Looking for Dark Heresy Pointers

[Solaris]

So I'm looking at running a Dark Heresy campaign for a new group that's used to playing 3.5e and Pathfinder. I'm pretty much exclusively a 3.5e GM, although I've dabbled some in PTU (which is a great system and has a lot of potential for more than just Pokemon, by the by).

If this doesn't ring a warning bell, you haven't been reading the same things about Dark Heresy I have. It's allegedly Call of Cthulhu in space, which bodes ill for the long-term survival of groups like ours.

The main players of the group, the ones I've played with before, tend towards hack-and-slash as a problem-solving method. They're not murderhobos by any stretch of the imagination, but their long-time experience with D&D tells in that they don't expect to run into problems that can't be solved personally. Probably worse, my encounter design is informed by a similar experience; I design problems to be solved by the heroes, not run away from. If it's not a social encounter, it's a door to be kicked in and monsters to be killed. Monsters that can be killed, and by the PCs.

My question, and the advice I'm looking for, is this: Is it possible and reasonable to run a Dark Heresy campaign similar to a D&D campaign in that the party members are effective heroes? If so, how would you do that? Heck, have I just been reading too much into the grimdarkness of it all and am worried over nothing?

If you've any other advice for a guy new to running or playing Dark Heresy, that would be good, too. I've played one game of it (with a rather excellent group of more experienced players who were desperate enough for a GM that they asked me to do it knowing they'd have to help me along with the crunchy parts), but the members of this group have played none. Knowing how D&D is filled with traps (hello, monk), I'd like to be able to steer them away from the real problem choices rather than have someone get a bad experience through no real fault of their own.

[Anonymouswizard]

First off, is it 1e or 2e Dark Heresy? I've only played 1e (got rid of the book though, these days I'd just use houseruled Rogue Trader or maybe pick up 2e at some point) but I've heard good stuff about 2e.

Now, Dark Heresy isn't quite Call of Cthulhu in Space. It's similar, you're probably going to go insane (or be corrupted) at some point due to the slowly ticking insanity meter, but you also have theoretical access to enough firepower to destroy anything you might come across, assuming you remain in the materium. Not that you'll likely have the firepower unless you can convince your Inquisitor that you need it, which is so unlikely you might as well play the lottery, or get it off the local PDF, Imperial Guard, or other institution likely to have it (prepare your coffin beforehand). You might occasionally be able to get a bolter or some ammo for it, but be ready to spend a lot of the time shooting the Daemonhost with a lasgun or semi-automatic pistol.

That said, unlike Call of Cthulhu dealing with things that won't go down to enough lasgun blasts isn't a major part of the game, especially if you're with the Ordo Herectus (slightly less so if you're Ordo Xenos, run like blazes with the Ordo Mallus).

Generally, if you want to play a more hack and slash game you want Deathwatch (conversely, if you want to play a mixture of Star Trek, Traveller, and Call of Cthulhu look into Rogue Trader), Space Marines are designed to be able to wade through enemies as the mighty heroes (that is designed to do that in-game as well as out of game). However you can do it with Dark Heresy by just being careful what you throw at the PCs, but it is supposed to be more investigation focused.

Going by 1e, there aren't really any trap choices (because you're still screwed!). Okay, that's not entirely true, a couple of careers are weaker, especially if combat is going to be very important (see: the Adept). Psykers are by far the most powerful if they can reach high ranks but risk exploding everyone's heads whenever they use their powers, and guardsmen are behind by being the only career completely dedicated towards combat, but it's generally balanced.

[Magua]

The PCs /can/ be heroes in Dark Heresy. They are expected to stop the cult / root out the alien / destroy the daemon successfully.

(Their accomplishment may not mean anything in the vastness of the Imperium, but that's a campaign tone choice.)

However, the combat is deadly. Or, more accurately, a given combat will either be a cakewalk, or potentially lethal. There is definitely the expectation that PCs will investigate, figure out what they're up against, and make a plan for a fight, rather than charging in guns blazing: getting the drop on your enemies is just as lethal for them as it is if they get the drop on you.

That's not to say there's no combat -- you can easily get four combats a session if you put your mind to it, just that they need to be handled with a bit more care, and to remember advantage the PCs should have (don't just have the combat in an empty tunnel -- make sure there's cover for the PCs to take, have the NPCs take morale checks as they're killed, things like that)

You can think of it like level 1 or 2 D&D, without the sleep spell.

