Questions about 40K RPG "Turn mechanics"

[blackoption]

Off the top of my head, there are two types of skills: Basic and (i think the term is advanced)

 

Everyone can use basic skills.  However, if they are untrained in that skill,  they roll using half of the associated characteristic.

(for example: Bob the adept is making an unskilled dodge check to avoid a heretic's attack on him...  Bob's agility is 35 (not too shabby for a book worm). If Bob had trained his dodge skill (as Mongo the assassin had suggested) then Bob would only have to roll equal to or less then 35 (which essentially he would have a 1 in 3 chance of dodging a standard attack).  However, Bob put his experience in advanced skills instead. so Bob has to beat half of his Agility score (18 in this case... round up for the sake of the players).  Thus Bob has a 1 in 5 (almost 20%) as opposed to a 1 in 3.... (this is why Bob hates combat))

 

Advanced skills... on the other hand... cannot be used unless a character is trained in such things.  This is where trade skills, research, driving/piloting, ect are used.

(Example one: Bob and the team are fleeing a bunch of orks in a tunnel when they come across an imperium automated defense station armed with a multilaser.  The station is usable, but requires a tech-use skill check (likely a hard -20) to be brought into operation.  However Bob is not a member of the Adeptus Mechanicus (and thus never bothered to get the tech-use skill) and is unable to do anything to fix/activate the defense turret.)

(Example two: Bob and the team are speaking with a Noble.  Over the course of the conversation, Bob succeeded in an awareness test (basic skill) to notice that the Noble has an unusual statuette that is sitting on the mantlepiece over the fire. Bob, being the nerd of the group, has forbidden lore (daemonology at +10, meaning he gets a 10 pt bonus to his associated characteristic: Intelligence.) and has an intelligence score of 55.  Because he is well trained, Bob has to roll 65 or under to make the correct deductions of what that statuette is (though in all likelyhood, there would be a -10 to -30 modifier for how hard remembering what one specific statue is for or represents to daemons).  Bob rolls as 05.  That is a success with 6 additional degrees. (10 points per degree).  Not only does he realize that the statuette is a forbidden idol associated with slannesh worship and that it is likely only in the possession of cult members, but that specific type of statuette can only be created after the owner has made a suitable sacrifice to his debased god. (perhaps it would explain why the noble's daughter has disappeared....)

 

The more successes one have using a skill, the more detail/results/effects/options do they get from it.

[Cmdr Shepard]

I suppose my question was not clear, sorry if I wasn't precise enough.

I was talking about this scenario:

 

1.There are characters who treat an advanced skill like a basic one. In Rogue Trader, for example, a Noble Born treat certain Common Lore and Speak language as "basic skills" rather than "advanced". There is no problem here. Such character use the skill like an untrained basice one (like you perfectly described).

 

2.The that character select the Rogue Trader career and he gets that very skills at "trained" level.

 

3. The rule rulebook states everytime you gain the same skill more than once it is considered a "skill mastery" thus you earn a given bonus.

 

My question is: in that scenario does the character gains the skill mastery since he got that skills twice? Or does the "skill mastery rule" only applies only when you earn a trained level skill twice? In such case the trained skill replace the "counted as basic" one.

 

I hope this time I have been more clear.

I know it's a quite complicated scenario ;)  

[blackoption]

I suppose my question was not clear, sorry if I wasn't precise enough.

I was talking about this scenario:

 

1.There are characters who treat an advanced skill like a basic one. In Rogue Trader, for example, a Noble Born treat certain Common Lore and Speak language as "basic skills" rather than "advanced". There is no problem here. Such character use the skill like an untrained basice one (like you perfectly described).

 

2.The that character select the Rogue Trader career and he gets that very skills at "trained" level.

 

3. The rule rulebook states everytime you gain the same skill more than once it is considered a "skill mastery" thus you earn a given bonus.

 

My question is: in that scenario does the character gains the skill mastery since he got that skills twice? Or does the "skill mastery rule" only applies only when you earn a trained level skill twice? In such case the trained skill replace the "counted as basic" one.

 

I hope this time I have been more clear.

I know it's a quite complicated scenario   

 

I would say that skill mastery rule does not apply in this case.  If he takes the skill again, then he would get the skill mastery bonus.

 

For advanced skills, you don't get the mastery until after you become trained in a skill.  Taking a skill you can use untrained does not make you a master, it just makes you trained.

[Cmdr Shepard]

 

I suppose my question was not clear, sorry if I wasn't precise enough.

I was talking about this scenario:

 

1.There are characters who treat an advanced skill like a basic one. In Rogue Trader, for example, a Noble Born treat certain Common Lore and Speak language as "basic skills" rather than "advanced". There is no problem here. Such character use the skill like an untrained basice one (like you perfectly described).

 

2.The that character select the Rogue Trader career and he gets that very skills at "trained" level.

 

3. The rule rulebook states everytime you gain the same skill more than once it is considered a "skill mastery" thus you earn a given bonus.

 

My question is: in that scenario does the character gains the skill mastery since he got that skills twice? Or does the "skill mastery rule" only applies only when you earn a trained level skill twice? In such case the trained skill replace the "counted as basic" one.

 

I hope this time I have been more clear.

I know it's a quite complicated scenario   

 

I would say that skill mastery rule does not apply in this case.  If he takes the skill again, then he would get the skill mastery bonus.

 

For advanced skills, you don't get the mastery until after you become trained in a skill.  Taking a skill you can use untrained does not make you a master, it just makes you trained.

