Questions about 40K RPG "Turn mechanics"

[Cmdr Shepard]

Greeting Brother and Sisters,

I recently decided to make my first steps into 40K RPG universe and I ordered Rogue Trader and Black Crusade which, if all goes as planned, should both arrive on Monday.

 

In the meantime I gave a glimpse to the free tutorials found on FFG site (I'm getting very curious) and I'm a little confused about the mechanics of a turn of play.

The tutorials mention mention the Turn of combat and it's all fine with it. My question is: are there other turns and what do the characters do in them?

 

For example is there a turn/phase where the characters move, the NPCs took their positions, you explore the enviroment etc?

 

Thanks for your help. I'm really new to 40K RPG, so sorry if my questions seem a little strange ;)

[blackoption]

The rule books give numerous examples on how the turn mechanic works, but I will attempt to paraphrase.

 

a single turn (in combat/structured time) is approximately a six second interval. Characters take their turn in initiative order (higher initatives and agilities going first).  Each action (which are listed in the book) can be any of the following: Free action, Half Action, Full action, or extended actions.

 

Free actions happen instantieously and further actions are allowed (I.E. dropping a weapon)

Half actions are the most common. (drawing a weapon, firing a gun, moving a few steps).  Usually, you can only ever take two half actions. however, you can never take the same half action twice

Full actions take up your full turn (running, patiently aiming a gun, spraying a target with many rounds).

Extended actions are items that take longer then one turn to do (reading the inscription of a chaos text for a ritual as inquistorial agents attempt to stop the daemon summoning....)

[Cmdr Shepard]

The rule books give numerous examples on how the turn mechanic works, but I will attempt to paraphrase.

 

a single turn (in combat/structured time) is approximately a six second interval. Characters take their turn in initiative order (higher initatives and agilities going first).  Each action (which are listed in the book) can be any of the following: Free action, Half Action, Full action, or extended actions.

 

Free actions happen instantieously and further actions are allowed (I.E. dropping a weapon)

Half actions are the most common. (drawing a weapon, firing a gun, moving a few steps).  Usually, you can only ever take two half actions. however, you can never take the same half action twice

Full actions take up your full turn (running, patiently aiming a gun, spraying a target with many rounds).

Extended actions are items that take longer then one turn to do (reading the inscription of a chaos text for a ritual as inquistorial agents attempt to stop the daemon summoning....)

 

Thank you. The tutorials were a little confusing on the matter and I was so curious I couldn't wait till Monday...;) Thanks again.

[blackoption]

No problem.  I GM'd a campaign for 18 months (including a 5 month break for a deployment) using deathwatch as my core rule book. Each system is slightly different, so if you intend to cross games, the GM is going to have to determine exactly which rules variation to use. 

[Cmdr Shepard]

No problem.  I GM'd a campaign for 18 months (including a 5 month break for a deployment) using deathwatch as my core rule book. Each system is slightly different, so if you intend to cross games, the GM is going to have to determine exactly which rules variation to use. 

 

I think for the first matches I should keep the systems separated; untill I gain more confidence with their mechanics. The idea to cross them is very interesting and I thought about it the very time I decided to start my 40K RPG journey. However I think for now I have to gain confidence with each system.

 

Just few more questions:

Is it possible to accept additional player after the campaign started? For example I start a campaign with two of my friends and then another person show intereset for the game. Could  a new player join the campaign without compromising balance etc? Also at what level should they start? 

 

Last question: Would be problematic for a player to control more than a character? As I mentioned my current group is a very small one and I'd like to have the chance to see more classes around. However I don't know if the game mechanics will make this too complicated for beginners. 

 

Thank you again for your advices....

[Karack Blackstone]

Just to cover the bases...

 

Turn: Highest Init is the top, 0 is technically the bottom, 1 the lowest most can get to.

 

say, 20.  Count down to 0, going with the Initiative rolled plus the person's Agi bonus; this is their Init score.  If above 20, just adjust, and count down; each person goes at their total, with ties going to the higher Agi total, not just bonus.  If there's a further tie, roll off.

 

Adding another is just giving or getting the total XP awarded thus far, adjusted as you, likely, the GM sees or deems fit.

 

Anyone able to handle more than one character, if they can show you they are able, is fine.  Those not used to gaming a great deal, or without a good amount of experience at gaming, should not do so.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Just to cover the bases...

