AluminiumWolf said:

Yes: It was a dreadful premise; especially for Rank 1 marines. It made for an epic introductory adventure, but was paper-thin premise-wise.

Player initiative rare? Not that I've seen. Most of the people I've ever gamed with have had plenty. I really don't see it as a rare resource. And you only improve by challenging yourself. Wrapping the players in cotton wool and protecting them with carebears who say "Yay! You win" regardless of the player's plan is not nurturing creativity and initiative, but crushing it. Players who come up with stupid plans will only ever come up with stupid plans if their stupid plans always work. Heck: Even smart players will stop trying if they come to realise that the GM is going to say "Yay! You win!" regardless of their plan. And then they loose interest, because they can't loose.

The idea that rewarding poor planning nurtures it is simply not a realistic one.

It is. Players referencing past deeds is not true reference material. There are plenty of times in games where players look cool and do great things that they never really speak about again. This is because it's generally considered rude and crass to sit around and say 'I was amazing back then', coupled with the fact that saying 'I was amazing back then in that game of let's pretend' is generally considered a bit sad. Referring to humour however is a far more fun conversation, it's amusing, and it's socially acceptable. Heck: I drive cars fast for kicks, but when I sit around with other drivers we talk about the times when we crashed or made asses of ourselves far more often than when we were awesome. That doesn't mean that we all suck, or that we didn't enjoy the great moments more than the humiliating defeats. Basically: The kind of player who sits around remembering how awesome they were in a game and telling everyone is generally considered boorish, so gamers with social skills generally don't.

"And then I rolled a six and a four and that opened up Australia to me!"...

If you're aiming for a game where players will -in five years- sit around and recount how great they were at length, you're either going to be disappointed, or have very dull friends. Being amazing in a game is great, and those memories last, but they aren't normally the part that gets talked about.

Plus of coursE: Players have to be slick operators to remember it. You earn your rewards. Having victory handed to you on a plate by the GM after all deciding to do something stupid is not really very satisfactory.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This. Marines don't fall down trees when there's no real point for it to happen. Nobody is stating otherwise. Automatic success on routine and minor tasks doesn't really have a bearing on whether the GM is challenging you or spoon-feeding you victory with a nice blended baby-food-like texture.

Bolters have better be waterproof! The whole point of the 'space marine' is to be a 'go anywhere, fight anywhere' soldier. Be that hard vacuum, waterworlds, high pressure, high grav, whatever. Astartes equipment should be able to survive pretty much any environment.

AluminiumWolf said:

Erm.. have you interviewed them?

My players are challenged constantly and never spoon-fed, yet they don't consider their marines inept in any way and don't make stupid choices. They don't sit there waiting for plot, and always take the initiative. What you're saying simply isn't true. And if your players are like the way you've tried to paint mine, then . I'm genuinely sorry for you.

Likewise, my players don't sit there like lemons and consider themselves 'heroes of legend' when they didn't have to work for it. Making players feel as awesome as possible isn't about giving players stuff for free. It's about making them work hard for those heroic victories, because that's what makes it great.

Is winning a race against a guy with one leg a victory? Even if you have people cheering you at the end, it's hollow and pointless.

Unless that one leg is actually a tank tread and he's a Soul Grinder on his way to ambushing a secret Inquisition meeting. AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DEATHWATCH

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That's a matter of taste. I prefer to remind my DW players (doesn't go for other RPGs, particularly not Cyberpunk) of the more obvious glitches their character very likely wouldn't make. I might not do this a critical point sometime, it's not a guarantee. You see, it's part of the epic theme. And should I ever not remind them, the trouble they'll be in will also be epic most likely.

No accounting for taste.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

It seems to me as if it's the same system as DH, except the PCs have a 10% higher success right on average (not counting for having more trained skills to start with).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Exactly.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

No, we're in agreement. I was rather thinking of Brothers Of The Snake here.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Countless of DH cells have made a thoroughly experience in practice, I can assure. In fact, the prevalent DH experience is one of Rank1 Failcolytes. If what you say is true, FFG has been communicating this poorly.

Alex

Visitor Q said:

You see my covering up for a number of my players more obvious blunders is to make the DW experience more distinct from other RPGs. Here you have a group of 25+ years RPG vets. They have seen about it all. The standard mode of operation is that the GM does not cover up for their mistakes (which goes twice if I am the GM in a cyberpunk campaign setting).

