Back to the OP: Into the Maw, being the sample mission, is centered only on the player characters. As you can tell from the other posts here, your players are not unique. They have power, and want to use it.

My players like to fit in one guncutter, so they take 15 extra troops.

I've used both DW horde and RT mass combat rules, and they both work, and they both keep the PCs in the spotlight. The "detailed method" of the RT mass combat rules works better than the simple method for me, as it allows the players to get more into the battle. Remember all groups go at initiative zero, and if they hit each other, they tear each other up fairly fast.

Using RT mass combat rules, a group w/o another group to fight will attack as individuals. This is where I sometimes skip dice rolls. Say the group has an adjusted 40% chance to hit an individual. I just rule that 40% of the group (rounded up or down however I'm feeling at the moment) hits, and they all roll 5s for d10 damage rolls.

Of course, one way to discourage mass quantities of troops is to make the PCs roll for each trooper when they target an individual.

DW hordes have rules for attacking individuals, which can be quite harsh on RT PCs.

While giant scope is fun, as are mass battles, you do want to keep the spotlight on the player characters.

If the players insist on gigantic battles, then try out the simple RT mass combat rules, where a battle of thousands that takes place over days can be handled by a handful of dice rolls.

If the player forces land in 22 shuttles, you can just handwave the action around the other 21 shuttles, and concentrate on what is going on around where the players have landed. Perhaps the other shuttles are pinned down, and only if the players brake out and free them will they be able to assemble their army.

And it's not all combat. This is about profit. Trade negotiations, forging peace treaties, and other social role playing challenges are all about the PCs.

And remember, whenever players delegate, they won't get the best possible result. If you want something done right, do it yourself. If they send in 1,000 household troops while they play regicide in their starship: they lose troops at a higher rate, unreported looting occurs, and if the loot is really hot, the troops may just "vanish" with the treasure.

Oh, and all those troops? And all those ratings? Some are mutants. Some are cultists. Some are in the pay of rival rogue traders. Some are spies of the Inquisition. Some are terrified about being in the Expanse in the first place.

Leaders who lead from the front should have higher morale among the crew and more fun.

And fun is what it is all about.

Read (or watch) Generation Kill.

Even a relatively small group of highly trained, elite soldiers manage to get into all sorts of snafu situations where they get in each others way, lose communications, are hindered by incompetent officers, etc.

As an example, they got stuck when their humvees approached a bridge, and found the bridge blocked. The road was narrow, and the only way to turn around was to make a 3 point turn, but the vehicles behind the lead blocked them from doing so. Lost comms meant they could not explain to the vehicles behind that they must all back up (the entire column), and as they were under fire (of course) from unseen hostiles, it was not a simple matter of walking over to the other drivers and say "what's up? Care to back up a little?"

Simple things turn into large obstacles that mess up the commanders plans.

Where a small team would cut straight through, a large group will get bogged down in confusion.

Fighting alongside 30 men means you have to share the experience with them. Having the 30 men assault an enemy encampment on their own may work (depending on mass combat rules), but it won´t hone the PC´s fighting skills. The armsmen get the lions share of the experience.

I know, it has a metagame feeling to it, you might argue that this would constrict players in an unrealistic fashion. I may disagree...in my opinion it actually aligns itself with reality.

Lets have two examples that are black and white (we know theres a lot of grey in between, but lets look at extremes). Both are rogue traders, one got there by hard work, the second by inheriting the title.

The first one would be someone who had a hard start, working himself up the ladder, forced to do the dirty jobs himself at the beginning. He got his respect by proving his prowess and commercial knowledge. He knows his crew respects him because he requests much but also cares for his men not as numbers but as people. If the situation allows it, he displays courage and takes part in assaults or leaves the ship with a small selection of men (well...call them PC´s). When the tactical assessment shows he needs force, he takes troops with them to drive his point home. This way he keeps himself keen and alert.

The second one inherited his title and learned etiquette, tactics, a little bit combat knowledge (mostly dueling with power foils), commercia, foppish behaviour and ritualistic court dances all his life. He has been in combat a few times, dueling over minor squabbles, potentially dangerous but not deadly. He knows how to lead troops, but not by example - its just infantry tactics, by the book. He probably reads more books on these topics, but only to avoid having to hire new troops. They expire so fast when being shot at, you know. His crew think of him as a squamish dilletante, who probably enjoys the company of young deckmates in his private cabin (even if thats not true, it probably is discussed with fervor). Why ? Well, because they have to solve all the problems, he is just giving orders and taking the profits later.

