RichH said:

The solution is simple. Don't play a psyker. It's a part of the universe, psykers are hated by almost everyone and sometimes things go really bad. If you're going to play a character who is prone to accidents that maim, kill and otherwise mess upp other people by mistake some hostility is to be expected, it's up to the player to first determine if this is something he wants to play and second try to disarm the situation peacefully when it does happen.

Necrozius said:

I can see where that would be disappointing.

However, that is why:

1) a psyker should be careful about when and how he uses his powers;

2) by not pushing the envelope (always use invocation, use the minimum power dice you need, take talents that help, etc.) and taking care a subtle psyker can greatly reduce chances of phenomena;

3) any character can be killed by some bad dice rolls or unlucky situation, being a psyker just adds one more potential bad roll situation.

There's always the option of doing what one of the psykers in one of my games did. He showed the other acolytes his sanctioning brand then said "Look I'm a sanctioned psyker, some weird **** might happen from time to time when I draw on the immaterium. Some of it may look pretty scary or damned strange. Just don't shoot me unless I actually hurt you." This little speech bought him a lot more slack from the twitchy trigger-happy acolytes in the group than any other psyker ever got.

It just depends how serious you want your game.

The Psyker rules as written with the ridiculously high chance of something "really bad" happening, coupled with the IIUP which could have come straight out of the RPG Paranoia give you a very tongue-in-cheek game.

Simplest bandaid to toss on the problem, let Psykers spend Fate points to counteract Perils. Hell since summoning Daemonhosts could affect the whole party, let someone else pay a point to stop it if the Psyker is out.

If you actually think that the whole Skill-test/RAW thing is a valid argument, please go toss yourself in a woodchipper.

RichH said:

DocIII said:

This is just a matter of personal preference. For example, I tend to side with Rich. The PC's are the main characters in a story. To me, that means they are special, lucky (have fate points), and are the individuals worth telling a story about, just like the protagonists in a novel. In my book, being a good roleplayer, like being a good storyteller, requires balancing being true to your character with creating a good story and all the players having a good time. I get very irritated on either side of the table when someone uses "but my character would do it!" as an excuse for being a jerk to their fellow players. The flip side of course being that the GM has to be even-handed enough to prevent "but I want to!" from becoming a good reason to let someone get away with something.

But that, as I said, is a matter of personal preference. I think what IS important is that you know what your stance as a GM on this is, and clearly communicate it to your players.

DocIII said:

Those are excellent ideas and we did exactly that. My psyker even had code words for her different powers, to that when she was about to turn on her "TERRIFY" minor power, her fellow Acolytes wouldn't look at her.

However, that did not stop this from happening:

Before a mission even started, the Assassin in our group asked my Psyker to use her "Call Item" power. This was so that she could summon up his compact las pistol in case the party was going to get disarmed (which was a strong possibility due to our mission briefing).

My Psyker took an hour to set up an invocation ritual. She used Logic to get a bonus on her Common Lore (imperial Creed) test, which, in turn, gives her a bonus on her Invocation roll (see Inquisitor's Handbook).

Despite all of the preparation time, this happened:

1. Rolled a 9 for the power roll (RAW, you HAVE to roll at least one die).

2. Rolled on the Manifestations table. Got a result of 80. Aw crap.

3. Re-rolled using the Talent "Favoured by the Warp". Rolled 90. CRAP.

4. Used a Fate Point to roll again (this is breaking the rules, but we really didn't want something bad to happen). Got 80-something.

5. On the next table, rolled up Mass Possession.

Mission ended before it even started.

I'll never play a psyker again!

That's the price you pay to get around airport security.

Necrozius said:

All too common, which is why the DH Perils system is going to become an RPG cliche, fodder for the webcomics.

DocIII said:

That's a very good point. I believe that the police in most countries, and even ordinary citizens, have extended authority in emergency situations like that of a crime in progress. Self-defense rules usually also cover the defense of other citizens in current danger, and so you would be allowed to use violence against a mugger trying to rob an old lady, or stopping a ****, etc. Even if you hold no authority over the same person in other situations, and use of force against him would be punishable by law.