 

Turn: Highest Init is the top, 0 is technically the bottom, 1 the lowest most can get to.

 

say, 20.  Count down to 0, going with the Initiative rolled plus the person's Agi bonus; this is their Init score.  If above 20, just adjust, and count down; each person goes at their total, with ties going to the higher Agi total, not just bonus.  If there's a further tie, roll off.

 

Adding another is just giving or getting the total XP awarded thus far, adjusted as you, likely, the GM sees or deems fit.

 

Anyone able to handle more than one character, if they can show you they are able, is fine.  Those not used to gaming a great deal, or without a good amount of experience at gaming, should not do so.

 

Understood. Thanks for the info.

 

Currently the only problem I could have is the choice of the GM. The group I have is a very small one: three if one of my friends manage to find some free time or two, myself and another friend. All trusted persons so I know there won't be issues during play, which is a very good thing ;)

The problem is we don't know how to manage the GM aspect of the campaign. Since we are few and we are starting 40K RPG everyone wish to create a character of their own.

It is understandable because every of us want to create a cool character and tell his/her story. But how to deal with the GM aspect?

 

Roll for the player who act as GM or trying a slighty different approach like changing GM from session to session? Also if it is possible to make random encounters etc one of the players could controll the NPCs while he actually play character of his/her own. I know it's a strange situation; I'm just trying to find a way to make the gaming experience enjoyable for such a small group. Just a note: since, as I said, we are very trusted friends I know no one will try to get advantages or being unfair with other players. We want to use our RPG campaign as a way to create a story. I plan to post such stories here on B&C, if I'll have enough time to write them ;)

 

Anyway thank you for your assitance..

[Jareddm]

It's not strange and is actually moderately common. What you can do is make a GMPC. A character that's played by the GM and usually acts as a sort of guide, but still participates in everything. Like Gandalf from LotR. My advice would be an astropath to fill this role as theytend to have somewhat passive roles but can easily be used to disseminate information to the other players. While you could rotate GM's it's not something I'd recommend for Rogue Trader.

 

Given your experience with RPGs my advice is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). The 40k RPGs have a lot of nuance to them and can very easily grow to seem overwhelming given how many options are available to a player or a GM and how many rules there are. Keep the story moving. If there's a rule you're not sure about, as GM make a decision, note the ruling, and move on. You can look it up later. Always remember Rule 0. The GM has the final say on everything, regardless of what a rule might say. Unlike the war game, GW isn't going to kick you out of their store if you don't use the rules as written (I've seen it happen).

 

Oh, and I disagree that adding a new player just means less xp for the party. As GM, if you suddenly get another player, just make it harder. Add some more weaker enemies, give the opposing ship a few more hull points. These things can be changed on the fly without the players needing to know.

[Cmdr Shepard]

It's not strange and is actually moderately common. What you can do is make a GMPC. A character that's played by the GM and usually acts as a sort of guide, but still participates in everything. Like Gandalf from LotR. My advice would be an astropath to fill this role as theytend to have somewhat passive roles but can easily be used to disseminate information to the other players. While you could rotate GM's it's not something I'd recommend for Rogue Trader.

 

Given your experience with RPGs my advice is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). The 40k RPGs have a lot of nuance to them and can very easily grow to seem overwhelming given how many options are available to a player or a GM and how many rules there are. Keep the story moving. If there's a rule you're not sure about, as GM make a decision, note the ruling, and move on. You can look it up later. Always remember Rule 0. The GM has the final say on everything, regardless of what a rule might say. Unlike the war game, GW isn't going to kick you out of their store if you don't use the rules as written (I've seen it happen).

 

Oh, and I disagree that adding a new player just means less xp for the party. As GM, if you suddenly get another player, just make it harder. Add some more weaker enemies, give the opposing ship a few more hull points. These things can be changed on the fly without the players needing to know.

 

You provided very useful info Jareddm!

Since I'm the one who suggested the idea of starting the RPG campaign the other players suggest me to act as GM. However I'd like to create my character as well and it's nice to read I can actually do it without ruining the game experience. Personally I'd like to play a Rogue Trader. Do you think it will a less suitable class than astropath for GMPC?

 

I strongly agree on the keep it simple approach. I suppose the rulebook and the expansion I ordered (In to the Storm) will provide the guidelines for the creation of the campaign without building it from scratch.