Now tell, me - which one is the lifeless slob, poor on experience, rich on scandals and probably living a meaningless life?

These are completely different rogue traders, equalling in power. But if you ask me, as a player, i would rather play the first rogue trader over the second (or a member of the second rogue traders crew...that might also be interesting).

Deadline247 said:

Missile Launcher, its Scarce availability, Frag Missile, its Average availability, its Blast 6 meaning it'll wipe out at least a dozen scrubs each time it slams home... Any baller with bits to rub together can easily afford a couple of these and it'll drop tons of little armsmen ******* like a good right hook. Maybe you'll get lucky and knock a fate point or two off as well!

Ikkaan said:

Warning: this might sound harsh, my apologies if it does.

Can't say I like this. Command experience is just as valid as combat experience. This isn't D&D 2e where you magically get 2xp for killing a chicken and 300xp for murdering everyone in a bar. Experience represents learning and growth, and you are learning and developing just as much as someone who handles fights personally. You don't "split" xp in this game, everyone gains xp according to their measure for being involved, crew and command staff included.

In your example I would give them less xp for avoiding combat with hacking, or diplomacy, or stealth, or any other playstyle that didn't tickle my fancy.

Players get XP for solving problems and accomplishing goals, not for how many people they kill. Weather they accomplish it with troops or in person, they solved the problem and have gained experience and knowledge.

And your example is a straw man, and a poor one at that. I could easily play the same game and give a fabricated example of a slovenly brawler whos men don't respect him because of his inability to command or lead and a legendary Master and Commander who leads by example whose men would follow him into hell itself due to his proven ability to utilize every resource at his disposal.

And even in your example the second is just as valid and enjoyable a role playing opportunity as first when you remove all the the inserted fluff about how the crew loves the one and hates the other. Our last Rogue Trader WAS a foppish noble who preferred to avoid danger, and it was a great character.

As the GM it is NOT your role to offer XP rewards for players playing the kind of character you would like to play, as long as they are solving problems.. They get to choose who they are, their personalities, goals, and ways of handling problems. Weather they want to be a traditional hero swashbuckler, a diplomat, a brute, or a general, that is THEIR choice. As long as they solve the problems presented they grew in experience and knowledge, and thus get XP.

Ikkaan said:

In terms of game mechanics, I think you may be forgetting that the 30 men that assault the camp with the players are equipment not henchmen. The game treats them exactly the same way as it does a bunch of boltguns or cases of fine wine. Tools used by the players to overcome obstacles.

If you have named NPCs with individual histories and motivations (and run them as such) then it is a different story.

You can always limit the number of troops who accompany the party in several ways:

1: Introduce a plague or pestilence. The risk of an NPC being infectious would reduce their numbers.

2: Introduce a mutiny. Have it reasoned that many of the troops otherwise available are trying to put the mutiny down.

3: Introduce superstition and fear. Regardless of the fact that an RT's word is law, not everyone will do something which circumvents their ethics or religious beliefs.

4: Introduce a Holiday. Have the activity fall on a major religious holiday, one which is rarely if ever not observed.

5: Make the areas in need of investigation very narrow or only large enough for 3 or 4 persons to move around in.

6: Have a shuttle or teleportarium mishap which delivers the party but none or very few of the npc's.

7. Have the seneschal discover that over the past few months, some of the bosuns have been padding the rosters to collect the income or ration allowances or whatever for crew that have been long gone and dead. This could reduce the actual crew by whatever percent you wish. This would be even more effective if the seneschal was an NPC and was embezzeling these funds to the ruination of the Dynasty.

One way to make most of these actually work is to have a traitor, an underground agent, or a Fifth Column on board which sabotages the efforts of the RT by blowing up shuttles, damaging components, fomenting rebellion. The "Dr. Yueh" scenario from DUNE is a good example. Make the person highly trusted, with a blood vendetta or just a monetary motive.

You could also have the taking of lots of troops backfire on the party, when they have just won an engagement, and the NPC's or guards turn on the party to seize the loot and usurp the Dynasty. Even if it does not work, it would scare the party into being more self sufficient.

