So Dark Heresy is the Inquisition Commoner game of 40K?

No one working for the Inquisition is a commoner.

Another criticism I don't fully understand.  Yeah, OK, you aren't the top guys.  But so what?

It's a necessary conceit of the game, IMO.  It serves the purpose of setting up the structure of the game (sent on missions) and giving the PCs a reason to stick together (they are part of the same team).

Again, it's a bit like complaining that the Star Trek RPG doesn't want everyone to be a Captain (or in this case, more like Admiral).  Or why everyone isn't a king in D&D.  Or why no one is the FBI Director in Spycraft.  Etc.

It just doesn't make much sense to have multiple Inquisitors involved in every adventure.  Plus, then you'd still have to keep track of all their NPC minions.

I do think the game could have used some kind of troupe play mode, where everyone switched off between playing the underlings and playing an Inquisitor, but only so many groups are going to want to play that way.  It'd clearly be in the minority.

Maybe there were people out there expecting to be able to play in the 40k universe itself, instead of playing: My life with the Inquisitor.

Quote from: SettembriniMaybe there were people out there expecting to be able to play in the 40k universe itself, instead of playing: My life with the Inquisitor.

The rulebook explicitly stresses keeping the Inquisitor off-stage; you're not constantly under the thumb of your Inquisitor (in fact, we've basically been free agents since session 1, investigating things under our own steam). You're the people who go out and turn the entire 40K universe upside-down to find heretics; your Inquisitor is in theory your superior, but in practice is probably several systems away and so can't exactly watch your every move. They're not meant to be heavy-handed folks slapping the PCs about when they make a wrong move, they're a plot device, a source for new missions when the PCs run out of things to kill, nothing more.

Heck, the way the Inquisition is structured, if you played an Inquisitor you'd still have the head inquisitor of the sector breathing down your neck - and probably watching you more closely. This way, you get to have a wider variety of characters and arguably more freedom than the Inquisitor himself enjoys.

More things I learned from Dark Heresy:

5: It doesn't matter how powerful or important the heretic is; they've always got a political rival somewhere who will be enthusiastic to help you once you convince them that the individual in question is a heretic. (And they're usually very willing to be convinced.) When you're dealing with planetary governors, those rivals usually have platoons of Imperial Guard at their beck and call...

6: Always get the personnel lists and visitor lists from institutions you visit. You never know when you may need to track down each and every person who visited the location in order to terminate them.

7: Psykers with healing powers = D&D clerics.

Quote from: BlackhandNo one working for the Inquisition is a commoner.

My prefab PC was pretty damn close. He's a middle-aged lunchbucket slob from the underhive who, before some clerical error had him charged with murder, had dreams of one day becoming a supervisor of the lunchbucket slobs he worked with.

How did he end up working from the Inquisitor? He fled when he was mistakenly charged and stowed away on a ship that turned out to be the Inquisitor's.  When found he was given the choice of hard vacuum or sign up as a expendable investigator.

P.S. I'm not big on the setting but being able to sneak onto the Inquisitor's ship does sound sort of impressive? Still he's basically a commoner to start with and gets some sort of crash course if someone telling him which end of the gun to point away from himself.

QuoteI do think the game could have used some kind of troupe play mode, where everyone switched off between playing the underlings and playing an Inquisitor...

That could be really cool. A very different game than what DH is but cool. The number of people willing to play it? *shrug*

P.S. One thing that I always missed in D&D, from nearly the begining, was that it wasn't particularly feasible to play the King, or any other person with a sizable number of underlings. It was tough to even play a platoon leader unless you never saw your platoon. If you ever managed to fight your way to become a ruler that was pretty much the end of the game. Of course you need a different game to do that.

Quote from: WarthurThe rulebook explicitly stresses keeping the Inquisitor off-stage; you're not constantly under the thumb of your Inquisitor (in fact, we've basically been free agents since session 1, investigating things under our own steam). You're the people who go out and turn the entire 40K universe upside-down to find heretics; your Inquisitor is in theory your superior, but in practice is probably several systems away and so can't exactly watch your every move. They're not meant to be heavy-handed folks slapping the PCs about when they make a wrong move, they're a plot device, a source for new missions when the PCs run out of things to kill, nothing more.

Heck, the way the Inquisition is structured, if you played an Inquisitor you'd still have the head inquisitor of the sector breathing down your neck - and probably watching you more closely. This way, you get to have a wider variety of characters and arguably more freedom than the Inquisitor himself enjoys.

Sometimes I wonder if some of these guys making this complaint ever played a RPG before.

If the Rogue Trader game came out first, you'd be the crew of the rogue trader - every PC wouldn't be an independent rogue trader.  If the Space Marine game came out first, you'd be the space marine soldiers, not the space marine commander.  DUH.

Again, this is pretty standard RPG fare.  Games where the PCs start out as the top dogs in the setting are in the extreme minority.

Quote from: blakkieThat could be really cool. A very different game than what DH is but cool. The number of people willing to play it? *shrug*

P.S. One thing that I always missed in D&D, from nearly the begining, was that it wasn't particularly feasible to play the King, or any other person with a sizable number of underlings. It was tough to even play a platoon leader unless you never saw your platoon. If you ever managed to fight your way to become a ruler that was pretty much the end of the game. Of course you need a different game to do that.

Probably because playing the king or whatever would be dreadfully boring most of the time.  The game basically ceases to be a role-playing game and becomes more of a Civilization type game.  The whole "adventuring party" concept is basically out the window at that point.

That said, some games have tried to do this.  Doesn't that Reign game do something like that?

Quote from: jgantsProbably because playing the king or whatever would be dreadfully boring most of the time.

Yeah that's what Kull told me.

QuoteThe game basically ceases to be a role-playing game and becomes more of a Civilization type game.

With D&D I suppose. Though even then it doesn't have to be. It just is tough to adjust and the bulk of the kill-things-and-take-their-stuff rules [EDIT: which is overall a pretty big chunk of the rules] don't get as much use.

EDIT: Changed Conan to the somewhat more appropriate Kull. :duh:

Quote from: jgantsThat said, some games have tried to do this.  Doesn't that Reign game do something like that?

Yeah, though a) REIGN gives fairly significant boosts to Company actions (organisational-level actions) if the PCs are able to advance the plan in uptime in a significant way through adventuring (for example, stealing the enemy battle plans the day before the big battle), and Company dice pools tend to be low enough (especially at the more low-powered end of the scale) there's a real incentive to do some adventuring, and b) there's nothing explicitly hardwired into REIGN which says your PCs have to be the leaders of your Company - you can play a bunch of low-level goons for adventuring, and then step OOC to decide your Company's actions.

Quote from: jgantsSometimes I wonder if some of these guys making this complaint ever played a RPG before.

Hell, I'm pretty sure the majority of DH critics here are only working on what they heard other people say, having never read or played the rules themselves.

-=Grim=-

I have never tried it, but your comments will keep it that way.
:rolleyes:

Quote from: GrimJestaHell, I'm pretty sure the majority of DH critics here are only working on what they heard other people say, having never read or played the rules themselves.

-=Grim=-

What annoys me is the people who criticize the game for being things was never intended to be.

And many of the criticisms about the PCs being minions instead of masters blatantly ignores that nearly every other popular RPG in the market does the exact same thing.

For better or worse, one of the defining archetypal aspects of a RPG is character improvement over time.  For every person who hates "zero to hero" progression, you will find a hundred people who absolutely love it.