Two notes:

- In 1E, the starter characters are called failcolytes for a reason -- even if you build someone to be a sniper, you're going to miss more often than hit on a standard roll. Make sure the PCs know bonuses that are available to them (aiming, various equipment like laser sights, etc).
- As members of the Inquisition, they have equipment at your discretion. I personally don't like the feel of the higher end equipment feel, so don't allow it for most sessions ("You're going undercover to..."), but that's a choice -- you could be more lax with what they have, though after a point it'll change combats from lethal to cakewalk.

Anonymouswizard is right that Rogue Trader or Deathwatch may be more your group's speed, though I personally miss the investigative aspect with those.

[Hagashager]

I love Dark Heresy, it's one of my favorite gaming settings within the umbrella of 40k RPGs.
I am speaking from the position of 1e however so bear that in mind.

Now Then:
1. Yes, you can be "Heroes" but heroes in 40k are not knights in shining armor. This is a very dark (comically so) setting. At the end of the road your PCs should've done some very bad things for the greater good.
2. Dark Heresy is more investigation. Its designed to be extremely lethal to players who do not prepare ahead of time. It is also very satisfying since all the insta-gibbing you can do to them, they can do your encounters too. Never underestimate the lethality of a common stub-revolver. That being said, your characters will have a lot more in common with Sherlock Holmes than Rambo. Most in-game activity will be searching for clues, conning officials, sneaking into places and espionage.
3. The game is Cthulu if Cthulu was a self-aware setting. 40k is ludicrously dark, and it knows it. Even common rabble humans who live subsistence lives will see mutilated corpses, pogroms and riots on a near-weekly basis. The general reaction to all of this being, "ehh, itsa' livin'." Bear in mind though that your players should not be casually discussing things like demons, the Gods of Chaos, or even the Space Marines casually. In-Universe all of these things are closely guarded secrets that are punishable by immediate execution if ever exposed. If one of your players just casually goes, "So I saw a bloodthirster in the sewers just now." in a bar, that player character should have a very unpleasant and short lived-life ending with a Arbitrator's Bolt pistol.

The best way to play a 40k setting is to make knowledge extremely important, valuable, and difficult to uncover. If your player characters don't know something exists, they should not be allowed to act on it, even if the player himself knows what it is. This is a setting where even top-ranking officials have very little idea of what is going on beyond their immediate sphere of influence, and if they find anything out, it's a shocking revelation. Most humans have no idea that "Witches" called Psykers exist, most humans have no idea that there are other planets beside their own. Most humans have no idea how to even operate a computer. Definitely play into that ignorance as a means of contrivance. It's a scary world for the PC, don't be afraid to milk that.

A Good Example:
Don't say the name of the creature your PCs encounter. If they encounter say, a Blue Horror, don't say "You see a Blue Horror" instead try, "You see a large floating ball of acrid blue flesh with purple tentacles and a sideways mouth. When it speaks it utters something in a language your minds do not understand. You feel a horrible chill as you realize this...thing, is not of the Emperor's Will."

[The Glyphstone]

The best way to play a 40k setting is to make knowledge extremely important, valuable, and difficult to uncover. If your player characters don't know something exists, they should not be allowed to act on it, even if the player himself knows what it is. This is a setting where even top-ranking officials have very little idea of what is going on beyond their immediate sphere of influence, and if they find anything out, it's a shocking revelation. Most humans have no idea that "Witches" called Psykers exist, most humans have no idea that there are other planets beside their own. Most humans have no idea how to even operate a computer. Definitely play into that ignorance as a means of contrivance. It's a scary world for the PC, don't be afraid to milk that.

Heck, a large portion of humans don't know how to read.

[xroads]

On reflection, it occurred to me that my own players used some form of explosion or conflagration as a solution to missions with disturbing frequency.

But having said that, it may be worth reminding your players that not all battles have to be fought. Sometimes retreat is an option. Especially if retreat means going somewhere so they can call in a strikeforce to deal with whatever den of chaos they have uncovered.

[Braininthejar2]

Don't give cultists too many shotguns - a shotgun at close range = torso with a view

[Solaris]

First off, is it 1e or 2e Dark Heresy? I've only played 1e (got rid of the book though, these days I'd just use houseruled Rogue Trader or maybe pick up 2e at some point) but I've heard good stuff about 2e.