This is a very interesting thread and it highlights one of the unique natures of the Rogue Trader RPG (and Dark Heresy Ascensions as well). I agree that penalizing their experience is not the answer, and I also agree that you should apply in game penalties for certain actions. For example, as the GM build up these units kind of like a character. Are they part of an Imperial Guard regiment seconded to the Rogue Trader. Well casually throwing the guard into deaths jaws over and over my turn the comissars against the Rogue Trader. He may be in charge, but he doesn't really own that unit it was loaned to him.

But playing a game at this scale, and this open is difficult for the GM, very challenging. However, I also disagree with the sentiment that if you talk with your friends and say "Hey man could you not take a whole freaking regiment down with you." That is ok, you are all here to have fun. This is not wargame (but it can be) and the GM is suppose to have a little fun too. Now that is part of the responsibility you take on is to plan for the players to mess up your plan. Trust me I have difficulty with this but I am getting better.

But I wish you luck, I don't see anything wrong with talking with you guys. What is funny, FFG pretty much imposes GM Fiat on the players in Dead Stars by limiting the number of people that they bring to the surface of Mara.

I also don't see anything wrong with them tapping into their troops. There are just pluses and minus to each. Into the Expanse talks about it a little bit. Like on Quppa-Psi-12, it talks about modifications to the skill tests based on the number of people in their party/army.

Good luck man, and have a good time. It is suppose to be fun on both sides of the GM screen, but by taking that roll you have taken on a little more responsibility.

Salcor

riplikash said:

Thank you so much for this explanation . . . . you really put so much into perspective for myself, and the errors I had when I ran my first game of this. Thank you, thank you, and thank you again. Excellent points all around.

>how to handle my party's tendency to always bring extra troops with them

Circumstances:
Jungle, dense urban environments, tunnels, warp tainted, acid storms, lictors, land mines, stealth missions, so so many... are you even trying?
Large numbers of troops require not only transport but food, water, ammo, energy packs.

Objectives that require finesse:
Your average int 25 grunt doesn't know the value of a precious artefact, won't recognize a chaos tainted relic. He doesn't understand why shooting the Xeno Psyker was a bad idea and is mystified how he was responsible for wrecking your negotiations with the Eldar. He has never heard of "Atomics" and wonders what will happen if he tries pressing THAT red button?
He is in fact scarcely literate, all he knows is Faith in the God Emperor and to Obey Your Lord Captain.

You can ask him to die but you can't ask him to read.

As a grunt, he cannot negotiate with any natives he encounters. The RT speaks with the Emperor's voice and can rain death from the stars. The grunt has no authority at all. All he has is a lasgun and he will try to deal with every problem with it. If your RT persists in sending mooks to do the job of heroes then expect lots of lost opportunities. Try dangling one complete STC, now irreparably destroyed because some grunt used a satchel charge near it.

If you give your RT problems/opportunities that can be solved/seized simply with simply brute firepower, then they have every reason to solve/seize it with brute firepower. Give them problems/opportunities that require negotiation, diplomacy, dishonesty, cunning, finesse or at least first hand presence.

(WARNING: IDEA NOT PLAYTESTED. YMMV.)
You might also try to track the general morale of the grunts using an approximation of the TT's LD rating. The majority will be average LD7. The RT's personal retinue might be LD8 and a good Command check bumps it up 1 or rallied it to it starting value. Casualties reduce LD until it breaks.
Crappy leadership and high casualties should incur PF and ship crew Population/Morale penalties.

LD:

5 - Unsteady/Cowardly - will break and run when the shooting starts
6 - Unreliable/Green - mostly ineffective in combat
7 - Trained/Disciplined - steady in combat
8 - Veteran/Hardened - aggressive
9 - Elite - crack units that will fight to the death if the RT commands it.
10 - Fearless -

Wouldn't the troops you take with you have a Morale that is reflected by the overall crew morale? How will this effect their performance?

I tend to go with the idea that taking too many peeps with you brings too many eyes to see things, and too many mouths to repeat what they see.

Of course, if its a battle, you take troops with you. If its investigating a strange xenos signal, it might be best to only take the party and three or four heavies to back you up. Get in-Get out sort of thing. Same with a Smash-and-Grab operation= get in fast, get what you want, get out. Too many peeps can get in the way and cause collateral damage you might not want.