In the 40K setting, servants of the Imperium that go on a killing spree are clearly no longer walking the path of the Emperor, and should be stopped immediately. I doubt that any authority would complain (unless the subject was an important person of some kind).

However, to be fair, that is not the issue I brought up. If the psycher has turned against the Inquisition and the acolytes, that is one thing. The situation I brought up is whether the other acolytes have the right to execute the psycher after the fact, based on their ill-informed and misguided beliefs as to what is "normal" when it comes to Warpcraft.

DocIII said:

Neither have I, but perhaps they ought to?

I know I would like to know the limits and extents of my authority if I was sent on missions for some secret government organization.

Darth Smeg said:

If your Inquisitor knows he has a bunch of ill-informed possible trigger happy threats to his property, he could always have the forethought to explicitly tell them it's not in their authority. True, many of them aren't like to take guesses at whether or not they are allowed to do something if no one has said anything. But if their boss explicitly drew attention to it? Has worked pretty well in my game, anyway.

One of the things I like about Dark Heresy is that the GM has an in game mouthpiece for behaviorial edicts.

Hot topic.

It's very simple: Players killing another player are bad for the group. Psychers would not be playable if the designers didn't want yout to have them IN A GROUP. Common sense. (which is lacking in gaming in general these days, especially if they come from online gaming.) But that's another thread.

To the topic, I'd take your 'ignoant' guardsman player to the side and ask him beforehand: "Is this really what you want to do? Because there will be a consequence...for the entire party." Let's say Captain Ignorant does it still. I'd have any remaining acolytes assembled after the mission was comppete. Perhaps a few interorgations, psychic probes.

Inquisitor: "I see from the reports and from key interogations...er witnesses, that my sanctioned psycher was killed by your own hands. You are hearby to be used as servitors. There is no further need of you as you clearly are incompetant, unable to perform your duties and a waste fo further resources. Sentance to be carried out immedialty. Now you shall serve the imperium without the mess."

Now all the players have to re-do thier characters. I see it as only fitting if they are willing to kill another player 'just because'. It's like the tech-Adept killing a guardsman because his weapon jammed or overloaded because he tapped it the wrong way (heresy to the tech priest?). Ir perhaps the Cleric killed off the adept because he spurted off some heretical reading off a dataslate for a sentance. (more heresy.) Does that really make sense? No. Until they get the message that you don't kill off another player because of thier game mechanics at the first miss-roll, they won't be functioning as a whole. Perils of the warp are thier for flavour and for the risk of having an extra oomph compared to other characters, not to make them player killer fodder.

On a side note the Inquisitor does have the ability and authority to kill anyone he sees as having been fully dammed in his eyes. (Read the profiles for the knonw Inquisitors in the Calix Saector in the main book again. They kill with impunity.) Just as a guard commissar can kill any soldier who they deem acting in cowerdice or treasonous ways. (Colonel-Commissar Gaunt being a slight exception to one who doesn't do this luckily.) That being said the acolytes don't have the power to kill off thier own members while they are fully in control of thier own functions. Thier power is dereived only form thier inquisitor and as fellows, they have no say on on each others abilities as to what is right or wrong. They live and die only at thier Inquisitors whim.

Anyone who says otherwise should stop having a psycher in thier group, because they will never get it and why they are not supposed to be killed by fellow players just because of a bad roll. And let's see how far they fare without one in the long run. Player killing in group-orientated roleplaying games is counter to what this is all about.

If killing other players is your thing, go play Warhammer 40K with single units or stick your characters in an arena for the entire game and duke it out for enternity. *sighs* Yes I feel strongly against players who kill another in these games. I had a fellow player who did this in D&D with some pyscho paladin and we booted him out of the group immediatly afterwards. And I have never ever, seen anyone who plays the Warhammer fantasy roleplay vesion (the wizard) be killed off by thier party because he fumbled a perils roll either.

