Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cps

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

989 profile views
  1. There were a few suggestions along these lines and I think this is the best way to go. They may well choose to go full-Saw, but having seen the movie they'll definitely understand there are some things the Rebellion simply can't endorse. The F&D player doesn't seem to have too many qualms about going dark side so this campaign may turn into them becoming rogue anti-Empire terrorists. Thanks for the input everyone! This is dark as frak and I'm definitely not doing this.
  2. I've got a party made up of 2 greenhorn roleplayers. One is a F&D character whose mission is to investigate the Jedi order and revive it. The other is a AoR character, and so doesn't have a Morality score. The AoR player seems to be falling into the new player trap of assuming every antagonist thrown their way needs to die (why else would he have a gun?). Case in point, last night, our second session, the PCs are being chased by Imperial Navy troopers. They stop and fight, and win. The two minion groups were all "down" (not explicitly dead or alive, just out of the fight). So before moving on, the AoR player decides to put a blaster shot into each of them to "finish the job". Super Dark Side, right? At the end of the session I gave the F&D player 2 conflict for standing by and watching this happen. This was mostly a "this is what Conflict is and here's how it works at the end of the session" thing, but I'm worried this kind of thing is going to happen a lot. The F&D player seems more than willing to accept non-lethal solutions to things but the AoR is shaping up to be a classic "kill all the things" player. Given he's not a Force user, there's no immediate, mechanical way to discourage this kind of behavior. It seems a little outside the spirit of the rules for a non-force user to be the group's guy-who-does-things-paragons-can't, but at the same time I don't really want to generate intra-party tension by giving Conflict for another character's choices. Am I making too much of this? Was this an appropriate use of Conflict? Our next session has a lot of potential for more of this so I'll need a game plan for how to handle it (we're doing the AoR rulebook adventure, assaulting the bridge of M226).
  3. They're brand new to RPGs so I don't really want to add any additional overhead (they just upgraded to full character sheets from the abridged pregens ones I had given them). I also don't want to run a GMNPC because that can detract from their spotlight time. I was planning on one of the compartment things on the ship being a prisoner container holding some rebels (either as a primary mission objective or coincidence) and letting them direct the prisoners to create distractions and otherwise handle larger fights "off camera" while they make for the bridge.
  4. Last weekend I ran the F&D rulebook adventure with 2 of my coworkers (both total RPG newbies playing pregens I had made) and it worked pretty well. This coming weekend I plan on running the AoR adventure from the rulebook, The Perlemian Haul. Reading it, there's a lot of potential for combat with not much in the way of downtime in between. It seems to be written for 3-5 players, which is basically Hard Mode for just 2. What changes should I make to alter the balance here? I was thinking just cutting minion soak/wounds in half. Maybe be super liberal with boost die? It seems kind of ridiculous to have them kick in the door to the barracks on a secret Imperial freighter to fight, like, 3 stormtroopers.
  5. Am I just blind or is the core book not in there?
  6. I think a lot of these kinds of issues arise from players and the GM being on different pages. In a case like this, as a GM, I'd pause and say something like, "btw this is super dangerous and if you fail you're burning a fate point or it's game over man" just to be absolutely clear what the stakes are. Especially with players who don't know you or how you run your game or exactly how the themes of 40k play out it's really easy to have this miscommunication. A lot of games nowadays have the PCs as superheroes but 40k is still just a step up from fantasy f-ing vietnam and relying on players to simply "pick up" on how the GM is running things is just asking to fall into this trap.
  7. There's a difference between being challenging and being adversarial and people have a different threshold. This is why communicating with your players about how you intend to run the game is so important. Nobody likes being surprised with "Oh you failed the test? You fall to your death, see you next session with a new character." Setting expectations at the start goes a long way to maintaining harmony in a group.
  8. My preferred way of running DH is the way the writers wrote the show Lost, which was flying by the seat of their pants. I start with an interesting idea and see where the players take it, so my campaign ideas aren't fully fleshed out plotlines. They're more like opening vignettes to pulp mystery. And like Lost, each session I aim to answer one burning question and ask two more in the process (love or hate the show, they did an amazing job keeping people hooked doing this). A couple I've been wanting to use: - The PCs are tasked with stealing a corpse, given almost no information other than where it is being kept. Upon discovering it, they find that the body is covered in wards tattoos - it is a fully prepared daemonhost vessel. Why does the Inquisitor want this stolen? Are they keeping it out of someone else's hands? Or do they have darker aims. Why not simply destroy it? - The PCs are shown a video recording of a successful daemon exorcism (a very rare occurrence!). The subject is a child, and survives. The Inquisitor performing the rite is on record as saying they're positive the daemon was destroyed during the ritual. But now, 20 years later, a daemon has been active nearby... a daemon with the same name as the one 'destroyed' back then. Was the original Inquisitor lying? Might the original victim have information? These both have a lot of open threads the players can tug on and leave a lot of room to be reactive to the conclusions they come to about what's really going on.
  9. ThenDoctor you missed the reddest of flags! This demands some explanation. OP is bad and you should feel bad for writing it.
  10. I think the Inquisitorial factions would serve well for this. They all have secret agendas and projects that conflict with one another. If you don't have it, the DH1 supplement Radical's Handbook has loads of great info on them. It's been a while since I looked at it but I think Disciples of the Dark Gods has more, as well.
  11. I've already sort of migrated off the FFG forums for my 40kRPG fix, but I expect interest in the system to stagnate. Honestly, it's been stagnating for a good while. Elsewhere we've toyed with using other systems to run 40k games but nothing really quite fits or garners enough interest. Personally, I still have a shelf full of unexplored (meaning, not brought up in a game) material, so if I ever do come back to it I've got 'new' stuff.
  12. If you want that mix of aptitudes you'd have a lot better chance, I'd guess, lobbying the GM to allow players to simply choose aptitudes, rather than presenting a very counter-intuitive and rules-lawyer-y interpretation of the exact order of operations of character creation that benefits exactly 1 person at the table.
  13. Admittedly I have no source for this but I was under the impression it was GW who pulled the license, not FFG who opted not to renew. Anyone have ideas one way or the other?
  • Create New...