But by the mere fact that I am helping out on those occasions I can convey to the players the special status. You help them out (cover up their blunders) 2 or 3 times and they listen up. Hey, what's that? We don't have to go in great detail through micromanagement of our plans, unlike in his Shadowrun or Cyberpunk campaigns? Hey, there is something special about these guys.

It stands out to RPG vets. I only hope they don't think they can neglect micromanagement of their plans because one day, as mentioned it'll cause them to be in epic trouble, and I'll just keep throwing stuff at them and watch them stack their incredible marine abilities to try to dig themselves out of the hole.

When it comes to Marines, make it epic.

Alex

AluminiumWolf said:

I'll break my normal rule of not responding to you to deal with this point.

I won't wonder about that, or make those complaints. I don't need to - my players are perfectly happy with the capabilities they have without needing me to fluff their egoes. They feel quite legendary enough as it is without your particular style of gaming being foisted upon them, and they're more than capable of throwing themselves into the action of their own volition.

Perhaps there's something wrong with the way you're playing the game (or not, because I honestly doubt that you actually play - you seem much more the sort to lurk around forums telling people that their fun is wrong) if your players need perpetual reassurance of how awesome their characters are and can't face more than the most pitiful of challenges without the GM arbitrarily simplifying things.

ak-73 said:

Well, the rules on taking tests (and not needing to test to perform simple/mundane actions) are right there in the rulebook (indeed, in all of the rulebooks), as they have been ever since its original release under Black Industries.

The fact that far too many people seem entirely oblivious to it is their problem (and the cause of many tiresome rules debates), given that it's right there in plain sight.

And I'm pretty sure that there are a couple of words missing in the first sentence of yours that I've quoted.

As for GM hand-holding... I simply can't agree there. My players are experienced enough roleplayers to know that my aim is to give them a serious challenge (subscribing to the Joss Whedon school of storytelling - if a character isn't facing his own personal hell, then he's not doing anything interesting), and while I'll employ things like the Tactics and Lore skills to provide them with clues, hints and insights as a matter of in-character knowledge, I'm not going to let them off easy when it comes to their decision-making. A plan succeeds or fails based on its execution, and my group know what they're doing well enough to have performed a 30-second assassination mission against a Tyranid Prime (no, really - they dropped from the transport ship straight into the fight, cut down the Prime and half of its accompanying Warriors, withdrew into a defensive perimeter long enough for the Apothecary to harvest gene-samples from the Prime, and then left in the circling transport before the bulk of the swarm had been able to retaliate... all in five rounds of combat, without any prompting, hints or aid from me).

I believe Dulahan on RPG.net said it best.

++++Yeah, as it is again something that requires a GM to not be lazy and actually give bonuses. And every one of the GMs I've played the game with were very much standard gaming GMs, very rarely giving bonuses, but constantly giving penalties. And even with bonuses the fact an average character might still fail more than 50% of the time in their best skills was just ridiculous!++++

I don't think I speak out of turn when I say that this is something that will likely be addressed in a second edition.

Certainly it could be a selling point - Dark Heresy, now with 30% less fail!

--

I dunno. Can you give an example of a time they got in to a fight that wasn't a one sided beat down? Cause it get really tiring always having to ambush an enemy who isn't expecting it.

Cause thats what playing smart means - always be careful, never take on a fight you might lose. If there is a choice between standing in the middle of a street with an armed man facing you or hiding in a dark alley with a shotgun and shooting someone in the back you take the latter option.

Its... tiring. Some times you don't want to think things through. You want to make bold actions, be reckless, or take on overwhelming odds. I mean, this is a roleplaying game so you are probably going to win anyway, but the difference in the fiction is important.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Which is an ironic remark in the light of the tone of your more recent posts here.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

And that is exactly an attitude to not have to customers. Or, if you have it, to not state it to their face, at least.

If the majority of customers do not properly understand a rule, then the rule hasn't been conveyed properly.

There is no way of getting around that one, sorry, anything else would be disrespectful, not to say arrogant. Re-read the above rule, for as long as it takes for it to commit it to memory. Then read on.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

If you ever have any trouble to understand the meaning of something I am trying to convey, feel free to send me a note.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

We've had plenty enough of those games in Twilight:2000, Shadowrun, and many more systems I am sure. Special Forces gaming, whether in the 40K world or not, is an old hat. Both to me and my players.