Now, Dark Heresy isn't quite Call of Cthulhu in Space. It's similar, you're probably going to go insane (or be corrupted) at some point due to the slowly ticking insanity meter, but you also have theoretical access to enough firepower to destroy anything you might come across, assuming you remain in the materium. Not that you'll likely have the firepower unless you can convince your Inquisitor that you need it, which is so unlikely you might as well play the lottery, or get it off the local PDF, Imperial Guard, or other institution likely to have it (prepare your coffin beforehand). You might occasionally be able to get a bolter or some ammo for it, but be ready to spend a lot of the time shooting the Daemonhost with a lasgun or semi-automatic pistol.

That said, unlike Call of Cthulhu dealing with things that won't go down to enough lasgun blasts isn't a major part of the game, especially if you're with the Ordo Herectus (slightly less so if you're Ordo Xenos, run like blazes with the Ordo Mallus).

Generally, if you want to play a more hack and slash game you want Deathwatch (conversely, if you want to play a mixture of Star Trek, Traveller, and Call of Cthulhu look into Rogue Trader), Space Marines are designed to be able to wade through enemies as the mighty heroes (that is designed to do that in-game as well as out of game). However you can do it with Dark Heresy by just being careful what you throw at the PCs, but it is supposed to be more investigation focused.

Going by 1e, there aren't really any trap choices (because you're still screwed!). Okay, that's not entirely true, a couple of careers are weaker, especially if combat is going to be very important (see: the Adept). Psykers are by far the most powerful if they can reach high ranks but risk exploding everyone's heads whenever they use their powers, and guardsmen are behind by being the only career completely dedicated towards combat, but it's generally balanced.

1e Dark Heresy. I bought the PDF book on DriveThruRPG years ago, and by gum I'm gonna get a campaign out of it.

I'm planning on them being with Ordo Malleus, partly because of the Inquisitor's design and story arc and partly because of the fact that daemons are just so cool.
Entirely coincidentally, I'm also planning on it being a troupe-style game wherein characters can be cycled out in between missions with relative ease.

... Well, I'mma have to look into getting Rogue Trader, at least. That'll be for a future campaign, though!

I'm not planning on encouraging anyone to play a Psyker right off the bat; it's the addition of a subsystem in a system we're all rather new to that has me leery. The psychic powers subsystem seems a bit more complicated than the relatively straightforward point-and-click of D&D spellcasting. Between that and the fact that none of my players will play a nerd without superpowers (they already do it in real life, after all), I think that should cover the problems of the game.

The PCs /can/ be heroes in Dark Heresy. They are expected to stop the cult / root out the alien / destroy the daemon successfully.

(Their accomplishment may not mean anything in the vastness of the Imperium, but that's a campaign tone choice.)

However, the combat is deadly. Or, more accurately, a given combat will either be a cakewalk, or potentially lethal. There is definitely the expectation that PCs will investigate, figure out what they're up against, and make a plan for a fight, rather than charging in guns blazing: getting the drop on your enemies is just as lethal for them as it is if they get the drop on you.

That's not to say there's no combat -- you can easily get four combats a session if you put your mind to it, just that they need to be handled with a bit more care, and to remember advantage the PCs should have (don't just have the combat in an empty tunnel -- make sure there's cover for the PCs to take, have the NPCs take morale checks as they're killed, things like that)

You can think of it like level 1 or 2 D&D, without the sleep spell.

Two notes:

- In 1E, the starter characters are called failcolytes for a reason -- even if you build someone to be a sniper, you're going to miss more often than hit on a standard roll. Make sure the PCs know bonuses that are available to them (aiming, various equipment like laser sights, etc).
- As members of the Inquisition, they have equipment at your discretion. I personally don't like the feel of the higher end equipment feel, so don't allow it for most sessions ("You're going undercover to..."), but that's a choice -- you could be more lax with what they have, though after a point it'll change combats from lethal to cakewalk.

Anonymouswizard is right that Rogue Trader or Deathwatch may be more your group's speed, though I personally miss the investigative aspect with those.

Tone-wise, I'm not planning on weighing too much on the fact that their actions aren't going to avert the impending collapse of the Imperium and extinction of all life in the galaxy any more than they avert the heat death of the universe. Not only do I expect their characters don't know that, I doubt I'm quite skillful enough a storyteller for it to come off right without coming off like "Nyah, nyah, you guys shouldn't have even bothered!"

Comparing it to low-level D&D is actually rather comforting; most of my games are in the 1-3 range, so much to the point that E6 is my default ruleset.

I'll do some research on the character builds and bonuses, then, to help them out with their character creation. I might just make some pregens for them to fiddle around with so they can get comfortable with the ruleset before jumping in and making their own characters.
How necessary is noodling around in the splatbooks for char-op? My wife's Battle Sister is gonna need a splatbook, obviously, but would you say any of the others are terribly necessary?

