PDA

View Full Version : How would you have ruled this Dark heresy Session ?



Grifthin
2010-08-12, 04:31 PM
Earlier in session we send one of our allies to guard a noble woman - he gets wounded and the woman killed/kidnapped before his eyes. So later on the psyker says that he can sense the enemy (A man we had sworn a oath to kill, everyone swore except the psyker) - he wanted to go off on his own to him. I say hang on - lets not split up since we can get picked off easily like we saw earlier - lets stay together. After much wriggeling around the psyker decides to let me go with, I call the assassin to follow us.

The psyker headed for a secret passage in the wall and attempted to go around a corner ahead of me quickly then try and dominate my character - He rolled very well on the opposed tests (02) and I asked if I could roll a 01 by permanently burning a fate point. He threw a hissy fit but in the interest of keeping the game going we just said whatever, I'm dominated.

Dominated says you get a new save if you get given a obviously suicidal order - the psyker ordered me to Throw all my guns/armor away when we where literally minutes away from the entire' planet's population murdering everything in sight. I said that's obviously nuts ( I mean we would literally be up to our ears with murdering people in minutes) - I would get a save since that's suicidal. He said suicidal only means putting your gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger etc. At the end of the day because of all the arguing he just decided that his character ran off and packed up his stuff.

His psyker was Throne wed - it's completely irrational to try and bargain with cultists if your wedded to the emperor himself. Also suddenly splitting up is a bad idea when it's already been proved we can get picked off easily on our own.

How would you guys and gals have ruled - also feel free to ask if you need clarification on any points.

Marnath
2010-08-12, 04:38 PM
Sucide is taking your own life. Suicidal is rushing into a situation where you have no real hope to survive, like say taking on an entire planets population with no weapons or armor. That's just silly to expect you wouldn't get a save for that.

Daremonai
2010-08-12, 04:38 PM
I'm not 100% familiar with the Dark Heresy ruleset, but I think I'd have ruled "Thank you for your time, Psyker player - you know where the door is".

Coidzor
2010-08-12, 05:02 PM
Are you supposed to try to stab the other players in the back blatantly like that?

Because he really didn't do a very good job if that's the case.

I think he's doing it wrong.

Aroka
2010-08-12, 05:44 PM
Are you supposed to try to stab the other players in the back blatantly like that?

Because he really didn't do a very good job if that's the case.

I think he's doing it wrong.

PCs turning on each other kinda is the point in a horror game, though, and Dark Heresy definitely seems like a horror game to me (same as Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay).

Still, seems like a scummy thing for the Psyker's player to do - poorly executed in and out of character. Rulings, though... (Besides, wouldn't he have accomplished what he wanted - going off on his own - by saying "don't move" ?)

- Fate point: do the rules say they let you do that? Seems like it'd be a clear-cut rules issue.
- Suicidal: Suicidal is not suicide, but laying down your arms in the absence of an actual present threat is a gray area. I'd have given a PC a save there, though, because they usually need all the help they can get.

Andrewmo
2010-08-12, 05:50 PM
I run Dark Heresy at the moment.
I probably would not have allowed you to burn a fp for a 01 roll, as it is not in the rules and it was a pvp situation, I may well ahve allowed it vs an NPC as I can see the equivlance to burning a FP to avoid death. You just need to become an inquisitor they can take a 01 on a WP roll once a session only need about 16000xp.
Having just looked up dominate I am forced to agree with the psyker player, dominate turns you into a puppet and I think suicidal in this situation would have to be direct (charging the mob unarmed, stabbing yourself) it is a powerful power and difficult to get round.
Having said the above unless your description missed something about the situation I find the idea of an acolyte of the inquisition negotiating with the cultists to be a poor idea, in my campaign the characters would not tolerate it except as part of a preplanned strategy or desperate improvisation. It is my impression that the psyker character would be doomed if he succesfully negotiated for his life with the cultists then he would become a traitor to the inquisition and would have to hope that he died quickly instead of being taken alive for proper punishment. Of course if the cultists know he is an acolyte he has not a prayer of negotiating with them.
If he had a cunning plan which succeeded to trick the cultists then maybe he could survive particularly if the inquisitor was a radical.

Walking out on a game suggests a more serious problem with the social dynamics of your group however , perhaps he does not like the game.

Grifthin
2010-08-12, 11:26 PM
Thanks for all the info, I was interested to hear how people would have ruled. I just thought it was kind of scummy completely against the fluff kind of thing to try and do because he was throne wed. The Guy he wanted to go talk to knew he worked for the inquisition. As for the whole dominate vs suicide thing - We where explicitly told that in a few minutes the world would literally descend into darkness and everyone not hidden or with a gun would get torn apart in a frenzy. Hence me arguing it was suicidal- but I understand what you are getting at Andrewmo.