In my game world the Astartes are more than that. And part of that is that I let an overall sound plan and execution succeed if there is a minor glitch that might have caused the whole thing to unravel in a different game setting.

Alex

There is letting small stuff slide and then there's just hand-holding the party to keep them from ever being challenged. If the team forgets to requisition Hellfire Rounds for the mission to take out the Hive Tyrant, tough for them. If they forget to have the Techmarine check the oil on the Thunderhawk's #2 engine before taking off, I think that's the sort of thing a GM can just hand-wave away.

Now, in the first example above, I'd probably have the team make some sort of Lore, Tactics, or even Logic tests to remind them that they might need those rounds. And if they weren't familiar with the system, I'd make a suggestion they check the special ammo out carefully since that's something their characters should know.

Brand said:

Weapon load-out is a good example. I don't want the challenge to be remembring that there is Hellfire rounds (they'll think of that anyway). The challenge should rather be a proper mix of adequate weaponry. So let's say they fight the nids and all buy Hellfire rounds. What if they end up having to 1st generation Hybrids IG-equivalents, meched up? Their hellfire will be plinging off the horde's Leman Russ tank.

So the challenge will be rather correct anticipation instead of micro-management. It's the big picture that counts for them here.

Alex

I think what I resent most is the requirement to be so bloody careful all the time.

Tap every flagstone with a 10' pole before you stand on it. Never sit with your back to the door. Never take off your armour. Conduct extensive reconnaissance before you do anything. Every action requires a long planning meeting and logistic work. Don't mouth off to NPC lest they put you in your place.

Freewheeling space adventure it isn't.

Where are you pulling these ideas about other people's games? I really despise the term, but you are just erecting straw men. Nobody has said they run games like that. All the prior posters have said 'actually, I cut players a lot of slack in this game, and generally assume they can do things right', so you're just making up this absurd 10' pole fallacy.

I'm never going to ask my DW players about door breaching protocol, or if they checked their firearms over, because that's taken as read with their level of competence. Heck: It's not even the subject of what we're talking about. What we're talking about is players making stupid choices and if it's ok to then pat them on the back and reward them and pretend that their deliberate choices and plans weren't stupid, or if players should be challenged and made to think and work for their victories.

And playing smart doesn't mean never attacking from anything other than ambush or going into a fight that you might loose. DW characters are competent right out of the box, which allows a good degree of confidence and flexibility in planning. It becomes possible to say 'You move up the drainage ditch, silently kill every sentry and get in position, then start laying down fire and kill all the gate guards. We'll rush the gates under cover of blind grenades, blow the gates with meltabombs and clear out the fifty guys in there before taking the bastion and allowing you to move up and catch up by climbing the 30m wall.'

Playing a space marine is all about having the skill-set to make a decent plan work, even if it's ballsy and over-confident compared to what you'd do in other games, rather than about trusting the GM to let you win regardless of what you do because 'I am uber'. Indeed: Playing high-power characters means obscenely difficult foes to face, and that's utterly devalued if the PCs always overcome them by nothing other than GM fiat.

Siranui said:

In fairness I am a bit like this as a Dark Heresy GM...but not Death Watch.

I admit that if a team of Space Marines are from the Flesh Tearers, Minotaurs or oeven the space wolves they might, in character rush into battle headlong playing in character, and the GM should take this into account when writing the adventure. But once the adventure is rolling then I don't think the GM should just be making things easy for the Pc's for the sake of it. In fact I would almost go so far as to say that my PC's actually want their character brought to the edge of hell but battle through anyway....that is how a legend is formed!

There is a fine line between GM assisting when its for the good of the story and setting and hand-holding. The intro to Deathwatch says that these guys are not normal man, they are like heroes of Troy. Well, the point is that if you read Iliad and Odyssey you quickly notice that the heroes of Troy sometimes actually make terrible plans, sometimes they fail, sometimes they fail horribly, sometimes they die... Failing doesn't make them "unheroic". Actually, failing, then picking up their game and struggling against terrible odds and then prevailing is what makes them Heroes. If they didn't fail from time to time they wouldn't be so heroic. If they didn't mess their things up and get into impossible situations where they MUST be heroic to survive, they wouldn't be heroes. So its okay for Space Marines to do stupid things and fail and not get spirited away from problem by the invisible hand of GM, instead having to fight every inch of the way to the light.

