"I mean, what, as a Mature gamer, particularly attracts you about playing a Space Marine? The most I get is that it is kinda like playing one of King Arthurs Knights, or a Greek Hero IN SPACE!"

1. I like the idea of playing one of the most powerful examples of Humanity that there is (no starting out as a 1st-level nobody Fighter).
2. I like the thought that I and those like me are the thin line holding back Humanity's utter annihilation.
3. I like the complete lack of the "loot-centric" gaming that is so common in games like D&D. "Oh, look. That dead Commissar left his gun for us. Too bad the awesome, age-old weapons of destruction at my disposal are so superior they make that master-crafted weapon look like a slingshot."
4. I like the teamwork aspect, the fact that the group is much, much, MUCH stronger when working as a single well-oiled machine rather than just sending in the fighter to hold off the enemy while the wizard nukes everyone.
5. I like the fact that, unlike other PCs in 40k that frequently soil themselves at the sight of blood, a Space Marine can face the worst horrors the 40k universe can throw his way without flinching.
6. I like thinking that, with the proper planning, skills, and equipment, I can raise my very own Carnifex and one day ride him into battle. He will be named Mr. Snuggles.

Now, if only I could get one of my lazy players to run a game so I could actually PLAY a Space Marine sometime...

AluminiumWolf said:

Yeah, dude, we know. This is, like the 15th variation on that example you've done on this topic. What started out as a funny way of presenting your point of view is getting mildly annoying and completely useless.

AluminiumWolf said:

And here we disagree. A Clever Plan is one that is Clever. GM and PCs are playing together, and even if the GM has the final say, he must be fair. If the players do something he wouldn't, or hasn't thought of, but he finds it efficient or cleverly done, no matter his like or dislike of it, he should make it work. It involves rewarding cool actions (like when your Marine will jump on a tank, rip it open and kill every mofo in it), but also rewarding good roleplaying (like when the players play something else as Munchkin Marine 1, 2, 3 and 4).

It may involve some of that "bittersweet romance" you're spitting on. But it will more reasonably look like a bitter and grim story of nigh perfect soldiers who fight relentlessly against the worst horrors the galaxy holds inside, and their journey through a rotten universe that doesn't really deserves them. And it could revolve around some questions. Will the Blood Angels succumb to their curse? Will the Dark Angels f*** everything up because of their obsession? Will the Space Wolves destroy any proper planing by charging like mad beasts? Will the Black Templar continue to look at the Librarian in scorn? All these are interesting role play opportunities. You and your group don't want to play it that way? Sure you can ignore it. But let the others enjoy their games the way they want to, if you want to get that right for yourself.

AluminiumWolf said:

Yeah well you can always f*** stuff up and still not be a total **** with normal humans. Some say the greatest of all strengths is that of pity for the weaker. Think about that the next time you'll shoot an Inquisitor "because he's not as cool as I". Maybe it'll show you why some here disagree with the fact that Marines should be able to kill whatever they want, whenever they want. Being a Paragon of Mankind isn't only about killing the biggest monster, it's also about being a model. Like, a model who doesn't outright kills a guy because "he was being loud". Then again, YMMV, your games may vary, and no one tries to force you to play that. Just f***in' respect the others' choices, too.

P.S.: I love the "Mr. Snuggles" thing, buddy, keep us informed about his growth!

Stormast said:

No, here I have to agree with Mr. Wolfman. What you are suggesting is a bit of an academic truth. The practical truth however is that GMs more often than not decide whether a plan is clever or not within a few moments. Rarely a GM calls for a time-out of 10 minutes or more to think it all through. The short time span makes the decision more an intuition thing and only in a perfect world, the spontaneous reaction of the GM isn't influenced by subjective feelings, bias, etc.

AluminiumWolf has very much understood on that point how role-playing works from a player perspective. Some GMs are more objective than others though.

Stormast said:

To answer AW's question: what I find fascinating is the mixture between Über-Paladin on the one hand and cold-blooded, fascist, xenocidal murderer on the other. I'm not playing for the sake of teenage boy fantasies, those turn me rather off as unskillful in their immaturity. Might as well read Axe Cop, which I don't.

I like to keep it adult in its being over the top.

