+++++Sounds fun to me +++++

Emperor protect us from GMs...

I punished a very cocky psyker in my group but he's a psyker and they are easy to put back down. So far the others are behaving really good.
You really need to let players know where their character's stand and that they cannot just pull stunts because they work for the Inquisition. As time progresses and they go up in ranks they'll get more authority but as soons as they mess it up they'll get punished accordingly and not in any material way but thing will just get harder for them. If they swing their "badge" around somewhere people will remember them and some less savory elements will take interest...

+++++You really need to let players know where their character's stand and that they cannot just pull stunts because they work for the Inquisition.+++++

Why?

Because they are not Inquisitors.

While the FBI have authority to arrest governors for corruption, such things happen by order from appropriately high up in the chain of command. You don't see "street agents" apprehending governors on their own initiative, or commandeering planes because they need to get to Dallas real quick.

They can do what they want, of course, but if there are no predictable and somewhat logical consequenses to their actions it's not really a sci-fi RPG anymore, but a happy-fantasy-mighty-heroes-story-telling session. To each his own, I suppose

sci-fi RPG ---------> happy-fantasy-mighty-heroes-story-telling session

Which of these more closely resembles 40k? :0-)

--

I think it instructive to ponder how a situation would play out if the PC/NPC roles were reversed - say, for instance, a PC arbiter arrest, strips and throws in jail a team of NPC inquisition operatives. If your GM sense is telling you that immediatly eversor assasins leap out of the woodwork to keep them uppety players in their place, I suggest something has gone wrong somewhere.

Dezmond said:

Well, most of the fluff from the 40K setting concerns Inquisitors (Eisenhorn, Ravenor) or mighty heroes like Cain. Not the low-down street judges and lowly acolytes. I do appreciate the point (and the humour), but there is a difference between an Inquisitor and an Acolyte.

Dezmond said:

True.

In the example above, it would depend on the circumstances. But I think in most situations the agents would come along to the station and try to discreetly identify themselves, suggesting the PC talk to his boss. "Talk to my boss. Or have your boss talk to my boss. He'll sort this matter out". If the investigator did not carry an ID, he can still try to suggest calling his Inquisitor. After all, making false claims of working for the =I= is a capital offence

Only in the situation where the =I= were cracking down publicly would the NPCs in this scenario publicly use their authority to keep them uppety players in their place.

In my game. But then I run Dark Heresy as an undercover investigation game, not as a heroic wargame.

Other things to look at is that once they start tossing around their Inquisitorial might it would certainly make covert investigation much more difficult. Who says the quartermaster they demanded explosives from isn't part of the conspiracy? If the people you are investigating realize that the Imperium has sent their 'big guns' on their trail, what is to stop them from asking for reinforcements? Or better yet, simply packing up and leaving? The look on the players' faces as they burst into the DH version of Al Capone's (empty) Vault should be priceless. In effect, they will start expecting the Spanish Inquisition. One or two instances of these and their Inquisitor might simply fire them, or worse.

Dezmond said:

For the same reason Eisenhorn didn't go running in guns blazing unless he had to, because over time he learned that sometimes you catch more flies with honey then vinager. You have to remember that in the 40k universe while the Inquisition isn't a homogenious organization, but a back stabbing group of powermongers. Go ahead and have your alcolytes arrest that planetary governor, but as a GM you have to remember that the planetary govenor didn't get there by being elected by a happy populus, but got there by stepping over the backs of his enemies, and by using his friends, quite possibly very power friends. Do you really suddenly want to go up against some Archbishop of the Ministorium? How about another Inquisitor?

Same with the dregs of society. Go ahead and throw your seals around at that crime lord who is the true power of the mid-level hab of some hive city. Just don't feel too sad when you're walking down some dark alley and a sniper takes your character out. Must have been the heretics, couldn't have been the crime lord... nope... never... again these people are those who would sell their own mother for a grape, do you honestly think they care about some low level flunky whose boss even thinks are expendable. Hell their Inquisitor probably won't even create an investigation to find out what happened.

