I'm currently playing this dark heresy campaign and the one player told me that the next gaming night they were going to kill another player. How would that work ingame. Just a normal fighting sequence with a mass of fate points being thrown around? I'm not sure how its going to play out. If anyone has had this before or has any sugestions let me know.
Player killing Player
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:22 PM
Well, (imho) If one or the other has not invested anything in the way of experience points, or wants to create a different character, or really does'nt take this kind of thing seriously at all, or enjoys having his/her character die, I'd say some one is going to get pissed off at this unexpected action. The whole point of most RPG's are to have a good time, with carefully constructed alter-ego's and to survive adverse conditions to improve and better thier characters through imaginary scenarios. So, I guess it depends on the group you play with. If the character that is being targeted, is in need of elimination through no fault of his own…ie through possesion or insanity, and no other rehabilitory solution is present, then I guess there might not be any other recourse. But if you just dislike the player or character, then I suggest you try playing different games that encourage that kind of behavior like "Paranoia". or not play at all, to avoid some hard feelings that are not what these games are all about. My players play because they like the game and it's kind of a bonding situation between us. The murder of another character in cold blood in our game (even in the grim darkness of the Warhammer universe) would comprimise the benefits of why we play Dark Heresy or any RPG for that matter. We know it's "Just a game" But the whole idea of it is to work together to solve problems. And if you need to kill another team member, then I think you have failed as an inquisitorial cell.
Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:38 PM
That makes a lot of sense, and i never even thought of that. Thanks for the insight. The squabble in our campaign is a scum was pickpocketing civilians and our arbitrator didnt like it and caused a scene and other guards were called on this planet, and almost caused the whole mission to go wrong. So the scum wants revenge. Thanks for replying.
Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:58 AM
I thing that in your example the scum player may be justified as his character would actually want to kill the arbitrator. In order to avoid this sort of situations you can use NPCs. For example in our group the Interogator is an NPC and is played by the GM. In this way he can intervene whenever something like this is likely to happen.
Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:24 AM
Well, it depends on your players. In my group we have the strict rule to differentiate between players and characters. We play with all consequences and if one player shoots at the other this is like regular combat, even if he has the intention to kill the other. We all like our characters but we have agreed that WH40k is a grim and dark world where even the people at your side can become your enemies, we live with that and we like it that way because it adds some paranoia because you never know who your friend is and who not.
Though all Characters have the right to use and burn their fate-points and a scum that tries to kill somebody just for his personal revenge should not expect mercy of his inquisitor and if the Arbitrator suvrives with his fate-point burned he might seek out for some retribution for himself. This might have a major impact on the group because intern fights might destroy the ability to work and therefore makes them useless for the inquisitor. He might save some Akolythes that have proven still usefull and able to work with others though my Inquisitor would just kill these childish soldiers. They know to much and have shown to be not able to work - grant them mercy.
Another thing would the intervention of an NPC or (what I like more) of your other players.
Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:04 AM
PCs fighting and trying to kill each other could either be an excellent plot for your campaign or it could completely ruin the gaming experience for all involved, so whoever intends to kill another player's character must think of the consequences before acting. You know, just like in real life.
Same goes for the characters involved. Did the Arbites really piss off the Scum to the point where the Scum has no other option for revenge but to kill the Arbites? To me, Scums are about survival and when you consider killing an Inquisitor's acolyte, even if it is a fellow Acolyte, the Scum must consider the consequences (unless it's a spur of the moment thing), which is - ultimately - his demise. Revenge against a fellow Acolyte, no matter the slight, is not worth the trouble if it means the Scum also gets killed off as a result. (Unless the whole situation has been building tension over months, nay, years.) Otherwise, it is just plain silly from the Scum's side. Besides, there are several ways to die a miserable death and the Scum can contribute to such an event, even if it means simply not acting when he should. (For example, Arbites is under heavy fire and low on ammo, voxes for back-up, Scum says he'll be there in a moment, then doesn't turn up until after the Arbites bites the dust.)