I'm writing the introductory adventure to have them be basically ordinary citizens who rise up by dint of survival to attract the attentions of a moderately Radical (entirely well-meaning) Inquisitor.
I think subsequent adventures will have to include contrivances to remove their equipment. Sometimes it may even be by their own free will, such as going undercover!

On top of investigative-type games being something I want to try out and high-danger combat appealing to me given my brother's tendency to be accidentally unkillable (once tossed four frag grenades on a character of his while he was buck-nekkid and he still didn't die), I own neither Rogue Trader nor Deathwatch. Prices on Games Workshop prices being what they are, that's not likely to change any time soon.
My d20 conversion of WH40k is nowhere near usefulness, either, otherwise I'd probably be using that rather than fiddling with a new ruleset. I know d20 well enough to not run the risk of accidentally killing off the entire party.

I love Dark Heresy, it's one of my favorite gaming settings within the umbrella of 40k RPGs.
I am speaking from the position of 1e however so bear that in mind.

Now Then:
1. Yes, you can be "Heroes" but heroes in 40k are not knights in shining armor. This is a very dark (comically so) setting. At the end of the road your PCs should've done some very bad things for the greater good.
2. Dark Heresy is more investigation. Its designed to be extremely lethal to players who do not prepare ahead of time. It is also very satisfying since all the insta-gibbing you can do to them, they can do your encounters too. Never underestimate the lethality of a common stub-revolver. That being said, your characters will have a lot more in common with Sherlock Holmes than Rambo. Most in-game activity will be searching for clues, conning officials, sneaking into places and espionage.
3. The game is Cthulu if Cthulu was a self-aware setting. 40k is ludicrously dark, and it knows it. Even common rabble humans who live subsistence lives will see mutilated corpses, pogroms and riots on a near-weekly basis. The general reaction to all of this being, "ehh, itsa' livin'." Bear in mind though that your players should not be casually discussing things like demons, the Gods of Chaos, or even the Space Marines casually. In-Universe all of these things are closely guarded secrets that are punishable by immediate execution if ever exposed. If one of your players just casually goes, "So I saw a bloodthirster in the sewers just now." in a bar, that player character should have a very unpleasant and short lived-life ending with a Arbitrator's Bolt pistol.

The best way to play a 40k setting is to make knowledge extremely important, valuable, and difficult to uncover. If your player characters don't know something exists, they should not be allowed to act on it, even if the player himself knows what it is. This is a setting where even top-ranking officials have very little idea of what is going on beyond their immediate sphere of influence, and if they find anything out, it's a shocking revelation. Most humans have no idea that "Witches" called Psykers exist, most humans have no idea that there are other planets beside their own. Most humans have no idea how to even operate a computer. Definitely play into that ignorance as a means of contrivance. It's a scary world for the PC, don't be afraid to milk that.

A Good Example:
Don't say the name of the creature your PCs encounter. If they encounter say, a Blue Horror, don't say "You see a Blue Horror" instead try, "You see a large floating ball of acrid blue flesh with purple tentacles and a sideways mouth. When it speaks it utters something in a language your minds do not understand. You feel a horrible chill as you realize this...thing, is not of the Emperor's Will."

I'm playing 1e, so it's all good.

1. To convey the tone, I'm looking at ways for the first adventure to force them to make unpleasant decisions about survival. It's a zombie apocalypse that kicks off while they're in an underhive; that should provide plenty of material for shades-of-grey and even outright evil choices made in the name of expediency.
I'm also planning on having the Inquisitor be a seeming Mary Sue of the type popular with WH40k newcomers, the guy whose moral outlook is informed by 21st-century philosophy rather than the grim darkness of the future. He's gonna wind up getting corrupted by his willingness to consort with xenos and heretics in the name of protecting mankind and the Imperium.
2. Investigation is a new type of game for me; I'm doing up some research on how to write adventures based around it. Fortunately, I'm pretty familiar with the players so I can guess what courses of action they're likely to take and what puzzles they're likely to be able to solve.
Hopefully.
But hey - when in doubt, a gunman bursts into the room.
3. I don't know about execution, necessarily - not all Imperial worlds are as hardcore as they should be - but I'll definitely be briefing the players on what their characters do and don't know.
I will also take your advice on monster presentation. That reminds me - I should probably go sniffing around Heroes of Horror, too.

Heck, a large portion of humans don't know how to read.