When you get right down to it, I discourage my players from taking too many with them, primarily because the Inquisition might be spying on you, just waiting for a chance to immolate you.

Besides, do you want 100 of your crew seeing you playing around with Halo devices or dealing with Stryxis? What happens when you decide that a small colony is sitting on a treasure of some sort and all you have to do is vaporize them to collect it? Even if you are the voice of the Emperor, if it gets back that you are exterminating His subjects for profit, this might be a bad thing.

Nope, best to go as small as possible IMHO. Battle go big, everything else, go small.

Another thought= Do your troops receive better "hazard" pay for being placed in harms way? I do not see how this would have an affect on overall Profit Factor, but if your troops are going into battle so that you make a profit, do they also see a part of that profit, perhaps in upgrades to quarters, better food, allowance to start a family? And if you are rewarding them, does that have an affect on how you recruit when in port such as it being well known that you are awesome, and this gives a bonus to recruitment? For that matter, does your ship morale have any affect on recruitment?

I'm having to deal with this as well. Issues would be that there is a limited supply of armsmen to go around. Most ships have familys with them as well. Most of the people on the ship will be crewment and gunners and such. There's only a small amount of actual fighting infantry. Like on modern ships with marines or wooden sailing ships with marines. Most of the people on the ships are there to maintain the ship and not to fight as infantry. Most of the marines are going to be there to protect the ship and not to go on landing parties. That being said there are still going to be small amounts of troops available for landing parties.

There's a limited amount of them. When they are gone they are gone. Acquire more. When you take particularly heavy losses you wil need to do an aquisition test to see if they become unavailable for a little bit.

The simplest way to do things is to simply work with the problem. I'm making sure they don't go overboard on the amount of helpers they bring with. I'm working on scaling up the enemies to handle the added PCs helpers. It is the solution that will take the longest to work out, but will be the most rewarding in the end I think.

Another idea to solve this problem would be to change the sort of battle scenario. So your troups will easily overwhelm that lonely villain as soon as they get him? Then change the scenario from a simple battle against the villain to a scenario in which you have to get your troops to that villain.

For example, energy barriers could suddenly arise and block your players and their troops. So your players have to find out how to switch off that energy barrier in order to get their troops to the villain – whereas they come under fire by auto-cannons. Add a time pressure: They have to do it in a special time period before the villain escapes or before something terrible happens.

As soon as the players have switched off that energy barriers, the villain will surrender or will simply be shot by the troops. As said, this scenario is not about fighting an enemy, but about how to get your fighters to the enemy.

In many cases, such an indirect fight can be more challenging and more innovative than a simple battle of one troop against another.

Graf said:

Though, again the advice arises: your enemy shouldn't be a lonely villain. They should have resources that meet or exceed those of the players, so they should have troops, ships, etc. too. Again, they should be fighting organizations, governments, and cults.

Sorry, but you've got the game all wrong. What someone needs to say to you is. This is Rogue Trader, not Warhammer 40K. Stop trying to make Rogue Trader into Warhammer 40K! The emphasis in RT is role playing...not mass army combats.

BostonEd said:

You're being silly if you think armies and military aren't part of Rogue Trader. There is a wealth of items and rules designed specifically to encourage that type of play, it is one of the focuses of the system. That doesn't mean the game should be focused on combat tactics. The focus can, and should be, centered squarely on the PCs. Their troops (which the book provides numerous rules and items for) are a tool they are free to use.

The book provides barracks, a munitorium, pods, and military vehicles. The rules provide a mechanic for mass influence and examples of how to aquire troops and equip them . It provides rules on how to easily abstract those troops and employ them efficiently

Your presenting a false dichotomy, implying that role playing precludes having armies. But that is the whole POINT of Rogue Trader, to role play powerful individuals with lots of resources at their disposal. Just abstract it out the same way you do their empire and influence.

When scenarios are prepared with the proper scale in mind there is no reason for things to get broken or bogged down by the solders at your players disposal. 95% of my games are still focused directly at my PCs and their actions and choices. The military they have aquired is just a tool, like their ship, their PF, and their items.

But I don't have to find artificial ways to constrain their freedom to utilize the resources at their disposal. It helps the game, and the flow. They feel like the powerful and influential figures they are, and act as such.