I'll follow your suggestion on the new players joining: they seem a good way to keep the campaign balanced but still opened to new players. For the first times I'd keep the campaign for my closest friends only, because I know they won't create issues or ruining the gaming experience when something controversial happen with rules mechanics.

 

Just one more question on game mechanics: The expansions, like In to the Storm, provide new origins/skills etc.  Does it mean when I build my character I can freely choose those from the core rulebook or those from the expansion? provided they are available since the begining of course ;)

 

I can't wait for my books to arrive. I suppose the 40K RPG community just acquired a new member. At the begginig I had a "I'm here for the fluff" attitude but the more I explore that universe the more I'm liking the game aspect... now the real problem would be to find enough time for both the tabletop and the RPG hobbies ;)

 

Anyway thank you again for all the info you are providing me....

[Jareddm]

You provided very useful info Jareddm!

Since I'm the one who suggested the idea of starting the RPG campaign the other players suggest me to act as GM. However I'd like to create my character as well and it's nice to read I can actually do it without ruining the game experience. Personally I'd like to play a Rogue Trader. Do you think it will a less suitable class than astropath for GMPC?

 

I strongly agree on the keep it simple approach. I suppose the rulebook and the expansion I ordered (In to the Storm) will provide the guidelines for the creation of the campaign without building it from scratch.

I'll follow your suggestion on the new players joining: they seem a good way to keep the campaign balanced but still opened to new players. For the first times I'd keep the campaign for my closest friends only, because I know they won't create issues or ruining the gaming experience when something controversial happen with rules mechanics.

 

Just one more question on game mechanics: The expansions, like In to the Storm, provide new origins/skills etc.  Does it mean when I build my character I can freely choose those from the core rulebook or those from the expansion? provided they are available since the begining of course

 

I can't wait for my books to arrive. I suppose the 40K RPG community just acquired a new member. At the begginig I had a "I'm here for the fluff" attitude but the more I explore that universe the more I'm liking the game aspect... now the real problem would be to find enough time for both the tabletop and the RPG hobbies

 

Anyway thank you again for all the info you are providing me....

 

Actually a rogue trader might be even better.  Rogue Trader (the game) is known for being extremely open-world for the players and a lot of GMs have difficulty keeping up with the players, as they could literally go almost anywhere at any time.  By playing the rogue trader yourself, you can set out the overall goal and pass it off as the ambition of the rogue trader.  Just be very careful about hogging the spotlight.  With three players, maybe going for a Kirk, Spock, McCoy -style set up might be best for your group.

 

Kind of.  Character creation in Rogue Trader isn't really like anything else I've seen before.  It uses a system called the origin path, in which there's a tree of connected options.  You'd start at the top row, which has home world choices.  You choose a home world,  then you can choose any of the three options below that home world.  Then the three options below that, then the three below that until you reach the bottom of the tree, which has the character classes.  Each choice along the tree gives you bonuses, talents, and skills as well as backstory that fleshes out your character.  After this, you'd have 1,000 XP to spend as you wish on options from your class's list of advances.  What Into the Storm offers is alternate choices at each level of the origin path that are stronger, or in some cases just different, but they cost some of your starting XP.

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

You provided very useful info Jareddm!

Since I'm the one who suggested the idea of starting the RPG campaign the other players suggest me to act as GM. However I'd like to create my character as well and it's nice to read I can actually do it without ruining the game experience. Personally I'd like to play a Rogue Trader. Do you think it will a less suitable class than astropath for GMPC?

 

I strongly agree on the keep it simple approach. I suppose the rulebook and the expansion I ordered (In to the Storm) will provide the guidelines for the creation of the campaign without building it from scratch.

I'll follow your suggestion on the new players joining: they seem a good way to keep the campaign balanced but still opened to new players. For the first times I'd keep the campaign for my closest friends only, because I know they won't create issues or ruining the gaming experience when something controversial happen with rules mechanics.

 

Just one more question on game mechanics: The expansions, like In to the Storm, provide new origins/skills etc.  Does it mean when I build my character I can freely choose those from the core rulebook or those from the expansion? provided they are available since the begining of course

 

I can't wait for my books to arrive. I suppose the 40K RPG community just acquired a new member. At the begginig I had a "I'm here for the fluff" attitude but the more I explore that universe the more I'm liking the game aspect... now the real problem would be to find enough time for both the tabletop and the RPG hobbies

 

Anyway thank you again for all the info you are providing me....

