I keep one friend around who knows the entire plot of the campaign so they can act as what we call "Retard Control". He keeps my players retardedness under control by using his character to shut down their characters when they start becoming too disruptive i.e. Stealing overpowered items and then "losing" them, or outright killing them when they get outta control. This way, I'm not a "bad" GM who lawyers the fun out of the game, and problem players are not a problem becaus ethey are dead by legitimate, non-GM related means.

This sounds like a clear case of player bullying. Not GM's bullying players, but the other way around.

That you even felt you had to make up some absurd story to allow him to start with a weapon suitable for an experienced Inquisitor is beyond me.

I wouldn't necessarily throw him out of the group, but you need to tell him you are the GM and you are the final arbiter. It is your choise what items is or is not available at start, and what they can get during play.

So feel free to remove said items and power if you want. After all, if I were a player in that group I wouldn't like that another player simply demanded to start with Ascension items. If he feels bad about it, tell him there might be a way to get these items and talents during the play - but it will not necessarily be easy to get and it will have to wait until the group is more powerful and when you are ready for it. Or as an option say he can keep the item but instead of fighting scum in hives with stubs and knives they will be fighting Chaos Marines on a daily basis. (just to play the absurdity card - don't really do it as it will end the campaign as surely as "rocks fall everyone dies.") Doing that should be the last resort indeed, but it can actually work to make the players start from scratch.

Bilateralrope said:

My apologies. The Minor power was actually taken from Disciple of the Dark Gods , Suggestion, p.28 of that book. The second paragraph on p.26 clearly states "These abilities are primarily intended for use with villains and NPC antagonists, but GMs are free to also make them available to Acolytes if they wish, as Elite Advances".

To me, this seems even worse than RH as a sourcebook. I did not have my books in front of me last night when I started the post.

A few sessions ago, a player who plays more in the other group than mine, played a character in my game. At first he tried to bring in a character that no one had seen him roll up. I wouldn't allow it, as the character had been created with 4 20s, a 19 and a 18, plus a few points in his other stats. I didn't think someone who seemed to break the odds on those rolls should be allowed to run with the character. I allowed him to re-roll a new character, with a second set of rolls if he didn't like the first. My other problem player was right there agreeing with me, as were the other players. Then he pulls this nonsense.

In any event, it's just the fact that he decided to do these things, without asking the GM first, that has me riled up.

I'm still curious as to which power he picked.

Bilateralrope said:

He just told you, Suggestion .

MILLANDSON said:

My bad.

1.) Usually GM's don't allow anything from "Ascension" until the acolytes actually attain that level. So you could cite that as a reason for not letting him/her use it. An in-game reason might be that his inquisitor doesn't like him being so open with his psyker abilities by making knives fly around in public and flay people (that there's witchery it is), so have him (inquisitor) confiscate the "kineblades" until such time as he thinks the psyker is can be more trusted. Don't mention "giving them" to another acolyte, it would just make him feel like he/she was being stolen from.

Having said that, Kineblades are on the very-low side of powerful. Your psyker is actually better off with a good auto-pistol and the "Unnatural Aim" power than the Kineblades, assuming he still has a low Psy rating. The Kineblade is cool, but I'ld still rather have a "Force Weapon".

2.) The paragraph on page 26 stating "These abilities are primarily intended for use with villains and NPC antagonists" actually refers to talents that follow it ("Psychic Supremacy" & "Psychic Vampire"), and those definitely shouldn't fall into the hands of "new" acolytes or possibly ANY acolytes.

The psykers powers though are another matter. If you look on page 27, directly below " Additional Psychic Powers" , you'll find a paragraph stating that these powers are available to Imperial Psyker PC's, just bear in mind that they could get him mistaken for a witch (which isn't far from the truth, won't that be fun). Also, the power "suggestion" is largely dependent on the imagination of the user, and would most likely see the most use in helping the psyker with his "crappy" interaction skills.

3.) This is YOUR game, and you run it how you choose. So if you feel something needs changing for the sake of balance, in-game continuity or some such thing, then do so. Just have a good reason for doing so.

Syzygy said:

You make me happy that my groups That Guy is just a logic driven robot rather than pants-on-head-retarded. I'd have kicked the majority of that group out and just rebuilt to be honest.

First off, I'd like to say that I agree with you that this player shouldn't be arguing with you over whether or not he could use Radical's Handbook or Ascension. If you stated you'd prefer players to only use the Inquisitor's Handbook and the Core book, this player should respect that. If he can't respect your wishes, I'd have a stronger NPC come along and take the weapon away from him.... I don't know, say his Inquisitor could come and demand the sword since it's too dangerous an item for an acolyte like himself to allow it the possibily of falling into the enemies hands.

"My dearest acolyte, is that what I think it is? Why that would make an excellent gift for Inquistor Lord (fill in blank). Please allow me to present it to him as a gift from our group."

Try telling your boss who can destroy worlds with a phone call to the right people, no!

On top of that, I would just rule out the skill as not being a valid option. If he refuses to take it off his character sheet, You can either tell him you're ignoring any outcome based on that skill or then everytime he uses the ability, it surprisingly has no effect on his enemies. Even better, you can pervert the intent of the suggestions and do the unexpected (ala D&D Wishes gone awry.) Fortunately, I play with some reasonable people and this issue doesn't usually last past the first conversation about it.

As far as you quitting his group over this. It's ove the top. My suggestion is for you to have a heart to heart about your character creation policy and see where that leads. If he still won't see reason, I'd do what I described above.

I do have a pet peeve with you having the "It's my game" attitude though. Without your players, you have no game! This is really about you entertaining them so that they stay. While you can and should set down some house rules (like which books to use.) This game is not yours, but belongs to the whole group.

I appreciate all the replies.

Things have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Does this mean I am entirely happy with the situation? No, but because it happened in the first place. I guess I expected more out of him.