Stormast said:

This. A thousand times this.

Stormast said:

Yeah but I am coming from those Rogue Trader times where marines were also drafted from hive gangers and other most violent and psychopathic scum. Sure hypno-indoctrination takes care off a good deal of it.

But as I said above: it's seeing Marines stuck between Angels and blood-thirsty killers what makes them interesting to explore as characters in my eyes. Role-playing them only as super-professional, reasonable people might be infinitely more realistic but not half as entertaining to me personally.

Alas, I have no problem with other people creating a different interpretation of the 40K world. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Alex

Stormast said:

And...like I said: As much as AW is portraying Marine gaming as being as far from a love-in as possible, a game where the GM always simpers to your character and hands out rewards because you're awesome is pretty much that.

A touching tale of men touching genitalia under the gaming table.

I think Inquisitors,overall in the grand scheeme of things rank higher than Space Marines, especially specifically designated Ordo Xenos who are working with the DeathWatch.

On the flip side Space Marines are literally holy warriors, their loyalty and duty are in 90% of cases without question. An Inquisitor simply put would not treat them like a subordinate but more like a trusted ally, even if said Inquisitor was planning to screw them over at a later date (perhaps especially so in these cases).

As for killing an Inquisitor because of a lack of etiquette, in game terms I would smile and get on with the game and then at the end of the mission ask the PC to roll up another character....oh don't worry your previous character is safe enough so no need to expend fate points he has just been sent back to his Chapter in dishonour by the Watch Commander.

Visitor Q said:

Why do you never let us have any fun...

Because having a complete moron in the team would break the forth wall for the other players? It defies believability.

I personally can't concentrate on roleplaying an elite soldier of the finest force int he Imperium very well when there's a complete muppet in the team who should have been shot three weeks into training and is always screwing things up. It kinda spoils my immersion. Maybe I just like my Space Marines to be more elite than you do?

I dunno. I like my Marines sufficently elite that it is worth putting up with their eccentricities* as the price of having something as awesome as a Space Marine around.

If you mean I feel there should be the option to play something other than an all business SIR YES SIR professional, then yes, I support players having more choice as to how their Marine acts.

*Such as occasionally shooting an Inquisitor

Marines do not have to be 'Sir, yes, Sir!' types in order not to be inept bullying morons. There is not a Venn diagram of marine psychology that has only two aspects: Moron or guy-with-a-rod-up-his-a$$.

And in my mind, Marines are far too good to have missions [like 'bodyguard this Inquisitor'] screwed up by a moron amongst them. For all your keenness on Marines being amazing, you seem to be happy for them to be utterly inept. Look at marine training. Look how many die in competition and trial for the chance to be a marine. Look at how many die in surgery. How many more die in training and further trials. How many more die as scouts? What percentage of death-world warriors make it to be the best of the best? Don't you think that training weeds out the weak, the stupid, the utter liabilities? Don't you think that a player with such little respect for authority and so little forethougt would have got a boltshell in the face from a Chaplain long ago? Could any Navy SEAL or whatever be so cool that he can shoot the President in the face 'just because'?

Even if you (as I do) like the idea of Astartes coming from violent gangs, do you think such a loose cannon would even survive their own gang long enough to be recruited? The guy was a mortal long before he was an Astartes. Would you want a guy like that at your back on a deathworld? "Hey, what's this 300 foot long monster monster? Let's shoot it and see if more come!" Would you want a guy in your hive-gang who just opens fire on a busy marketplace "just because"?

I'm willing to accept that Space Marines can be reckless and savage, but acting like a petulant teenager? Just no. It destroys the believability of the game far too much. And far from making Astartes to look cool, it makes them look like a bunch of bumbling amateurs to allow such a liability in their midst.

Would Space Marine novels be cool if they all ran around like the Keystone Cops?

Well look, this is a roleplaying game.

It more or less comes with the territory that PCs are more random than characters in books or movies. This is improv. There are no rehersals, no script writers, no dialogue coaches, no do overs. It is all done in one take, and created by a committee.

Stiring motivation speeches arn't. Witty repartee isn't. Clever plans are thought up on the spot and are of variable quality. At least one of the players probably only wants to kill things. And communication between GM and players isn't perfect.

