Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I'm going to be GMing both an only war and a rogue trader campaign, and I have two questions. First, we don't have very many people, so would it be ok as a GM to create a 'player character' to be part of the group? Second, has anyone ever done a 40kRPG without visual aids (miniatures) how would this work and any advice on how to keep if fun?

speaking generally running a character while acting as a GM is a tricky business,

The other players may end up deferring to them (the GM isn't going to send his character off on a wild goose chase or to certain death, so he can go through all the doors first) or resenting them (the GM won't let him die, why does he get that bit of kit when I cant get this for my character)

If you do choose to do so (perhaps you need a specific character in the game for the plot, or you don't have enough players for a decent sized party) I recommend you limit them to supporting cast roles,

eg:

the silent warrior, he never speaks but point him at the enemy and he'll fight to the death (basically acts as extra firepower)

the confused academic, he knows almost everything, but never thinks to bring it up unless asked the right question, and is always too busy with his books to interact outside the party (clues, plot points etc fall from his lips, but only if the PCs ask the right question at the right time

basically somebody that can help out the PCs without taking away their time in the spotlight, or making their choices for them

I'd advise against running your own character alongside others in a campaign. My brother is fond of doing this and really gets into the habit of having his "supporting" character steal a lot of the glory and spotlight.

Do not run a GM PC.

Instead, use NPCs wisely to augment the size and power of the group. The difference? NPCs are only around for that session and leave, get left behind, or die.

Really, size of the group doesn't matter at all if you make the challenge match the characters or stem from their backgrounds/stories.

NPC is the way to go, it allows some short term balancing if things get too hard or easy.

If you really want a playing character, I would suggest some kind of written A.I. chart you MUST follow or roll for important decisions (and let the players know you are doing that right from the start). All that should ensure it stays a supporting character and they all know he will give no indication of knowing more than he should.

Heck, some kind of mental challenge for the character could help ensure he does not get involved in the important decisions. A class that needs little in equipment would be less unbalancing as well, like a Monk class. Preferably some class no-one else in the group is playing at the very least.

Play the character well and have zero remorse when he dies.

Just how many is 'not very many'?

I find that the ideal RPG group is 5 players and a GM but I have played sessions with only 2 players before and they worked fine, you just need to alter challenges and encounters to suit.

NPCs are definitely the way to go rather than double hatted player characters although the best option is just to cut down on the number of enemies/skill checks. I would definately make the Rogue Trader a NPC, you don't want to be giving one of your players too much power over the others. the same is true for Commissars (personally I simply ban them entirely as they monkey with character interaction too much).

If you don't want to/can't use miniatures then simply use some kind of token to represent characters and a hand drawn papermap to represent to terrain.

Re: restricting access to certain classes / professions: it really depends on the players and how the GM deals with them.

 BrookM wrote:
Re: restricting access to certain classes / professions: it really depends on the players and how the GM deals with them.

For a new and inexperienced group, especially if they want to play 'fluffy', these classes can easily be the death of a campaign. I would strongly advise that you steer clear unless you can absolutely trust whoever is playing the Rogue Trader/Commissar to a) not be a dick and b) allow the other players enough room to play their characters.

As Silent Puffin said, an NPC is the way to go.

You can always make it a more prominent NPC that you use as a tool to help nudge the PCs (perhaps sometimes in the wrong direction), while still allowing them to make the final decisions. The GM controlled character should participate by way of roleplay, perspective, combat, etc -- but it's impossible for the GM to put on that other hat and not know what he knows about what's coming.

TheRogueTrader wrote:
Second, has anyone ever done a 40kRPG without visual aids (miniatures) how would this work and any advice on how to keep if fun?

Make sure you give a good description of a combat scene, and if you and the players get "out of sync", try and get it back together quickly ("I'm going to move out from behind this crate and charge that ork" "weren't you behind that pillar over there?" "no, I've always been here"). There's no need to get too worried about exact distances; just wing it if necessary. As long as you can state that those guys ver there are outside normal pistol ranges, but within rifle range, and in a couple of rounds they'll be at point blank, it's OK.


(I prefer the Star Wars RPGs' method of keeping ranges abstracted to Engaged, Short, Medium, Long, Extreme; no need to worry if you're 48 or 52 metres away, and whether that gives you a penalty to hit)

All my RPG are sans minis. My players do not even get props, maps, or anything else. It is all theatre of the mind.

You do these by having strong stories, interesting NPCs to interact with, and good sense of pacing. Do not let your PCs get hung up on the trivial!

 Easy E wrote:
You do these by having strong stories, interesting NPCs to interact with, and good sense of pacing.

He said, implying that one cannot do the above and still use miniatures/aids/maps/etc.

Given the places I play, we can't use minis or even scribbles on a map. We play in living rooms, spread out on the chairs and sofas. If we were all crowded round a coffee table, we'd be far too cramped, and end up with bad backs (and have nowhere to put the tea!)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
You do these by having strong stories, interesting NPCs to interact with, and good sense of pacing.

He said, implying that one cannot do the above and still use miniatures/aids/maps/etc.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that these were mutual exclusive. I just wanted to point out that minis and props and stuff aren't key to game play, they are simply a potential tool that can be used.

No need to get the pitchforks and torches out.