Just blowing the brains out of the other character's head for no good reason is a rather silly way of ensuring your own death.
Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:38 AM
Thanks for all the replies. They have been very helpful in multiple ways. So i'll see how it goes when it happens and i'll post a follow up after. If anyone still has more opinions i'd love to read them. Thanks again.
Posted 07 March 2013 - 06:59 PM
I try to have my players develop their own philosophies in terms of playing style- though we tend to take a third person perspective on things
["My character would do this, or this instead of the standard "I do this or this" most of the time. Don't get me wrong, people still speak in first person- but often when it comes time to talk about big ideas in relation to 40k, the discussion devolves to what the players think their characters are going to do.]
Now this has lead to several occasions where PvP has been an option.
In the first campaign, two players (One of them a malefic adept, the other a rather radical Psyker] accepted Boons from an Avatar of Slaanesh and slowly morphed into Snake-men. The rest of the group spared them at first- and forgave the Adept his sorcery [or turned a blind eye to it, seeing as he was healing everybody], but both of them mutated more and more and became more monstrous until one of the other players was able to catch a glimpse of their true forms for an instant- but he did nothing. Kept Quiet. Which allowed the both of them to escape at the end of the mission.
PvP was avoided likely because there was an "unspoken rule" around the table, it seems, that players don't kill players- even though, in that particular situation, two of the players were clearly half-snake/half-man monstrosities.
Alternatively, at the very start of the next campaign- the group was not yet working for the inquisition and happened to be forced into a situation where I had hoped they would work together. One of them seperated from the rest minutes before the start of the adventure, and when he rejoined with the others, they simply did not trust "his character" - so took away his guns before he woke up [he had fainted after running into some monstrous spiders].
Now when the characters woke up, he went insane and wanted the guns back. So much so that he "rolled a die to determine whether or not he would "frenzy" [even though he didn't even have the talent- just in terms of behavior], failed it, and started attacking them. The others killed him. The group was split between those who wanted him dead, and those who didn't- and who had actually saved him from the spider.
After this incident, which put a bitter taste in all of our mouths [it was probably our worst session], I had to determine "official" rules for PvP. From now on, Initiative rules apply for players if they want to Pvp- so that other players have a chance to itntervene to stop it or something. Furthermore, burning a fate point causes the loser to "Vacate" the cell- perhaps by barely surviving, falling off a cliff, etc etc- in other words, he's out of the picture. The character isn't dead, and may return as an NPC for revenge, but in terms of participating in future investigations with this group, he's finished.
Does the arbitrator have light sleeper or paranoia? If so, have him roll perception/roll perception for him. If he wakes up- deal with it as you would a standard fight. Roll Initiative and all of that. If he doesn't, the scum has one round of surprise. He attacks, deals damage- as the sleeping man is helpless, the attack deals 2d10 extra damage. But even then, the arbitrator is likely COULD survive it- he could roll a couple of 1s, only grazing the sleeping man.
Try to stick to the rules as much as possible. And in order to avoid the "Chain burning of fate points" [and the one with the more fate points winning out at the end], once the first fate point is burned- that character should be out. And depending on the context, retribution will soon follow for the murderer… unless of course he silences all of the witnesses first He better have a damned good report to justify an entire dead team though [and his survival :P]!
Posted 10 March 2013 - 02:22 PM
I have a rule that players are not allowed to burn Fate Points to survive against attacks directed at them by other players who are intending to kill them (i.e. they arent under mind control or caught in a blast radius of a weapon intended for someone else). The reason for this is that is prevents the idea that the player with the most fate points will win any fight to the death.
It came about in legitimate discussions about the roles of certain players in the group. It was realised that one player could likely take on the rest of them because of his overwhelming number of fate points (3 at a time the rest of them were sitting at 1 or 0). It was realised that there could be legitimate reasons for this character to go against the others and if he did he would end the game by wiping the party so the rule was introduced so that should he go and do that then he wouldn't have the ability to win the fight through burning fate points. Basically the idea is to prevent one character from being able to ruin the game for everyone else even if its for good in character reasons.