Psyx
2010-08-13, 04:58 AM
I would not have allowed you to burn fate for an 01. However, you could have later burnt fate to have somehow survived the incoming attack.

Suicidal is throwing away weapons... not normally, but given the extremely explicit information provided, I'd call it pretty suicidal... so I would not have allowed that command to stick without another WP check. Because it's borderline, I'd have probably given negatives on the WP check, but it would depend how the psyker worded the command. 'Throw away your stuff, it'll make it easier to get away from and hide from the monsters' wouldn't have given you a new WP check, whereas 'Throw em away so you get eaten alive' most certainly would, and at no penalties.

He's throne-wed? As in utterly, utterly loyal to the Emperor of mankind, and by extension the Inquisition? And you're a member of the Inquisition. WHY would he do that? Has your character been heretical, or acted against the Emperor, or have you -honestly- fully served the Inquisition to the best of your abilities? Why would he go and deal with cultists?

This sounds like an episode of very, very bad roleplaying. For such a loyal Imperium Acolyte to act in such a manner, I'd have probably pointed out that he was being a jerk, and dished out some corruption points. That is: So long as you've not neglected to mention that for the last 5 sessions you'd been jerking the party round and cutting deals with traitors!!

Xefas
2010-08-13, 05:17 AM
Not knowing the general feeling of everyone present, it's hard to say.

If the two of you were sitting there, laughing and having a good time, and then he was like "I'ma run 'round this corner." and you were like "Hey! I'm followin' ya", and then he was like "Oh yeah, brah? ****in' dominate, brah!" and you were like "Ah ****, ****'s all up in the hell right now!" and then the two of you bro-fisted and crushed a beer can between the two of ya'lls foreheads, and then you were like "Wait! Can I burn a fate point on this GMskie?". I'd probably think "Well, these fine gentlemen are clearly enjoying themselves and this is leading to a more dramatic - and thematic for a grimdark setting - turn to the plot. No, no, I think I'll let it ride. No fate point."

But if you were sitting there, clearly not having a good time, and the psyker's player was being an ass, I still wouldn't have gone the fate point route. I would have said "Hey, y'know what psyker player? I know you're caught up in the game and all, but it doesn't look like Grifthin is going to really get to have much fun with this turn of events. And, I mean, hey, you're Throne Wed, so why not do something else? We're all here to have fun afterall." and if they were a reasonable person, they'd have said "Yeah, okay :smallsmile:". If they're not a reasonable person, I wouldn't be playing with them, so that solves that.

Grifthin
2010-08-13, 05:17 AM
I was raised on a world dominated by the eclesiarchy -My character was utterly faithful, Willing to sacrifice himself at the drop of a hat for the emperor. I refused to even break my code to even use weapons that hadn't been properly stamped and sanctified by the Mechanicus/Priesthood. Even though out of game it was a awesome weapon with incredible stats (jacked up bolter stolen from assembly line by some scaly worker).

He prayed every chance he got. He was a guardsmen. I was the one who always refused to cut deals with heretics - they where only worth interrogating and then killing. Usually just killed out of hand if we didn't need information.

@ Xefas - that would have been awesome. Although your writing style made me smile. lol @ brah.

Psyx
2010-08-13, 05:54 AM
So he was roleplaying badly - essentially to the point of cheating?

Did the GM not ask WHY he was dominating you? Do you know why he wanted to do it? Just so he could cut a deal with cultists?
Was he deliberately betraying all his character was supposed to hold dear as some part of angsty bit of roleplay, to save himself. Or was he just being a jerk? Or did he just want the blag of 'throne wed' and then to play the character however he wanted and utterly ignore the roleplay implications of his background choice?

Oslecamo
2010-08-13, 07:14 AM
We where explicitly told that in a few minutes the world would literally descend into darkness and everyone not hidden or with a gun would get torn apart in a frenzy. Hence me arguing it was suicidal- but I understand what you are getting at Andrewmo.

To be honest, if the whole population would go on a rampage then you would be screwed weapon or no weapon unless said weapon was a warship able to take to the skies.:smalltongue:

Grifthin
2010-08-13, 08:58 AM
Grenade launchers and a fortified position would at least give us a fighting chance until morning.

Umael
2010-08-13, 12:50 PM
I don't play Dark Heresy, but on the subject of suicide and suicidal, I think it boils down to intent (this might affect how the power resolves).