If we want the PCs to look cool the GM more or less has to gloss over elements of the PCs behavior and continue as if what they just said was a stiring speech the equal of Mark Antonys 'Brutus is an honorable man' bit. Or that whatever half baked scheme they have cooked up is some serious Sun Tzu ****. We must try to see what kind of effect they were hoping for and not concentrate to much on the precise details of their plans.

Bubling incompetence for comedic effect is easy in roleplaying games. Making the PCs look good takes real work from the GM.

--

And you can hardly blame the players for wanting to do a Renegade Interrupt...

What Would RenShep Do?

S/He would probably shoot them in the face mid sentence. And look good doing it.

I am curious AluminiumWolf what might lead and eccentric Space Marine to shoot a Inquisitor?

Doc Kill said:

Insistence at gunpoint on their immediate support when they have a different mission at hand.

Btw, AW: You're absolutely right about how role-playing works here. I still don't favour the completely over the top approach though.

Heroics appear greater if PCs appear to be only good to very good but then BAM! They have to accomplish the impossible - and pull it off. For great length of a session, I'm trying to make the PCs appear more human. And then when it comes to business... BAM! Epic heroics.

Alex

To be clear I am sure there are some Space Marines and perhaps whole Chapters who have little respect for the Inquisition and would be perfectly at ease with shooting one that got in the way. They would probably even get away with it most of the time.

However these Marines would not be inducted into the Deathwatch. The Deathwatch is specifically and explicitly the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Xenos. By terrible Oaths the Marines and Chapters therein have promised to pledge their support and loyalty to the Inquisitors of the Ordo Xenos.

I don't think it is the GM's job to make the PC's look cool. It is the GM's job to involve the PC's in a cool story. The PC's themselves might be pathetic scum but their role is still important to the story.

Incidentally the film 13 Assassins gives an idea of the dillemma a space marine might be faced with when the principle that he is there to protect Mankind conflicts with his direct Oaths to his Chapter or the Ordo Xenos.

AluminiumWolf said:

This is where I strongly disagree, because I think the strategy you are endorsing is ultimately 'lazy mans way out' and, in the end, takes away the players enjoyment in their own accomplishments. If the instant reaction of GM to anything and everything the players mess up is some deus-ex-machina **** it really means the players can't ever get full satisfaction for their own successes because they didn't, ultimately, achieve it on their own.

A little example from my game: PCs are just about to be airlifted from the planet when a shitload of Dark Eldar raiders pop up. The players are all feeling that they have no chance against so many, so they call down the Thundrehawk to lift them off the planet. The Thundrehawk pilot informs them that they can't see much of anything of the LZ and asks the Kill Team if it is safe. They say it is. A big, big mistake. So the Thunderhawk lands, picks up the PCs and starts to lift off, completely unaware of the raiders that are aiming their Dark Lances...

If I had opted for 'lazy way out', I would have simply forgotten the fact that the Raiders are well numerous enough and capable of downing a Thunderhawk that doesn't know they are there said, "Okay then you fly back to the Destroyer. Mission is over." I didn't. instead the Thunderhawk got shot down, the Kill Team had to really work to fight off the Raiders and finally, when they were standing literally knee-deep in raider wreck, blood and dark eldar limbs I said the mission was over. I'm pretty sure that in the end they looked MORE heroic for first failing and then overcoming the consequences of their own failure than they would have been had I opted for 'easy way out'.

Next mission had I opted for easy way out I had simply said that they evacuated and fixed the downed Thunderhawk and let them use it. I didn't so when the next mission started their Thunderhawk was still being repaired and they had to plan and execute an extremely dangerous low-orbit grav-chute landing... Which turned out as a very enjoyable scene after they successfully pulled it off regardless of all the difficulties.

I have often thought that a group of 4 or 5 PC's with enough time should be able to 'out smart' your average GM, simply because as the old saying goes two heads are better than one. Of course the GM has the benifit of knowing the meta plot, and infinite resources. However what it does mean is that PC's should be able to handle any tactical challeneges the GM throws at them. Therefore I give them very little slack with regard to planning or general content of their speeches.