Plus like said before, the more you publically demand attention to your inquisitorial seal, the more public attention your going to get, which is going to lead back to those you are tracking, or hell those who you don't even know exist but think you may be coming after them. Personally, if I was a heretic, and I start hearing rumors about Inquisitor Alcolytes running around, I start looking for either a bolt hole, or a way to use a bolter on them. Again these are people who generally want the destruction and corruption of all humanity, do you honestl ythink they'd even blink an eye to blow up an entire hab area to kill 4 or 5 people.

Inquisitors can get away with it. They can commendeer entire battlefleets to blockage worlds, then go down with entire militant arms of their Ordos and wipe out entire cities if they feel the need. You're characters aren't Inquisitors, but Alcolytes. Go ahead and requisition that entire battlefleet, but then be prepared to explain to your inquisitor why they battlefleet isn't supporting that crusade like it should be... even Inquisitors like crusades. Go ahead and requisition that Ordo Militant... but since they have very, very, VERY high connections in the Inquisition, be prepared to explain to some very powerful members of the Inquisition why lowely Alcolytes thought the need to do so.

Oh and that Hab block you wiped out, bet you didn't know that one of the people living there was a cousin of a Interrogator in service to a very powerful Inquisitor, and that the Interrogator is a possiblility for INquisitor in the next 5 years or so. Or that noble you arrested is the second cousin of Lord Hax himself. Hmm, bet you didn't know that either. Guess how long your survival rate is now.

And those are just small examples of why you shouldn't be doing it.

For the same reason Eisenhorn didn't go running in guns blazing unless he had to

Eisenhorn is merely one example of an Inquisitor, and he's far from typical. Some Inquisitors will actually prefer heavy-handed methods and their acolyte cells will thus be given the authority needed to act in such a manner. I'd imagine the price of screwing up is pretty high with such Inquisitors, so it's a mixed blessing.

I don't know why so many people seem to have such knee-jerk "You're doing it wrong - so stop!" reactions to hardline and obvious door-kicking gaming with Dark Heresy. I'm sure such acolytes exist in the universe, so what's wrong with portraying them?

I think it is related to a unfortunate form of puritanism whereby if someone want to do something it is automatically bad. Self flagellation and denial of enjoyment are thus seen as somehow more noble and worthy.

HappyDaze said:

I have said in previous posts that if that's how a GM and the party wants to run a show, then go for it. I have said there isn't anything wrong with it at all, if that's the kind of fun the GM and party wants. In this case it doesn't seem to be the type of game the GM wants to run, making it wrong for his style of game... as GM.

In fact there is a Inquisitor in the rulebook that goes in guns blazing, burning entire towns down and placing them all on trial to see if their heretics. For me the difference is that the inquisitor has already proven himself, has the political pull to do things like that, and his disappearance is going to set bells ringing in the Inquisition causing more to come and check on him if he disappears. Even if they don't he has years and years of experience and has tons and tons of super cool stuff to protect him from the assassins if they do come making him a hard kill.

Alcolytes have no poltical pull, no fall back, and are expendable. The enemy knows this, so they would have no problems wiping out alcolyte groups without even blinking, knowing that the chances of them being investigated again are slim to none. Its not wrong, just not very believable that a bunch of no-name alcolytes are going to be able to work that way without any kind of consequences occuring, with no one with more political pull than them doing nothing about it, and no assassin being able to kill their unoutfitted selves.

But again there is nothing wrong with running a game like that if that's the style the GM wants to run, which in this case obviously is NOT the case, making it wrong for his style of game.

Dezmond said:

uh-huh... and where do you get this from? Obviously the GM isn't having fun having his group run roughshod over his adventures, and if the GM isn't having fun, then yes it is bad, since we all do this for our own enjoyment, so if someone else is dening him the enjoyment of the game he wants to run, then it is bad.

So, he has two options, give in to how his party wants to play, or find a way to curb them in. In this case he's asking how to reign them in, in which we're giving him advice on how to approach it, making your very psychological assumption false to the extremes.