 

Actually a rogue trader might be even better.  Rogue Trader (the game) is known for being extremely open-world for the players and a lot of GMs have difficulty keeping up with the players, as they could literally go almost anywhere at any time.  By playing the rogue trader yourself, you can set out the overall goal and pass it off as the ambition of the rogue trader.  Just be very careful about hogging the spotlight.  With three players, maybe going for a Kirk, Spock, McCoy -style set up might be best for your group.

 

Kind of.  Character creation in Rogue Trader isn't really like anything else I've seen before.  It uses a system called the origin path, in which there's a tree of connected options.  You'd start at the top row, which has home world choices.  You choose a home world,  then you can choose any of the three options below that home world.  Then the three options below that, then the three below that until you reach the bottom of the tree, which has the character classes.  Each choice along the tree gives you bonuses, talents, and skills as well as backstory that fleshes out your character.  After this, you'd have 1,000 XP to spend as you wish on options from your class's list of advances.  What Into the Storm offers is alternate choices at each level of the origin path that are stronger, or in some cases just different, but they cost some of your starting XP.

 

Wonderful! Do you have a suggestion about the best classes for the Kirk, Spock McCoy-styled squad? ;)

Also I read something about the "origin path" (I'll have more detailed info once I get the books, hopefully on Monday ;) ) and I wonder if there are choice that would made a Rogue Trader character better. The first approach would be "choose whatever you seem to like" but I'm curious to know if some combination is better suited for a Rogue Trader character, namely it gives him bonuses more useful than others, for example.

[blackoption]

 

No problem.  I GM'd a campaign for 18 months (including a 5 month break for a deployment) using deathwatch as my core rule book. Each system is slightly different, so if you intend to cross games, the GM is going to have to determine exactly which rules variation to use. 

 

I think for the first matches I should keep the systems separated; untill I gain more confidence with their mechanics. The idea to cross them is very interesting and I thought about it the very time I decided to start my 40K RPG journey. However I think for now I have to gain confidence with each system.

 

Just few more questions:

Is it possible to accept additional player after the campaign started? For example I start a campaign with two of my friends and then another person show intereset for the game. Could  a new player join the campaign without compromising balance etc? Also at what level should they start? 

 

Last question: Would be problematic for a player to control more than a character? As I mentioned my current group is a very small one and I'd like to have the chance to see more classes around. However I don't know if the game mechanics will make this too complicated for beginners. 

 

Thank you again for your advices....

 

Sorry, I got caught up with Real Life... funny how that happens from time to time

 

It is always possible (and I would encourage) new players to join campaigns. That way, if one of the players pulls out, it does not end the session.  That is how i kept my campaign going for over a year.  But, power levels could become an issue.  My group had two solutions.

 

Initallly: everyone started at the same level.  However, some characters died at level 1 or level 2... When we roled their replacement, I kept the new characters at the same experience point level that the majority of the characters were at...

 

Until: they broke level 4.... After they broke level four, I found myself  (as the GM) in disbelief that veteran replacements were readily available (I had a fairly high body count... intentionally).  Thus I capped all incoming replacements at Lvl 3.

 

Interesting side note:  Even when I had level 6 characters... i found most of my newer players preferred starting a Rank 1 character as opposed to a rank 3. (though i did not lower the difficultly level at all)

 

As for controling more then one character.... I had a solution to this. Initially, I told my players that they could make two characters each, but that they could only choose one for any given mission (some missions were multiple sessions long) and that they need to track the history of each character separately.  I also put a group limit on specalists ranks (2 apothcaries, 2 librarians, and 3 tech marines allowed, max).  I let the players decide how they were going to break down their characters.  It worked well for my group as it allowed for players to try different rolls between missions. (For example, player one had a tactical sergeant and the 1st apothacary, player two had the first libriarian and an assault marine, player three had a devastator and a tech marine, ec)

 

In the end, the players (and their surviving characters) had alot of fun and their own deeds and history.  A few of my players even built (and rebuilt) characters as they gained honors, veterancy, equipment, and other marks of distinction (to include injuries).