We view group strife as part of our Dark Heresy game and while everyone knows not to let little arguements explode into fights to the death, Dark Heresy is often a group of conflicting characters and viewpoints and the actions within the game can legitimately lead to them wanting each other dead. In most cases any disagreement can wait until the end of a mission at which point the players can attempt to come to a solution that is amicable for them both.
A case in point was our mind wiped psyker who killed 136 noble men and women in the party at the end of the Tattered Fates scenario. The character had just been introduced and when he had I had entrusted the Sister Hospitaller Character and the Cleric Character to watch over him for signes of instability. When this happened the Sister was the only one of the Acolytes in range and hunted him through the manor and killed him. In that situation she was allowed to burn her Fate points on her Pure Faith ability but not to survive other attacks. Without this rule the psyker would have easily defeated the sister and would have proceeded to hunt down and kill the other characters so that no one would know what he had done effectively ending the game.
Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:07 AM
I'm pretty much a onetrack mind about this. Unless it's an actual part of the scenario, player versus player combat is strictly forbidden. No ruining the game for the other players!
Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:12 AM
Well, I do not think it might ruin games automaticly though it can end an campaign pretty fast. But if at least everyone sticks to his role and character I see no problem with it. If other characters want to intervein and to stop this they have enough ways to do so. PvP has not alaways to end with someone dead, it can be a great way to make a point.
One of the campaigns I played in had a climax between a tech-priest and a cleric. The cleric gathered some STC fragments and was unwilled to hand them to the priest, in the foreplay there were several minor ocasions where the cleric did not accept the souvereinity and independence of the AdMech, also not their authority over technology, so the Tech-Adept pointed his weapon to the cleric. The later pulled out his melee weapon and was constantly approaching the priest though he was warned to do not. After the third warning the Priest openend fire. While this happened the psyker of the group was readied to stun the others and was sucessfull. In the aftermaths to two of them had to settle down their differences and it was quite interisting to play in such a group where not everybody was your firend. In the end we considerend this scene (that consited of much more than my short summary) as one of the best of an entire campaign that lasted over a year at that point.
The important thing is that the player seperate themself from their characters. They may fight and argue but as long as the players can talk and laugh about that in the aftermath everything is okay. Though everyone likes his charakter I think no charakter should be save from danger and death, especially in a setting like Dark Heresy and this includes the own group.
Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:04 AM
Well sure, it might not ruin the game that a player kills another player, but then again it can create conflicts between the players themselves. We have, unfortunately, a bad experience with this happening in our group and while the "victim" in that case most certainly overreacted to the killing of his character by another player (especially when you consider that I tried to kill EVERYONE just minutes earlier, resulting in my own death) we do strive to not let it happen.
There's also the Gamemaster to consider. We mostly play our own adventures, so we try not to deviate too far (some leeway is certainly allowed, this isn't a railroad!) from what the GM has prepared for the session.
The Gamemaster killing players, however….
Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:41 AM
Well the scum put an explosive collar onto the arbitor. Initiative was rolled. He exploded the collar, a fate point was used. The arbitor was then in some like vehicle safety belts he used a round to get out of it. Power sword into arbitors face another fate point used. Arbitor then one shots (gets a rigtheous dont think that should happen against other imperium) scum with bolt pistol…. Then the funny thing was the other players abandoned the mission totally out of character grabbed the arbitor. at this time were all in vacuum space with suits.. The 2 scum that are there with the hostage(mission) continue taking hostage back while the other 4 attempt to heal arbitor. Was kinda funny watching people decide i don't want my character dead, i'm not going to roleplay correctly. Then the arbitors player decides w.e i'm not dead but im making a new character anyway.
So if your going to allow pvp which is a very real thing it should be allowed. You need to have people that will roleplay there character not themselves and they need to be mature enough to do that. Because 8 of us all 20+ and only 3 people could handle the situation through character. Its definately worth having and i like what other people have said about not being allowed fate points thats a good suggestion that if I saw earlier would have showed these posts to my gm.
