I've recently gotten involved with my first experience in pen and paper roleplaying games and am running into some difficulties. My kind-hearted GM is doing their best with our group but I could use some outside input. Our Rogue Trader retinue is a fairly fractured bunch and we all have our own goals and motivations for characterful and not-so-characterful actions. I've built what I consider an interesting backstory but my out-of-game knowledge of the possibilities that RT characters have get in the way of a meaningful in-game experience. Any constructive criticism or advice?

Well, first you have to tell us what you've already got

As in, what advice have I recieved? or do you want specifics to the situation?

Err I don't think you actually said *or made clear* what you want help on. What do you want advice on, how to get the party less fractional?

Certainly! That, and any advice that pertains to maintaining characterful decisions (no unintentional power gaming) and a ways to help keep the party on course. We have a mildly disturbing habit of leading revolutions, counter-revolutions, and all manner of shenanigans aboard our void-faring vessel and I feel like we often throw our GM into unknown territory where improvisation is demanded and away from any pre-established plot points.

The best thing is to have a sit down with the other players and the Gm and discuss what you want out of the game. Some prefer more linear adventures, while others enjoy the near limitless freedom a roleplaying game can offer. Most Gm's fall somewhere in between. Me personally have over 20 years of Gm'ing experience, and I'm still not comfortable with to much improvisation, but that suits our group fine since they are mostly there to feel powerful and experience being the heroes of a story as opposed to creating their own story.

You have to ask your Gm about what kind of playstyle he feels comfortable with. If he prefers a more linear game and you (the players) prefer a more free-roaming, sandbox game, maybe you should try to find some middle ground? I know Rogue trader lends itself pretty well to this sort of gaming. The adventures in Lure of the expanse is a pretty good example on a scenario that's both plot driven but also sandboxy'. If you haven't played that, maybe you should suggest this scenario to your Gm (or better yet, buy it to him as a gift).

As for the min-maxing thing. I have found that reading only the fluff parts of the character background generation, and make your choices from what you think is interesting rather than what makes you cheesed out and platonic, helps in defining a character. Although min-maxing does not necessitate a bad character in any way, after all you want your character to be effective at what he does. If the Gm has a problem challenging you he should amp up the encounters a bit, maybe throw in an extra opponent or two. The Gm could also limit what kind of character choices he wants in his campaign if there are some choices he thinks is ill suited to the kind of game he wants to run.

Uncle Screwtape said:

Sounds like any group ever.

As far as party cohesion goes I have a rule when I DM in D&D that is pretty much "No Evil characters" because they always clash with the rest of the party. In the case of an RT campaign I'd say the rule should be "The party needs have the same core motivations". I know that in theory it can be interesting to have a group with a variety of goals and clashing ideals but in terms of actual fun experienced during the game it is really decreased by infighting within the party.

Void Born said:

I agree that a core motivation driving them forward can be important - but infighting can be incredibly fun and add much to a session. A game I am running has a Dark Elf PC in it. She submits to our RT, but is constantly planning to murder him and steal away with his most prized relics in their 'down time', and has indeed almost managed to do so several times. He knows she wants him dead, as do the other members of his team. She knows they know. But innocence is always feigned and accepted by all involved because each gains more from the other than it is worth to lose them. It's a weird but incredible party dynamic to have somebody helping you one day, then trying to cut your throat the next.

I'm guessing by Dark Elf you mean Dark Eldar? I dunno I guess it could be fun but just from my personal experience it seems like if the clash between players is too great the game tends to screech to a halt. Of course it all depends on the maturity of the players in the end and if it's working for your group then kudos!

In my experience what works best to give sparks of conflict without igniting the party into autodestruction is to have characters that agre on the objective but differs on the way to reach it.