Compare: "Put your gun barrel in your mouth and pull the trigger" vs. "Throw all your guns away."

If your gun is obviously out of ammo, I wouldn't call the first one suicidal, let alone suicide. And if your guns are the only thing keeping you from being killed, that seems throwing your guns away IS suicidal... but it's not suicide unless your guns are tied to the grenade pin you are holding.

On the other hand, suicide and suicidal thoughts aren't necessarily so clear-cut. Suicide for a "higher" purpose means that there are some things more important than survival. Obviously, suicide bombers are one example of this, but don't forget "if you get caught, drink this poison" and Babylon 5's "it's a suicide mission - you're supposed to be killed by the enemy so they can find the false plans that lead them into the trap".

Bodyguards throughout history have been known to be so loyal that they would sacrifice their own lives to save the lives of their charges, even intentionally putting themselves between their charge and harm's way.

I think it is better to go through the hierarchy of things vital to the character, i.e., what is more important than survival, which of those is more important than the rest, etc. After you have a hierarchy, the GM can review it and decide if your actions would be dictated by the other PC's power or not.

(Given what I see about your character's nature, if this was World of Darkness (old), I would have at least given you a chance to resist a second time.)

Comet
2010-08-13, 01:02 PM
Not knowing the general feeling of everyone present, it's hard to say.

If the two of you were sitting there, laughing and having a good time, and then he was like "I'ma run 'round this corner." and you were like "Hey! I'm followin' ya", and then he was like "Oh yeah, brah? ****in' dominate, brah!" and you were like "Ah ****, ****'s all up in the hell right now!" and then the two of you bro-fisted and crushed a beer can between the two of ya'lls foreheads, and then you were like "Wait! Can I burn a fate point on this GMskie?". I'd probably think "Well, these fine gentlemen are clearly enjoying themselves and this is leading to a more dramatic - and thematic for a grimdark setting - turn to the plot. No, no, I think I'll let it ride. No fate point."

But if you were sitting there, clearly not having a good time, and the psyker's player was being an ass, I still wouldn't have gone the fate point route. I would have said "Hey, y'know what psyker player? I know you're caught up in the game and all, but it doesn't look like Grifthin is going to really get to have much fun with this turn of events. And, I mean, hey, you're Throne Wed, so why not do something else? We're all here to have fun afterall." and if they were a reasonable person, they'd have said "Yeah, okay :smallsmile:". If they're not a reasonable person, I wouldn't be playing with them, so that solves that.

Post of the year, all years. This is what RPGs are all about; the rules come second, having a great time with your broskis comes first.

I've got little more to add. Rules-wise the scenario went pretty much by the numbers. Here's hoping the psyker player actually had a plan that he thought would make the game more fun/awesome instead of just being a jerkass.

jiriku
2010-08-13, 04:37 PM
My general drift as DM is that if a player's action has the intent of being a jerk towards other players, it automatically fails with no roll involved, even if it is technically allowable within the rules. The game exists for the sake of everyone having fun, and should never be used as a tool to ruin someone else's good time.

Lycan 01
2010-08-13, 11:43 PM
Dark Heresy is one of my favorite RPGs, and currently what I GM the most.


I would have said no to Burning the Fate Point. However, if the Domination would have immediately resulted in your death, I might have allowed it, but only if the Psyker said "Yeah, I'm gonna shoot him in the head" or something - Burning Fate allows you to auto-survive certain death, even starship explosions.

I was have let you roll WP for the orders to drop your weapons, though. Dropping your weapons would have left you at the mercy of the planet's insane populace, and you would have had no way to defend yourself against the Psyker's character. Its indirect suicide, and coupled with your characters fervent faith and devotion, it might have given you a chance to make a WP save. I would have asked the Psyker what his intent in this was - to make it so you'd be left with no hope of survival, or just to slow you down since you'd have to pick up your guns and stuff rather than chase after him. If he'd been intent to kill you, you'd have gotten a save.

Keep in mind though, its Dark Heresy. Sometimes the game is supposed to stack the odds against you. Psykers are also pretty powerful, and it would have been just as logical to say you didn't get a save. It also might show favoritism, since that would automatically put the Psyker at a disadvantage since his super-strong powers just got nerfed. Not really fair to him either, y'know... :smallconfused:

Also, I interpret the Throne Wed thing as a vow of chastity and all that like priests and nuns take, since they take the talent that makes them immune to seduction and stuff. That doesn't make them immune to falling to heresy, though.