 

That's exactly how I interpretated the matter. I'm glad to see I made a good choice. ;)

 

Since you are very polite I'll take the chance to ask you what Rogue Trader expansions would you suggest. Currently I have the rulebook and Into the Storm. I was thinking about the Koronus Bestiary for the obvious reason it gives us more enemies. Another book that looks interesting is Stars of Inequity and its systems/planets generator.

Is it a worth expansion? Also what do you think about those "story expansion" like Lure of the Expanse and similar? Are they worth they cost or are just brief stories a la game master kit, which still gives an interesting scenario for who is a beginner like me.

 

Thank you very much, blackoption. You are making my GM work much easier

[blackoption]

Hmm....

 

For new worlds and new civilizations (including how to start colonies) stars of iniquity is a great find.

 

For new adventure and danger... The bestiary is also useful. Edge of the Abyss also provides some good adversaries as well

 

For new gear/ships, look to Battlefleet Koronus.

 

For those who like to skirt the edge of heresy.... (or perhaps for those who wish to court the inquisition)... look to Hostile Acquisition.

 

I also enjoy the adventure books, mainly as inspiration for missions (and they are also fun to run for experience).  Lure of the expanse should be your first adventure book. The other set is a trilogy.

 

However, I'll admit that my weakest knowledge base is Rogue Trader system.  We never tried it much and I am not proficient on the space combat rules.

 

I ran Deathwatch/Black Crusade games mostly.  I prefer to play as Astartes most of the time as is. However, you'd be surprised how much of the material in those books could be useful in Rogue Trader campaigns.  But it would depend on where you envision your campaign going to.  With RT, you could very easily find yourself in any of the other three sectors.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Very useful info

I started with Rogue Trader because it gives me something different from my usual 40K experiences (I'm an Astartes fan too and I rarely play non Astartes armies on the tabletop) and it seems to give more freedom in gameplay. As soon as I get more familiar with RPG and the role of GM I'll start Black Crusade and Deathwatch. I already Black Crusade rulebook.

 

The only problem I see with Black Crusade is several players could find playing a Chaos Space Marine, or a chaos follower, at a most "intimate" level than the standard tabletop version (in RPG you have the perception of things being more "personal") a little diisturbing/embarassing due to the amount of vile, violent and generally very evil deeds he commits. 

It's not a problem for me since I'm mature enough to know the difference between reality and fantasy but some players may behave differently. That's why I decided to see how my group roleplay in a, let's say, "less extreme" setting.

 

Anyway back on RT expansions: I was also thinking about Soul Reaver since it seems the main story gives you the chance to steal a powerful Dark Eldar ship from the webway, or something like that. It sounds quite epic. One of the concepts for the DYI SM chapter fluff I'm planning to write was about a mission in a similat environment, so I find that expansion interesting....

[blackoption]

Probably wise.  I had a few issues with immature players in my games before.  Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you looked) my other players resolved the issue in game rather quickly.

 

I had one case in our deathwatch game of a immature player who always skirted the edge of heresy (in a very slanneshi way)... after repeated warning from the other players (both in and out of character)  this particularly player kept crossing the line.  Finally, the team sniper, (tactical scout) did ambushed him and the rest of the team turned on him.  After his character was killed by the other team members, he grew angry. As the GM, I sided with the other players, pointing out that they had warned him many times and that his character was indeed dead....

 

He never played with my group again.

 

TL;DR.... If you have a good group of players, they will handle immature players on their own.

 

You are absolutely right on RT having more freedom, but that can make things more difficult for a GM. But if you can handle it, go for it.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Probably wise.  I had a few issues with immature players in my games before.  Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you looked) my other players resolved the issue in game rather quickly.

 

I had one case in our deathwatch game of a immature player who always skirted the edge of heresy (in a very slanneshi way)... after repeated warning from the other players (both in and out of character)  this particularly player kept crossing the line.  Finally, the team sniper, (tactical scout) did ambushed him and the rest of the team turned on him.  After his character was killed by the other team members, he grew angry. As the GM, I sided with the other players, pointing out that they had warned him many times and that his character was indeed dead....

 

He never played with my group again.

 

TL;DR.... If you have a good group of players, they will handle immature players on their own.

 

You are absolutely right on RT having more freedom, but that can make things more difficult for a GM. But if you can handle it, go for it.

 

I'm lucky enough to have a small but trusted group. However my concern is the utmost evil from a Chaos Space Marine who plans to lead a Balck Crusade can be disturbing for some players, especially when you "deal in details" like a RPG requires.

Personally I think 40K is not for immature players: it's a dark universe filled with violence and other sensitive themes. Just think how common genocide is in that universe. When we play the minis on the tabletop we often play for the sake of strategy. It's like playing chess and we rarely focus on the details of how the events happen.

However in a RPG setting the approach is different. We have a direct experience of what is happening. It's like the difference between playing a war game like Risk and watching a war movie like, just to quote one of the many examples coming to my mind, Black Hawk Down, Apocalypse Now, Platoon etc...

The game is a "sweetened" version of what would happen in a real battlefield. It will rarely disturb someone but several persons may found certain scenes from those war movie disturbing.

I'm not saying those movies are bad. Actually I really like realistic war movies.

 

I told my group, which is quite familiar with 40K themes, the RPG version wouldn't be as "sweetened" as the table-top version.

Just to add another of my opinions on the matter: I believe 40K is best suited for adult and mature persons due to the nature of its themes. 40K it's great but it's for adult and mature persons. 

 

Just a note on your case: it should have been amazing to see the other players ambushing the character of the player who was ruining the gaming experience. It's a very creative way to solve a problem ;)