If GM is such a Space Marine fanboy that he can't allow the PCs ever fail so that his precious Space Marines wouldn't look "uncool" then he shouldn't be GM in this game. Because what he is REALLY doing while protecting to "coolness" of his precious Space Marines is watering down the whole setting and, by extension, making the Space Marines less heroic.

In this thread: people talking past each other.

Alex

See, if a Space Marine is alone and faced with a charging wall of Orks, he could fall back, lead them in to bottlenecks, make traps ect.

But another kind of Marine might walk out in front of the xeno scum, brandish his ax and shout 'BEASTS! WHO IS FIRST TO DIE!'

(Especially if he is channelling:-

++++Camouflage is the colour of fear... I have no need to hide from my foes... I have no fear of death. My colours I wear openly, they proclaim louder than any words, "I am proud to live - I am proud to die".++++)

Both of these plans are viable, depending on who is writing the story.

You could run the first as a series of skill checks, and the latter as a series of single combats against a chain of Orks of increasing size who step forward to meet the challenge.

The GM has a lot of leyway when it comes to deciding how a story will go - is this the kind of game where taking off your helmet means you get immediately headshotted by a sniper, or is it the kind of game where leaving your helmet on makes you one of the faceless masses whose name will never be remembered?

Are you playing Black Hawk Down Space Marine Edition or 300 Space Marine Edition? (Or Dragon Ball Z SMEd)

And the players will be signalling what kind of game they are looking for - if they react with hostility to a difficult Inquisitor, they probably want the kind of game where they are nobodies *****. And hey, we can write that game.

Are you playing Black Hawk Down Space Marine Edition or 300 Space Marine Edition?

It's clear that you're advocating the 300 approach, but what's funny is that the Spartans were all killed while Delta Force and the others in BHD completed their mission and got their buddies out, alive or dead. I'm not saying I want to play BHD, but it's a lot more attractive thought than running a suicide mission over and over.

If you want epic campaigns, build 'em. I'm coming from a long experience with Exalted, so I'm very familiar with the PCs being awesome types that can change the fate of the world on a whim. For me, that doesn't excuse them acting like idiots. If they do something big, or stupid, there will be consequences, good or bad. Nothing is set in stone, and it's up to the players to determine their fate.

I guess it boils down to this. If you want free license to murder agents of the Emperor, you need to roll up a Chaos Space Marine or try out Black Crusade. Or play Star Wars, I guess.

Just my take on the matter.

++++and it's up to the players to determine their fate.++++

Well no, like I say it is largely up to the GM to decide their fate because he is the one who traditionally decides what kind of story this is.

With a wave of his wand he can say that offing an inquisitor is no big deal. There is nothing you can't justify if you put your mind to it.

I'm not gonna lie - Americas Army in space is totally not what I am looking for in a Space Marine game. SERGEANT OF THE MASTER SERGANTS MOST IMPORTANT PERSON OF EXTREME SERGEANTS TO THE MAX!, no thank you. That is the wrong kind of macho bull.

But, like, I dunno, you don't HAVE to do anything. It's fluid. You can tell any kind of story you want. This is great power. Use it for good.

AluminiumWolf said:

And that, I think, is the right note to end this thread on. Thank you, good night.

Me? I'm gonna go roll some dice.

AluminiumWolf said:

But it shouldn't be. The game is not about GM and his personal fantasies either. The GM has a great responsibility because he is in effect acting as the senses and memory of characters, but it shouldn't be GMs sole right to decide what should and what should not happen. Also I kind of disagree with your comparison of Black Hawk Down and 300. When I run games the Space Marines are professionals and act like it, but are also proud of it. Many of them act on the battlefield as professionals who know what they do and feel they can ignore orders at times ("This is my safety"). They are also bad ass mofos who can stand against army of millions if need be (Thermopylae style). They can make mistakes ("We have a balkhawk down!") or die (the end scenes of 300).