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

Sorry, I got caught up with Real Life... funny how that happens from time to time

Don't worry, Brother... I really appreciate your help

 

 

It is always possible (and I would encourage) new players to join campaigns. That way, if one of the players pulls out, it does not end the session.  That is how i kept my campaign going for over a year.  But, power levels could become an issue.  My group had two solutions.

 

Initallly: everyone started at the same level.  However, some characters died at level 1 or level 2... When we roled their replacement, I kept the new characters at the same experience point level that the majority of the characters were at...

 

Until: they broke level 4.... After they broke level four, I found myself  (as the GM) in disbelief that veteran replacements were readily available (I had a fairly high body count... intentionally).  Thus I capped all incoming replacements at Lvl 3.

 

Interesting side note:  Even when I had level 6 characters... i found most of my newer players preferred starting a Rank 1 character as opposed to a rank 3. (though i did not lower the difficultly level at all)

 

So it's a "narrative approach". You decided it wouldn't be easy to find veterans replacement when you, for example, are exploring uncharted regions. It makes a lot sense. There always the option to introduce a veteran if the story allows it.. just an exceptional individual the group found.

 

 

As for controling more then one character.... I had a solution to this. Initially, I told my players that they could make two characters each, but that they could only choose one for any given mission (some missions were multiple sessions long) and that they need to track the history of each character separately.  I also put a group limit on specalists ranks (2 apothcaries, 2 librarians, and 3 tech marines allowed, max).  I let the players decide how they were going to break down their characters.  It worked well for my group as it allowed for players to try different rolls between missions. (For example, player one had a tactical sergeant and the 1st apothacary, player two had the first libriarian and an assault marine, player three had a devastator and a tech marine, ec)

 

Very interesting approach. There is also the option to give XP collected by the group as whole to every character (I'm currently playing Rogue Trader, so they would be the XP earned via exploration or similar) but the XP earned during specific missions (like fight on a planet) to those who actually joined the mission.

What do you think?

 

Than you again for your help

[blackoption]

 

 

Very interesting approach. There is also the option to give XP collected by the group as whole to every character (I'm currently playing Rogue Trader, so they would be the XP earned via exploration or similar) but the XP earned during specific missions (like fight on a planet) to those who actually joined the mission.

What do you think?

 

 

That is exactly how it worked. Some players favored one character over the spare... but when the favorite was killed... it was an emotional event.  But that is why I allowed spares.  Plus,  these players had their own little honor roll going of heroic actions in the name of the emperor...  so even in death... characters could be referenced as a role model.

 

Now... if I ever start another game like that... I'd be willing to have even more characters. But I always limit the players to one character per session, mainly to make things manageable.

 

Now... I am also tempted to allow characters at different power levels.... (example... a rogue trader/ only war game....  The rogue trader establishes the main story arch... but the guardsmen squad have to live and deal with the consquences of the ambition of said rogue trader.  It is something I want to test to see if it works.)

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

 

 

Very interesting approach. There is also the option to give XP collected by the group as whole to every character (I'm currently playing Rogue Trader, so they would be the XP earned via exploration or similar) but the XP earned during specific missions (like fight on a planet) to those who actually joined the mission.

What do you think?

 

 

That is exactly how it worked. Some players favored one character over the spare... but when the favorite was killed... it was an emotional event.  But that is why I allowed spares.  Plus,  these players had their own little honor roll going of heroic actions in the name of the emperor...  so even in death... characters could be referenced as a role model.

 

Now... if I ever start another game like that... I'd be willing to have even more characters. But I always limit the players to one character per session, mainly to make things manageable.

 

Now... I am also tempted to allow characters at different power levels.... (example... a rogue trader/ only war game....  The rogue trader establishes the main story arch... but the guardsmen squad have to live and deal with the consquences of the ambition of said rogue trader.  It is something I want to test to see if it works.)

 

Is the death of character so frequent? Reading the rulebook I noticed they can "burn" (permanently removing) a fate point to avoid death, right? That means a character with 4 Fate points can be "killed" 4 times and still play around.

I really like the "even in the death their actions shall be remembered" approach and that's exctly what I plan to do.

If I remember correctly it's the rulebook itself who suggest to import high level characters to other setting. It says once they reach level 8 they are so powerful they can lead entire crusades, for example.