Dezmond said:

1) It's much harder to design challenging adventures if the PCs can constant just pull out their ID's. It closes off a lot of great plot ideas.

2) Nearly every adventure for DH, and most of the DH material assume that the PCs are under cover for most of the time.

3) What cultist in his right mind would stick around when the guys waving their big =][= around come to town.

Note this is not to say when the time is right the PCs weren't kicking down doors in storm trooper armor with hellguns/boltguns in hand. I'm actually quite generous with the equipment, and money as a GM. This is the Inquisition. You don't need to buy your own gear, or fence stolen goods to fund your missions. In my games the main limit is that you can be runnning around with your good gear while under cover.

As to what fun was the initial adventure where they were stripped of everything, and thrown in jail. The players were upset at 1st, but in the end their initial trials made for a greater challenge. Sure it's fun to whip the =][= and have every one bowing and scrapping, but it gets boring. It's a lot more fun to have break into a data-crypt Ocean 11 style (well okay more Pink Panther style with their rolls..) than to just flash some paperwork....

I like the old Jaq Draco novel (one of the first GW books which I still have!)

Jaq is on a hive world following his own investigation on the quiet while another more "direct" Inquisitor carries out a clensing of a genestealer infestation.

Jaq only flashes to =][= when he needs to use the governers telepath.

My players are old shool and had the sense from day one to keep their heads low lest someone decide to take them off.

Think on the side of the heretics, if a group of agents land and starts swinging the lead arround, taking them out from the dark may tip off the inquisitor there is something going on, but gives you plenty of time (maybe even years) to move on, or re-structure things, or even just speed your plans up. If carried out carefully the Inquisition may not even suspect anything is wrong, after all its a dangerous old world out there.

If you want to teach them a lesson on subtlty, have them "flash the badge" and then realise the Cult is much more powerfull then they realised as they are arrested, Kangaroo Courted and executed all nice and clean for trumped up charges the inquisition would not question. Its an old film staple for the deep dark american south. Good guys pile up, local sherrif wants to keep things as it is so he removes them in such a way no one will question, afterall he's the "official good guy" right? :-).

You can either use that as the start of your main plot (ie How do you get out of this with the players painted as the bad guys?) or as a "Unit Wipe Out" so the players are forced into new characters and a real nasty wake up call..... Trust me, they wont do it again without serious thought!

IMHO it is up to the GM to define what the game is all about - he or she know their players and what will and will not work........?

Written DHeresy adventures are as described but you could easily look at having more "straightforward" adventures - more Kill team style - perhaps the ones that get called in to the deal with the Cults others have found, or exploring Space Hulks, or hunting Genestealers in the sewers etc etc.

Both sneaky and direct (and a combination of both) are possible - the important thing is players know what sort of game they are taking part in - fot those unfamialir (or indeed overely famialir) with the 40K universe this can be difficult.

I would seriously contend there is no "right" way to play..........................apart from having fun

Dalnor Surloc said:

I fully agree with this, for us it's more fun as well but hey if you like the "kick in the door"-style nobody prevents you from playing that way. It's a game after all and it's meant to be fun for the people who play it.
My group sometimes gets extreme action, like a full-blown raid on a heretical noble's mansion, as a reward for a long undercover operation.

I've said it before, two games with the same group don't need to be the same, so you can play with the same players, same group and same game, but with a different feel dependant upon what your after!

The key is to enjoy, but people sometimes forget both the players AND the GM should enjoy it, its a collaberative effort, some people see things as "Them and Us" with the GM and player fighting against each other.... but its both sides working together for fun. If the players and running rough shod over the GM's expectations, thats fine to a point (We all had games where the GM's plan gets scrapped as the players out think you! Buggers!) but not at the cost of the entertainment for all concerned.

Obviously from his message the GM here is not happy and is looking for advice as a new GM on how he could handle it, thats what we are doing, suggesting advice! :-)