To me your "lets off the Inquisitor, he annoys me" doesn't read like 300 at all. After all Leonidas killed the ENEMY ambassadors. Guys who had come to conquer his home. In Deathwatch setting that would be Tau, Orks, Tyranids, Eldar and myriad other xenos. He didn't slaughter the senate, the priest and **** the oracle just because they all said no to his plan.

Here's my two cents to get back to the original post:

I actually used this type of scenario as a plot thread -- the space marines were the bodyguard and the inquisitor led them into a tense diplomatic situation (Ridiculously outgunned by the Tau), then she purposely had herself poisoned by her own assassin Throne Agent (to appear dead). The Inquisitors motivation was to lead the players to action and create a misunderstanding on purpose, predicting their behavior based on the patterns from their previous missions. Her goal was ultimately to either cause the tragic (and heroic) death of the squad or to cause the squad to chase down an erstwhile shapechanging assassin amongst the Tau (in pursuit of her "killer").

My question of the GM in the scenario from the OP is this: if you were the "bodyguard" of the Inquisitor why didn't she just press on doing her mission and force you to high tail it after her in order to complete your mission? Presumably your sworn duty as a bodyguard is to PREVENT her death and your honor as a space marine/DW would COMPEL you to action. Therefore if she says "I'm going to do this dangerous thing" you have two choices: quit as her bodyguard (betraying your oath of duty to the empire, and ultimately being condemned as a coward) or follow along behind her keeping her safe (possibly grumbling about it subtly as you go). I left out one other possible choice - you could commit seppuku and take a chain sword to your own gut (as a form of protest).

Unless your intent in this game was to run a bunch of oathbreaking space marines who turn to Chaos. in which case you jumped the gun on Black Crusade.

Later days player,

Fim

fimarach said:

I think the blood of the primarch is more valuable than that for most marines. That'd be like pointing your blade towards the shogun.

Alex

Stormast said:

Smoothlier...

I realize that after 10 pages of thread I'm likely not going to convince anyone but here is my thoughts.

A significant reason for the Horus Heresy was Space Marines refusing to accept "civilian" or mortal authority. If the kill-team takes the stance that "We are the blood of the emperor, no mortal can nay-say us." Any superior with a sense of history might clamp down on that hard. As others have said much of what will go on will depend on the kill teams orders, but as a general rule if an inquisitor is on a mission they have the highest rank present.

Now having said that even within that authority space marines and deathwatch have their own and unique latitude to decide how to go about their mission as given to them. Now if that mission is "help the inquisitor accomplish their goals" your varying degrees of stuck.

As others have covered, fragging an inquisitor is a very bag thing and "he mouthed off to me" isn't going to cover it. Think of the Deathwatch as the inquisition's younger brother, if either sibling goes to the parents or even an older sibling with trivial crap instead of shoveling the driveway there's going to be problems. My stance as a player would be to grit my teeth, politely correct the inquisitor and then work to get the mission done as quickly and painlessly as possible, I believe as a general rule space marines, including the deathwatch don't go against Inquisitors lightly, hypnoconditioning is a hell of a thing. There is and should be a certain amount of warrior pride but a proud honorable space marine doesn't frag an inquisitor just because he hurt their feelings.

Also and lastly: I agree with the point that the Inquisition is primarily a meritocracy and produces some of the best and most powerful specimens the imperium has to offer on par with Astartes but with far more political and authoritive power. Having said that I worked closely with extremely high ranking military people in the past at the Major Command level (1 to 4 stars) and it takes all types, there are some leaders that are polite and respectful even to their juniors, some that are pure assholes, and some that switch based on how things are currently going (had one General officer who shall remain nameless call me a lazy ashhole and a genius in the same session).

As one last cool story bro element I have just recently started running a DW campaign and just introduced my first inquisitor who was on scene when the players got to ther mission area. He very politely and very firmly told them that helping him accomplish his mission was now their first priority (a reprioritization of their tasks, not necissarily a full on derailment of their mission) intimated that they were not told of his presence because of the potential for the transmision being compromised, and showed them why they should take him seriously (he had a hive tyrant under sedation he needed to teleport off planet). All the while making them aware that there was somethign very not right about him. (He's a blank and as a side effect he irritates the crap out of people without them realizing why even though he goes out of his way to be polite and humble to try and counteract this). It establish authority, it established, legitimacy, it established friction. One of my players still wants to frag the guy.