With this in mind my (Dark Heresy) PC's who are not combat munchkins by any stretch have successfully dealt with,

Xenos Kill teams

Ordo Sicarius Kill teams.

Arrest, physical and mental torture and near execution by an Ordo Sicarius Inquisitor.

An Evesor Assassin

Mutant and Big mutant terrorists

Two warzones.

A deathworld

A Khorne worshipping cyborg Inquisitor

A Xenos tainted Ordo Xenos Interrogator

A Xenos Dreadnought/Robot/War construct

A fleshhound of Khorne

A haunted/chaos tainted mansion

Their own Inquisitor nearly finding out that they are consulting a traitorious Ordo Sicarius Interrogator who officially is dead but is now using them for his own sinister ends while passing little titbits of information to them.

Xenos tainted Hereteks.

Dark Age of Technology Robot Assassins.

Needless to say they never get an easy ride which is why they come back for more.......

AluminiumWolf said:

Eh? No. Not at all. The PCs look cool because they work at it. Sure: They get some cool combat narrative from the GM, but the players certainly shouldn't be made to look cool when they're acting like jackasses; drooling on their character sheets and saying 'I kill it' whenever any NPC enters the scene.

If the players have a stupid plan: It fails. Simple as. Then next time they'll have a better plan. And next time they'll feel good about it working. And they'll have learned something.

Roleplaying isn't a constant love in, and players shouldn't be made to feel that every choice they make is the right one, especially when it clearly isn't. That's just reinforcing poor play. I don't go out, play pool, tear the baize, jump four balls off the table, clout myself in the happy-sacks with the cue and then expect to be told I'm cool and I won!

Making the PCs look good is dead easy if the players engage their brains. It's only difficult if they're acting like chimps.

I don't see DW as a chance to wind back 25 years of roleplaying experience and go back to an adolesent style of play where the point is to kill as many things as possible regardless of whose side they are on. That's simply not what I want to do with my gaming time. Astartes are cool because they are hard-as-nails pan-galactic supersoldiers whose background I've been reading for 20 years, rather than because when I'm playing one the GM panders to my every action.

++++If the players have a stupid plan: It fails. Simple as.++++

Well not always. Take the second Deathwatch preview adventure. The plan there is to walk in to a miles long hiveship and hope there are never more than three genestealers in one place. This is a stupid plan, but it works because the adventure says it does. Pretty much any plan will work if the GM lets it, and any plan will fail if the GM doesn't.

A lot of the time, players cannot tell if a plan will work unless the GM tells them. So what happens is that they stand around waiting until the GM tells them how to win.

Player initiative is rare and fragile, and must be protected and encouraged at all costs.

++++Making the PCs look good is dead easy if the players engage their brains.++++

It isn't though. I've played far more games where the players make jokes about how inept their characters are than where it is long remembered what slick operators they were.

AluminiumWolf said:

There's stupid and then there's STUPID. The adventure plan is one part desperation combined with two parts logic. The Imperial forces know that the majority of Tyranids are down on the planet trying to overrun it. The boarding action is a risky venture since there could be a huge force waiting to chomp the Kill-team immediately, but the possible benefits outweigh the risks.

Now compare that to a STUPID plan. Say a Devastator is standing guard on a hill while the rest of his team investigates a bunker. A Hive Tyrant, four Carnifexes, and a few thousand Hormagaunts come strolling by. The Devastator decides to charge the enemy with his chainsword.

Now that's a stupid plan.

The GM can give away hints to indicate if the team is being smart or suicidal. That's where skills like Tactics and NPCs come in.

Player initiative is great, but it shouldn't be catered to above all else.

AluminiumWolf said:

One of my gaming groups' most fondly remembered sessions (not DW) featured a plan that went spectacularly wrong because we forgot that we needed to set up torches for visibility for the plan to work. The GM noticed this and pointedly did not point out our mistake before it was too late. We still laugh about it to this day.

On the other hand, the sessions immediately following that one had us execute the tightest plan we'd ever done, with very little prodding from the GM. I think there's a balance that can be struck here.

Lex1nat0r said:

You see that is exactly what I don't consider fitting for Deathwatch, where Deathwatch is different from other RPGs. Same with the story of the players forgetting to notify that the LZ wasn't clear, btw.