A level 8 Rogue Trader would be a perfect candidate for the role of who actually command those guardsmen. Another option I'm thinking about it's an Archmilitant from RT whith a IG hystory. Since my Rogue Trader characters is an Inquisitor (or former Inquisitor) the Arch-Militant joins his expedition. When it reaches level 8 we can assume he become so famous to be granted a sort of promotion and get the command of an IG group. I don't know if it could work, though.

 

I'd like to post a "log" of my RPG experiences here on B&C. It would be a sort of "narrative battle report", if we want to use that name ;)

The stories we can tell by playing 40K RPGs are too cool to not be recorded. However I don't know if a Rogue Trader adventure will be allowed here on B&C. Personally I think it could since my Inquisitor/Rogue Trader is still fighting as a part of "armies of humanity" but I'll have to ask mods.

In the mean times I'll write some profile for the characters and the ship.

 

One last question. In order to not make the carry weight mechanics too much hindering for my begginers group I was thinking to give everyone a free backpack. What do you think?

 

Thank you very much for you advices...they are helping me greately

[blackoption]

Normally, I would say no. Character death is not that frequent.

 

However, I can be an evil GM.  I punish my characters when they make mistakes and in combat I do not pull many punches.

 

I would recommend getting comfortable as a GM before jumping power levels.  I learned using Dark Heresy campaigns.  They are pretty good at walking a novice GM/player team through the system.  Overtime, you may get your own ideas.  However,  my gaming groups tend to jump a campaign off the rails and go down where ever they please.  It takes some experience in learning how to deal with that.

 

Backpacks can be easily enough aquired... but sometimes there is challenges (and rewards) in forcing characters to closely manage their inventory.

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

Normally, I would say no. Character death is not that frequent.

 

The ability to avoid permanent death burning a fate point will keep most of them in play for long, even though the lack of fate points may be a issue. However being "fate less" is better thn being dead ;) 

 

 

I would recommend getting comfortable as a GM before jumping power levels.  I learned using Dark Heresy campaigns.  They are pretty good at walking a novice GM/player team through the system.  Overtime, you may get your own ideas.  However,  my gaming groups tend to jump a campaign off the rails and go down where ever they please.  It takes some experience in learning how to deal with that.

 

I don't plan "cross-overs" and "spin-off" for the near future. I want to become more confident with the game system before even thinking about doing it.

 

I have a question about Experience Points and Achievements Points. I know they are two differnt things but I wonder if giving an amount of XPs when the character earn Achievement points would be a good idea. I don't want to unbalance the game but the rulebook itself says XP can be granted according to the difficulty of each "mission" rather than granting them only at the end of a given session.

What do you think?

[blackoption]

I treat achievements as if they were objectives.  Each objective has a difficult value associated with it.  That difficulty value has associated experience points.

 

However, while I awarded xp mid mission (for objectives, excellent roleplaying... or effective and accurate insight by the player during a mission) I would not allow them to spend experience points until they were between missions. My reasoning is that it is hard to improve or gain new skills in a middle of a combat zone. That kind of development happens after you go through trials by fire.

 

However, for some of the more difficult and most important (narrative wise) missions, I granted either a trait, talent, or skill for the survivors of that mission.

[Cmdr Shepard]

I treat achievements as if they were objectives.  Each objective has a difficult value associated with it.  That difficulty value has associated experience points.

 

However, while I awarded xp mid mission (for objectives, excellent roleplaying... or effective and accurate insight by the player during a mission) I would not allow them to spend experience points until they were between missions. My reasoning is that it is hard to improve or gain new skills in a middle of a combat zone. That kind of development happens after you go through trials by fire.

 

However, for some of the more difficult and most important (narrative wise) missions, I granted either a trait, talent, or skill for the survivors of that mission.

 

So do you grant additional trait/talent/skill for free as an award or do you use the rules for elite advances, namely they pay for such upgrades?

 

I really like the idea of granting XP associated with the difficult level of the achievements. It's more much fun, and rewarding, than giving tot. XP after a game session.

[blackoption]

If it was a reward for a mission/campaign, I did not have the player pay for the advance for their character.

 

Regarding elite advances.  I told my players in advance, that if they wanted an elite advance, let me know and I would attempt to work it into the story arch.  (for example... one of my characters wanted to become a deathwatch champion. He told me this at Lvl 2. It becomes available at lvl 4.  I would then create personal secondary objectives for him to accomplish. I.E. protect a critical asset from harm, defeat 5 elite level opponents in duels, ect...  By the time he had reached level four, his story line matched up for someone who would be selected as a champion)

 

In my mind, elite advances are something that both characters and players should work for.