... Well, that kind of drives home just how GRIMDARK the setting is, doesn't it?
Violent, uneducated, incredibly xenophobic... it's basically Texas!

On reflection, it occurred to me that my own players used some form of explosion or conflagration as a solution to missions with disturbing frequency.

But having said that, it may be worth reminding your players that not all battles have to be fought. Sometimes retreat is an option. Especially if retreat means going somewhere so they can call in a strikeforce to deal with whatever den of chaos they have uncovered.

If explosions and fire weren't solutions to heretics, xenos, and mutants, the Emperor would not have given us promethium.

I'm getting the feeling that most of what I'll need to do is just that; remind them that they're squishies.
I'm also thinking about having them make said strike force out of Grey Knights so that they can be the big guns that get called in.

Don't give cultists too many shotguns - a shotgun at close range = torso with a view

Ooh, good pointer. I'd hate to make that mistake. Don't tell my players this, but I don't actually want to kill them off.

[Contrast]

As a warning, daemons are scary.

I'm not even talking about in combat - anything with a fear rating has a good chance of forcing most of the party to run away, pass out or lie on the floor vomiting instead of doing anything useful.

Also, read the healing rules. If you're wanting to play a game with significant amounts of combat you're going to have to tweak them in addition to having a psyker with healing powers as per the rulebook a badly hurt character can take months to heal even with medical treatment.

Pretty much any character is one bad dice roll away from death. Fate points mitigate this but you'll run out eventually and the number you start with is random. Characters will die.

[xroads]

If explosions and fire weren't solutions to heretics, xenos, and mutants, the Emperor would not have given us promethium.

I'm getting the feeling that most of what I'll need to do is just that; remind them that they're squishies.
I'm also thinking about having them make said strike force out of Grey Knights so that they can be the big guns that get called in.

Heh. On at least one occasion the explosive solution resulted in a temporary tear into the warp that resulted in several city blocks being exposed to the warp.

And on another occasion the explosive solution came in the form of an orbital bombardment. Unfortunately they weren't able to leave the area before the bombardment. So thank the Emperor for Fate Points!

And then there was that time with the orphanage...

By the way, kudos for taking the time to answer everyone in the thread who responded.

[Magua]

How necessary is noodling around in the splatbooks for char-op? My wife's Battle Sister is gonna need a splatbook, obviously, but would you say any of the others are terribly necessary?

They're not necessary at all; I use them as inspiration for antagonists, but tend to hold off on pulling player stuff from them. Especially in terms of mixing and matching character backgrounds or equipment, I don't use them because I've seen what happens down that road in 3E D&D. Occasional things like "Sister of Battle career" or "Mind-wiped background" are fine, but I hate the "I use my talent from book A along with the gun from book B and the special ammunition from book C that's also hexagrammatic as described in book D to one-shot the bloodthirster."

That said, the Inquisitor's Handbook has the stuff on Sisters of Battle, as you know. The Radical's Handbook may have some stuff that their first Inquisitor makes use of that can then get stripped from them down the road when they get a more Puritanical one. =P

On top of investigative-type games being something I want to try out and high-danger combat appealing to me given my brother's tendency to be accidentally unkillable (once tossed four frag grenades on a character of his while he was buck-nekkid and he still didn't die)

I wouldn't worry about unkillability too much. Dark Heresy has exploding damage dice (roll a 10 on damage, roll again and keep adding). Given that a beginning character has ~11 or so wounds, and maybe 6 points of armor and toughness, this means that ~5% of hits are going to just straight out drop a character from full health to critical damage. And that's not counting bonuses from accurate weapons, or full auto, or powerful weapons, etc.

As for Rogue Trader or Deathwatch: I don't like either for more than a single shot. But they do both feature more powerful characters who are tougher and stronger.

For the Ordo Malleus: Demons have two things you should be aware of. Fear effects are strong because acolytes are likely to fail their WP checks unless you give them bonuses for some reason or another. I tend to give bonuses to repeated encounters.

The second is a daemon's unnatural toughness: even a minor demon likely has an effective toughness of 10+, which means a lot of shots with normal equipment simply aren't going to hurt it. Which is in keeping with the setting, but requires some setup for the PCs to have a chance other than "Keep hitting it until you roll a 10 on damage".

---

The zombie campaign introduction sounds like a great start, and I like the Mary Sue inquisitor comeuppance.

[Destro_Yersul]

Inquisitor's Handbook is, I think, the only really important splat. The others have a bunch of fun extra stuff, good for a particular theme or whatnot, but IH just has so many generally useful things. Even if most of them are simply different guns. More guns is always better!