It does make the PCs look awkward, unskillful. Now GMs normally are looking out for such blunders because they are an essential part of the role-playing game challenge they seek to provide.

In Deathwatch I handle it differently though. If a Marine (let's say not in armour) climbs a large, strong tree to observe the surroundings, he shouldn't fail. In fantasy an adventurer might roll and if he failed, he land on his bottom (or worse) and the rest of the group would chuckle at him. You can't do this to a larger-than-life, epic hero - except on very unusual circumstances (like 1 such roll per 5 missions or so). Marines do not fail mundane tasks.

Such an attitude to gaming of course has implications. So where does the challenge come from? It comes from the planning and strategizing, it comes from the big picture. And it comes from those enemies who are an actual challenge to them (huge hordes or elite or master-tier enemies who are epic monsters in and of themselves... run one of them against a Rank 1 DH cell (no don't)).

Marines don't fall when climbing trees. Marines don't need to make swimming tests unless they are trying to swim against crazy currents. Marines do not need to test when jumping unless trying crazy distances. Marines do not fail mundane taks unless the GM ordains a rare test to remind the players that they are very, very good but not quite infallible.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Well, for the most part, that's their problem - I'm not going to run around covering up for my players' mistakes and poor decisions.

That said, I'm not beyond providing hints to them if they pass appropriate knowledge tests (or even an intelligence test); there is, afterall, a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge.

ak-73 said:

Given that the 40kRP system as a whole assumes that character actions pass unless they're inherently difficult or significant (and the character is capable of attempting the task in the first place), I don't see how this is any different to the rules as written. You're just working to the presumption that the game doesn't work that way already.

ak-73 said:

Unless the situation is of dramatic significance and/or inherently challenging

ak-73 said:

Here's where we differ significantly. Space Marines in my view can't swim in full power armour - the armour is too heavy, so they sink instead. When confronted with large masses of water, a Space Marine will either wade, or he'll walk along the bottom.

ak-73 said:

The system as a whole is built that way - Acolytes, Throne Agents and Explorers don't fail mundane tasks unless the situation is sufficiently dangerous/difficult/etc to warrant a test.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Cannot approve enough. Been there, and it totally kicks asses to have your squad coming out of the water to open fire (let's just say Bolter are waterproof ) on some unsuspecting heretics. Totally the awesome feel. No need to randomly shoot an Inquisitor on the way.

++++(let's just say Bolter are waterproof )++++

Don't forget the special supercavitating 'PIRANHA' bolts designed for underwater combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

I feel certain that there is a floatation/propulsion pack available for marine armour that enables Marines to engage in proper SCUBA battles.

--

++++ I'm not going to run around covering up for my players' mistakes and poor decisions.++++

Well, don't then wonder why they view their characters more as figures of fun than heroes of legend. Or complain that they don't take the initiative more often, instead sitting around waiting for you to spoonfeed them the plot.

Look, I don't think it is vastly out of line to say that a Space Marine GM should be looking to make his players feel as awesome as possible, and I don't think it is wrong to say that this takes a certain amount of compromise.

I remember playing a scenario where the PC's put in a rediculous amount of planning into stopping a mutant assasination attempt on some random Imperial noble. It got to the point where the only thing I could say to give them a challenge was 'So did you remember to put on your seatbelts?'

They hadn't......

As for making Space Marines look awsome I don't see why the GM has to that. Space Marines already have everything to make themselves awesome. if the PC's screw that up then why should the GM make them look better.

And for that matter the idea that space marines are John Rambo meets the Terminator is only specific to certain chapters. There are plenty of Space Marine Chapters which have a good deal of stocisim and pathos such as the Mantis Warriors or Crimson Fists. Space Marines are ultimately monks.

Awesome monks. Monks with the biggest and best crafted guns (and swords, cause swords are cool) of the Galaxy.

On that we agree, I guess. The thing is, ultimately, how do you play that with your fellow players and your GM? And the answer to that is not simple, to say the least. My interpretation is that those monks we play do embody the ideal of self-control and efficiency even though they are the toughest and strongest badasses out there. YMMV. AW'MMV