Something else to be fixed in V2.0...

Darth Smeg said:

And you also brought up the issue that most PCs are not going to know enough about psychic powers to tell. Not only that, they are often going to be misinformed about the dangers of the psyker, imperial culture is saturated with hatred for psykers, often from official sources. The uplifting primer, for example, gives clear orders to execute any psyker who behaves oddly or is without a three man guard on the spot.

Another interesting thing some countries have is that it's perfectly allright to be wrong. If they honestly thought the psyker was dangerous it could well be enough to act on, one does not need to posess perfect knowledge to stop apparant danger.

Solardream: I can't find a single coherent argument in there that's not a variation on "It's not fun for the player so setting and role playing be damned". Why don't you play in some setting where everyone likes eachother instead of playing a psyker in a setting which has witchburnings? You know, don't play a character that is going to be subject to a lot of unfounded hostility if you don't want to be the subject of a lot of unfounded hostility.

There is a certain class of player, I call them jerks, though a far ruder a more accurate name exists, who look for excuses to kill other people's characters. They may do it because they are setting purists. They may do it because it's probably what their character's would do. In all cases, they are looking out for their own enjoyment and no one else's. They don't care that it's no fun having your character killed with no chance of escape. They are going to do it, and the setting doesn't matter.

"WHAT? Heresy!" Bolter round to the brain pan.

"WHAT? Traitor to the Rebellion!" Blaster round to the back.

"WHAT? Anarch sentiment!" Shape-shifted vampire claws through the torso.

"WHAT? Traitor to the Coalition!" Giant robot cannon to the face.

It happens time and time again. The only solution besides banning the player, is to make it clear to everyone that everyone else is at the table to have fun, and you are not just playing for your own enjoyment. It is everyones responsibility to make the game enjoyable for everyone else.

"It's not fun for the player so setting and role playing be damned".

Couldn't put it better myself.

So far, I'm completely and firmly aboard Doc's boat in this discussion.

I don't think the thing here, as many are catching on to, is really about other PC's killing psyker PC's and how in-line or not in-line with the setting and game such actions are. After all, with 40k, there are about as twice many interpretations about what the setting is and isn't as there are people who know about the 40k setting. This seems to really be all about simple PC on PC violence, no matter who the PC's are and what their reasons for the violence is.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of gamers, GM's , and games for that matter, mature and not-so-mature. Mature role-playing dose not necessarily reference a games chock full of adult situations and strong sexual content but the ability for those participating to not only have a definite separation between their egos and their characters but to also understand that it's all just a leisure time game. In a mature game, one PC can kill another and not ruin the game or another's good time, it just takes mature players to do such.

Before opening fire on another PC, a simple and sincere out of game apology for the actions your character is about to take possibly with a quick explanation as to why can go a long way. That will not only help the other player understand why your character's part in the story has to be played out trying to kill their character, but may also reveal meta-game holes in your thinking or decision that you may not have been aware of. If such a hole dose exist, it an be pointed out, a few actions can be retconned in a quick rewind and the situation is avoided because it never should have happened. If, however, attacking or trying to kill another PC is a logical and reasonable end result of actions and consequences, then, in a mature game, it should continue.

If you succeed in hurting, hampering, or otherwise screwing their character up for a bit, then it would, however, behoove the player of the attacking PC to sincerely apologize and possibly get them a beer. If you ended up killing a character that they really enjoyed playing, then you definitely owe them a case of beer at the very least, and not a cheep domestic, I'm talking the good stuff.

In other shorter words, in a mature game, if a player's character would do it, then that character should do it but the player should not be a jerk about it. Likewise, in a mature game, the character on the receiving end of the PvP should also understand that such actions were fitting for the characters in question and thus for the story and should not be a sore-sport about it. A mature player is able to consider the group and the story and what is best for both above and beyond them selves and their own character.