[JellyPooga]

If you're looking for a more "heroic" style of Dark Heresy, there are two things you need to do;

1) Remind your players that hitting 0 Wounds doesn't mean you're out for the count. Then do it again. Then hit them with your rulebook (or laptop, if you're running digitally), literally figuratively beat it into them until they get the point (please don't literally beat your players). I cannot count how many times I had to remind a whinging player that hitting zero didn't mean they were dead, let alone out of the fight.

2) Be liberal with Fate points. Indulge your generous side, hand them out like candy, encourage your players to roleplay well so you have an excuse to give them more. Then beat it into your players to use the damned things. Often (but not literally). Again, I can't count the number of times my players forgot they had them, or had to be reminded that *now* might be a good time to use one because you can't use a Fate point you're "saving for later" if you're dead.

As someone that also made the transition from D&D style heroic play to Dark Heresy's grittier idiom with his group, these two things were the main sticking points that were most often overlooked by my players. Not that they were problems, but because they're both things that differ so wildly (Wounds vs. HP) or simply don't exist (Fate points) in D&D, I found players (and GMs!) often forgot how they work or had different expectations about how the game rules and the in-game narrative interact.

[Chijinda]

I'm a little late to the party, but to weigh in with a few additional things;

As others have noted, Dark Heresy isn't so much CoC in space, though there are elements of that-- and if you're running a Mallus campaign, then it will definitely have more in-line with it than Xenos or Hereticus. Demons are no jokes, but yeah, combat is absurdly lethal, and your average PC even in lategame is 3 solid hits away from death or maiming at any given time. That said, if you're running a Mallus campaign without a Psyker.... Hoooooo boy.

-Psykers may be the most broken career in the game, but trying to fight daemons without them is a good path to a bad day for the Acolytes. Not that you can't do it (in our last campaign, or Guardsman racked up as many daemon kills with her Power Long Sword as my Psyker did, if not more), but Psykers tend to be the ones best equipped not only for dealing with Daemons themselves, but for helping a PARTY deal with Daemons (due to several Psychic Powers allowing bonuses or rerolls on Fear saves, which you'll be taking a LOT of against Daemons, and Willpower being a weak point for most non-Psyker careers).

-Psychic Powers are not actually that complex. Every Psychic Power has a Power Threshold, which basically acts as a DC for casting the power. If a Psyker wants to use his powers he has to beat that DC on a number of D10's equal to or less than his Psy Rating. This roll is boosted by his Willpower Bonus (the "tens" digit of his Willpower Characteristic). If any 9's are rolled, he will suffer a number of Psychic Phenomena equal to the number of 9's rolled (eg. If he rolled three dice, and two of them come up as "9", then Psychic Phenomena happens twice). Note that just because Phenomena happens doesn't mean the power doesn't go off. It just goes off "with interest" so-to-speak.

-Watch out for Fire and Fall Damage, and be aware that fire bombs are probably one of the most cost-effective weapons in the entire game. I've seen my party do more damage with a fire grenade than a Bolter. Whether you want to clue your group into this ahead of time or not, is up to you. Also. Fall damage is stupidly lethal, to the point that you can probably do more damage by pushing someone off the roof of a one story building, than by shooting them for several rounds with a decent gun.

[Hagashager]

I'm a little late to the party, but to weigh in with a few additional things;

As others have noted, Dark Heresy isn't so much CoC in space, though there are elements of that-- and if you're running a Mallus campaign, then it will definitely have more in-line with it than Xenos or Hereticus. Demons are no jokes, but yeah, combat is absurdly lethal, and your average PC even in lategame is 3 solid hits away from death or maiming at any given time. That said, if you're running a Mallus campaign without a Psyker.... Hoooooo boy.

-Psykers may be the most broken career in the game, but trying to fight daemons without them is a good path to a bad day for the Acolytes. Not that you can't do it (in our last campaign, or Guardsman racked up as many daemon kills with her Power Long Sword as my Psyker did, if not more), but Psykers tend to be the ones best equipped not only for dealing with Daemons themselves, but for helping a PARTY deal with Daemons (due to several Psychic Powers allowing bonuses or rerolls on Fear saves, which you'll be taking a LOT of against Daemons, and Willpower being a weak point for most non-Psyker careers).