Thanks all for the replys it was a really fun time. First time my gm had space combat and first pvp all at the same time. =p
I hope you peeps allow pvp although hopefully the imperium can stay strong and together, good hunting.
P.S. The scum got away with it because noone but the scum duo attempted to complete the mission. The main arbiter and the other were deemed at fault because they hindered mission twice…
Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:06 PM
Well, as long as you had a good time and everyone is still speaking to each other in a mature way, then congratulations! As much as I disdain PvP, I would let my players do anything they wanted, but I would'nt give them fate points to use in the act, as I believe fate points should be used to enhance the players destiny of doing thier master's bidding, not used for something ouside the mission perameters. I say "Let their cunning, skill, ferocity and a little luck decide their own fate!" But, hey, every group is different. And those differences should be unique and celebrated as your own. Thanks for sharing your experience with PvP. I'm glad your group is still striking fear into the hearts of the Emperor's enemies…and having a good time doing it!
Posted 16 March 2013 - 10:01 PM
hehe. Interesting, cuz I am planning on pvp my own team next time we meet. I already have a go ahead from the GM.
My character has been a spy/saboteur secretly sabotaging my team in missions. But I don't like the job, so next time we meet; my job is to:
1. Secretly kill our prisoner who we are interogating (who has information on where my real boss is)
2. Secretly boobytrap the map.
3. Backstab the team during a fight. Kill as many players as possible (they have fate points so few will actually die)
4. Escape using smoke / flash grenades.
5. Come back later as a boss.
Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:48 AM
Thats cool but talk to your gm about fate points when pvping. I liked the above suggestions about not allowing fate points in pvp. Also talk about not allowing righteous fury on fellow imperium. And also i like the fact that your playing your character. Some people start pvp for no reason and its annoying. You have a very valid reason.
Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:13 PM
The rulebook says that burning a fate point a character is "…rendered unconscious on 0 Wounds" (core rulebook page 184).
In a PvP situation a player that burns a fate point looses the battle (since he or she is unconscious). You cannot simply burn a fate point and continue fighting as if nothing happenned. According to the book it is up to the GM to decide how the character was saved (it could be for example that the opponent left him for dead).
Therefore it is not correct to say that whoever has more fate points is at an advantage in PvP unless of course one of the players has 0 fate points to begin with.
Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:49 PM
Darth Smeg said:
Killing a Servant of the Imperium is Heresy!
Technically it's Treason. But then Treason is Heresy, so there!
Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on
My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games
Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:51 PM
Darth Smeg does have a really good point.
Personally I'm split on PVP combat. During my campaign, one of my characters (the Psyker, specifically), had picked up a Daemonic Chainsword, and failed the test to resist it's tmeptation. This meant that he wanted to keep it, knew he ahd to keep it secret from everyone else, but aside from that there was no compulsion to do anything with it, or to use it (yet).
During a combat later in the adventure, the Psyker's Perils of the Warp knocked the crap out of him, followed immediately by being hit pretty hard by an enemy. He would ahve had to burn a fate point to survive, but before this, the Daemon offered him a deal, which he took, and he rose up, controlled by the daemon for the duration of combat, but was gunned down by his team mates for being possessed (being the psyker, they all viewed him with natural suspicion). Everyone enjoyed it, everyone thought that it really fit the setting, and it went over really well.
On another side though, I've been on the recieving end of a PVP encounter during a different game in a different system. To cut it short, I wasn't consulted on how I would react, and the other character pushed mine out of an airlock, with no chance for me to save myself. As a result, I immediately lost any inclination to continue with the campaign, even as another character. I also immediately distrust any character that my friend plays now, as this wasn't the first time one of my characters has died either directly or indirectly because of one of his.
So I'd be really careful, and talk it over with the GM and both players involved, and see if it's something that both players would enjoy playing. This is a game after all, and you don't want one of your players feeling like their gaming expereince is ruined.