Know your game and know your group. If they are mature, there shouldn't be a problem. If not, then there should be a good bit of meta-gaming to insure ego's aren't bruised and tantrums aren't thrown.

Finally, on psykers specifically, any player who chooses to play one should know the gamble. Once informed about the dangers of playing one (both socially and mechanically), if they still push on, they can't ***** if it all blows up no matter what they intended for the character. It would be like loosing all your money in a casino and then accusing the casino of theft. You knew the risks but you still decided to gamble.

Graver said:

Actually, I agree with you. I've sort of changed my mind about the matter.

That being said, I think that this train of thought could easily apply to ANY character created for this game.

From now on, anytime I'll introduce a player to Dark Heresy, I'll make sure that they know that the genre is one of paranoia and probable inter-party conflict. So many chances to be accused of heresy, even by your own team members!

It can be a nasty surprise to those more used to the more traditional party of adventurers.

To sum up: Psykers are like Juicers in Rifts: powerful but short lived.

Dezmond said:

The point is, Dezmond, that the player should play something that he thinks is fun to play that fits within the setting and the playstyle of the rest of the group, not that it should be boring. Why not go for a setting everyone agrees is more fun, how about BrightHammer40k if NOBLEBRIGHT suits you better than GRIMDARK?

The point is that hostility towards psykers are part of the setting, what's the point of having a setting if it's just going to get tossed out as soon as one player objects to something?

Commisar executed your guardsman for disobeying orders? Nuh Uh, he gives you a hug, more fun.

Necrozius said:

One of my favorite quotes from 1d4chan's 40k page:

"At some point 'heresy' was reinvented by the Imperium as a blanket term to cover every single act a human being could possibly commit for good or for worse that any amoral Imperial Official subjectively deems as counter to the interests of the Imperium/whoever is in charge. Disagreeing with this treatment of heresy is not only heresy, but probably treason. Treason is heresy. Heresy is punishable by death."

Graver said:

I really want to read an epic story about a Cleric vs. a Tech Priest vs. a Commissar, all accusing each other of heresy/treason in different ways. Like a mexican stand off.

Graspar said:

Yes, exactly - it is the challenge of the game designer to produce a setting and rules which are fun to interact with.

Mature is knowing that killing another players PC is going to piss them off and getting over ones self to not do it.

I want to say playing pretend that you can be Mature about it and grin and bear it when you know that is a goddam lie is just so adolescent, but this is a roleplaying forum - we all like dress up.

Mature Mature Mature Mature Mature.

Mature.

Mature.

True maturity is knowing yourself well enough to say what you think instead of hiding behind ego buffing untruths - if you wanna grief someone grief them - don't hide behind It Is What My Character Would Do.

There you go again. You really can't understand that some people enjoy different playstyles than you, can you? "They say something I find boring is fun. LIARS."

Play it as you like Dezmond, from a setting perspective psykers are going to have a hard time but there's no point in arguing with you once you get to the "liars" stage. Actually, if you know what you want out of the game there's no point in arguing at all. I'm just saying that I enjoy playing this way and that the setting more than supports it.

Well, Dark Heresy is an example of game design based on, if not outright lies then surely the way people wished things were.

It is now time to fix it. Removing perils of the warp, aka, The Game Breaker, is part of it.

Then more potent PCs and more action.

--

Case of beer. Yeah right. Pull the other one - its got boltgun shells on it.

Yes, you've said that ad naseum. People don't agree with you, it's not lies. Do as you like.

I have to ask, do you have some disability or something? You seem utterly unable to understand that other people don't all think exactly like you.

So the beer thing really works? You have seen it? Done it?

Didn't think so.

So, how are we gonna fix the rules and setting so it doesn't f*** up games?

No, we don't do the beer part. We do however have plenty of infighting, sometimes with lethal force, without hard feelings.

Guess why? Because it can be FUN.

End of discussion. I'm not lying and I refuse to bang my head against this particular brick wall again.