-Psychic Powers are not actually that complex. Every Psychic Power has a Power Threshold, which basically acts as a DC for casting the power. If a Psyker wants to use his powers he has to beat that DC on a number of D10's equal to or less than his Psy Rating. This roll is boosted by his Willpower Bonus (the "tens" digit of his Willpower Characteristic). If any 9's are rolled, he will suffer a number of Psychic Phenomena equal to the number of 9's rolled (eg. If he rolled three dice, and two of them come up as "9", then Psychic Phenomena happens twice). Note that just because Phenomena happens doesn't mean the power doesn't go off. It just goes off "with interest" so-to-speak.

-Watch out for Fire and Fall Damage, and be aware that fire bombs are probably one of the most cost-effective weapons in the entire game. I've seen my party do more damage with a fire grenade than a Bolter. Whether you want to clue your group into this ahead of time or not, is up to you. Also. Fall damage is stupidly lethal, to the point that you can probably do more damage by pushing someone off the roof of a one story building, than by shooting them for several rounds with a decent gun.

agreed. The Psyker class in DH is pretty ridiculous, moreso if you've got a player who does not RP a psyker properly. One of the points of a Psyker is that they get a ton of mechanical perks, but they're supposed to be "balanced" through a very strict and harsh RP. This is a world that is extremely mistrustful, and often outright hateful towards Psykers. Even though a Psyker can do an awful lot that other classes can do, it's supposed to be very difficult for them to actually engage in the broader gameworld casually. Psykers should be looked down upon, most law-enforcement have an automatic "OK" from their upper brass to kill a Psyker if they look at them funny. This is even more true for priests, who, at a high enough career, can legally brand anyone a "witch" and incite a pogrom to do their stake-burning for them.

unfortunately, most Players and GMs do not fully understand this. The two DH GMs I played with absolutely hated our party Psyker because he was constantly outclassing both the other players, and the GM's encounters with his ludicrous skills and powers. I almost felt bad for the player when I GM'd because I made him actually role-play his class properly. He thought I was picking on him because I kept punishing him for casually using powers in front of Arbitrators, priests, governors, etc. and stealing the thunder of other players by using a skill that was supposed to be unique to another class, but Psykers get anyway...for some reason.

Honestly, when you come down to it. I think the Psyker is fine with his powers and whatever psyker relevant skills that class would logically have. They do not need the mechanic based skills of a Tech Priest, the oratory skills of a Minister, or the combat prowess of a guardsman.

[JellyPooga]

agreed. The Psyker class in DH is pretty ridiculous, moreso if you've got a player who does not RP a psyker properly.

This is true. DH, perhaps moreso than other 40k RPGs, has a much greater focus on appropriate roleplaying. Largely because of its more investigative/social nature.

What Hagashager says applies to other characters too; an Arbitrator PC, for example, should be regarded with fear by most people they meet (assuming s/he's in uniform) and shouldn't (by and large) be able to stroll into a bar, buy some drinks and chat to the locals; his authority prevents it (it doesn't stop him booting the door of a watering hole down and demanding answers, of course, but that's a...less subtle approach the party may not want to take).

Likewise, walking around with a small arsenal of heavy weapons, blades and grenades should not be the norm if the PCs want to get much actual investigating done; a small group of heavily armed strangers tends to draw attention, almost entirely negative and people tend to get nervous/defensive/wary talking to such people because it's not "normal". Getting arrested and giving them the choice between invoking the Inquisitorial name and dealing with the problem themselves is always a good scene and can really hammer home the nature of their role as Acolytes; bringing out the Big-I should always be a last resort and they don't want to/shouldn't feel casual about doing so.

[Contrast]

Our go to excuse was that we were conducting a census. Gives us an excuse to be nosy and ask questions without whipping out the Inquisitorial seals

[Chijinda]

agreed. The Psyker class in DH is pretty ridiculous, moreso if you've got a player who does not RP a psyker properly. One of the points of a Psyker is that they get a ton of mechanical perks, but they're supposed to be "balanced" through a very strict and harsh RP. This is a world that is extremely mistrustful, and often outright hateful towards Psykers. Even though a Psyker can do an awful lot that other classes can do, it's supposed to be very difficult for them to actually engage in the broader gameworld casually. Psykers should be looked down upon, most law-enforcement have an automatic "OK" from their upper brass to kill a Psyker if they look at them funny. This is even more true for priests, who, at a high enough career, can legally brand anyone a "witch" and incite a pogrom to do their stake-burning for them.

unfortunately, most Players and GMs do not fully understand this. The two DH GMs I played with absolutely hated our party Psyker because he was constantly outclassing both the other players, and the GM's encounters with his ludicrous skills and powers. I almost felt bad for the player when I GM'd because I made him actually role-play his class properly. He thought I was picking on him because I kept punishing him for casually using powers in front of Arbitrators, priests, governors, etc. and stealing the thunder of other players by using a skill that was supposed to be unique to another class, but Psykers get anyway...for some reason.