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

If it was a reward for a mission/campaign, I did not have the player pay for the advance for their character.

That would make additional or side, if you prefer the name, mission really worth to be played. I'll take inspiration from your suggestions ;)

 

 

Regarding elite advances.  I told my players in advance, that if they wanted an elite advance, let me know and I would attempt to work it into the story arch.  (for example... one of my characters wanted to become a deathwatch champion. He told me this at Lvl 2. It becomes available at lvl 4.  I would then create personal secondary objectives for him to accomplish. I.E. protect a critical asset from harm, defeat 5 elite level opponents in duels, ect...  By the time he had reached level four, his story line matched up for someone who would be selected as a champion)

 

In my mind, elite advances are something that both characters and players should work for.

So when the characters fulfilled the story arch requirement do they get the elite advance in the same way of the above scenario (namely the skill/talent/trait given as reward) or do you actually require them to pay the XP cost?

 

Thank you again for your insights on the GM aspect of the game.

[blackoption]

They still pay for the elite advance.

 

No problem.  I don't mind helping another GM out every now and then.

[Cmdr Shepard]

They still pay for the elite advance.

 

No problem.  I don't mind helping another GM out every now and then.

 

I'm still new to the role, and to 40K RPG as well, so any help is immensely useful. My small group will be ready soon... The only thing I still need is a cool name for my Rogue Trader. I don't know why every time I have to choose a name for my "main" characters (even when I give a name to my 40K minis) I get hypercritical about the "coolness" of the names themselves...it only happens with names and only with the "main" charatcers...it's quite strange indeed ;)

[blackoption]

Then I would say you are going about the naming characters the wrong way.  Names gain meaning with each accomplishment (both triumph and failure) that they reach for.  A name like Churchill, Patton, and Rommell all have meanings that transcend just the way the letters line up.  Names can also change... again as a person grows.

 

Come up with the character, but give him a basic name at first.  Then give him a history.  The basic name is the ones his friends and close peers may use, but once his accomplishments are laid out before you, a GM can determine a more formal name then.

 

For your main character... start off simple.  You'll be surprised how quickly a name can grow.

 

But, if all else fails... just name your Rogue Trader Kirk.  (Riker can also work well as a rouge trade dynasty... but then again, I grew up with startrek)

 

One other bits of advice....  do not be afraid to let humor slip into your game.  If the game becomes too serious, many will start viewing playing it as a chore.  Each group will interject humor differently

[Cmdr Shepard]

Then I would say you are going about the naming characters the wrong way.  Names gain meaning with each accomplishment (both triumph and failure) that they reach for.  A name like Churchill, Patton, and Rommell all have meanings that transcend just the way the letters line up.  Names can also change... again as a person grows.

 

Come up with the character, but give him a basic name at first.  Then give him a history.  The basic name is the ones his friends and close peers may use, but once his accomplishments are laid out before you, a GM can determine a more formal name then.

 

For your main character... start off simple.  You'll be surprised how quickly a name can grow.

 

But, if all else fails... just name your Rogue Trader Kirk.  (Riker can also work well as a rouge trade dynasty... but then again, I grew up with startrek)

 

One other bits of advice....  do not be afraid to let humor slip into your game.  If the game becomes too serious, many will start viewing playing it as a chore.  Each group will interject humor differently

 

Actually the problem was not the fact the names had an humor component but that most of the times I create a name and I google it I found someone already used it. That's why I usually name my character/minis after "entities" (characters, planets etc) from my favorite series (TV, movies, videogames, books etc...)

However since I planned to post "logs" of my RPG sessions I thought to use "original" names in order to avoid issues.

Personally I don't think a reference to an already existing character would create issues since I'm not using the name for profit... but you know these are strange times ;)

 

As for the humor part: I not only like it, I even think it's an essential part ;)

 

I just had a small doubt on rules:

Several characters have the chace to start with an untrained basic skill. That means they can use that skill with the proper negative modifier but they don't have to reduce their characterist value. That's pretty clear. However what happen when that character gain that skill another time as trained skill?

Does he/she get the mastery bonus or, since they first time they got it is was not a trained skill, they simply upgrade it to the trained status?

 

I cannot find a solution to this doubt on the rulebook.