Honestly, when you come down to it. I think the Psyker is fine with his powers and whatever psyker relevant skills that class would logically have. They do not need the mechanic based skills of a Tech Priest, the oratory skills of a Minister, or the combat prowess of a guardsman.

I agree with this for the most part. Psykers, basically trade "contextual" power, for mechanical power-- that is to say, Psykers are the strongest career mechanically. Within the system. But the trade-off is that within the context of 40k they are by far the most limited in how they can use that mechanical power. As you say-- a Psyker cannot use their powers to solve every little problem, because then they get mobs with pitchforks chanting "burn the witch!"

With that said, I disagree about the "Combat prowess of a guardsman"-- in the context of the Tabletop, Psykers are just as competent as their comparable units. They might not be THE biggest badasses in their respective armies, but in the Imperial Guard and Space Marines alike, a Psyker/Librarian is no worse a fighter than any of their contemporaries and really only outclassed by the best of the best.

They shouldn't necessarily EXCEL, but I don't see why Psykers should be denied high level combat abilities. If anything, the Guardsman career in Dark Heresy just got HEAVILY shafted, which is the real problem, and is only an above-average combat career at best (Assassins, Psykers, Sororitas and Tech Priests are generally better combatants than Guardsmen, and Scum, Clerics and Arbitrators are about as competent). That's the real tragedy for the Guardsman career. They have good flexibility in pursuing a method of combat, but get locked in hard, once they choose how they want to fight, when ideally they should be terrors at BOTH long and close range, not merely "competent" at one and "good" at the other.

[Contrast]

It's worth saying as well that a psyker who tries to solve every problem with psychic powers will roll psychic phenomena a lot. This is controlled in later systems by introducing a different system but in original Dark Heresy there isn't really much you can do to mitigate it.

Sometimes this will be fine but often even the 'not dangerous' results will draw immediate attention to the fact that you are messing with the warp which many people will (violently) object to. Always consider if casting a power is worth accidentally killing the party over

[Hagashager]

I agree with this for the most part. Psykers, basically trade "contextual" power, for mechanical power-- that is to say, Psykers are the strongest career mechanically. Within the system. But the trade-off is that within the context of 40k they are by far the most limited in how they can use that mechanical power. As you say-- a Psyker cannot use their powers to solve every little problem, because then they get mobs with pitchforks chanting "burn the witch!"

With that said, I disagree about the "Combat prowess of a guardsman"-- in the context of the Tabletop, Psykers are just as competent as their comparable units. They might not be THE biggest badasses in their respective armies, but in the Imperial Guard and Space Marines alike, a Psyker/Librarian is no worse a fighter than any of their contemporaries and really only outclassed by the best of the best.

They shouldn't necessarily EXCEL, but I don't see why Psykers should be denied high level combat abilities. If anything, the Guardsman career in Dark Heresy just got HEAVILY shafted, which is the real problem, and is only an above-average combat career at best (Assassins, Psykers, Sororitas and Tech Priests are generally better combatants than Guardsmen, and Scum, Clerics and Arbitrators are about as competent). That's the real tragedy for the Guardsman career. They have good flexibility in pursuing a method of combat, but get locked in hard, once they choose how they want to fight, when ideally they should be terrors at BOTH long and close range, not merely "competent" at one and "good" at the other.

I can understand that, my bigger issue was in their more nuanced skills and feats of other classes like he Tech Priest and Cleric. In my first DH game all the players (including me) felt a little side-lined by our Psyker using just about everything it seemed we other classes had to solely rely on. Our GM really struggled with how to balance the Psyker since our party Psyker would argue that making people hate him so much limited him to a point that he didn't want to play. Well all, eventually, decided he was being a bit of a pill to get away with munchkinry.

And yes, I agree about the Guardsman, our Guardsman player, at higher levels, really started to feel out of place. He could not keep up with the rest of the party.

Dark Heresy is a great game, but it's also the first FFG in the 40k world, and thus many of the flaws that would be ironed out in other games, are still present here.

[JellyPooga]

Dark Heresy is a great game, but it's also the first FFG in the 40k world, and thus many of the flaws that would be ironed out in other games, are still present here.

On that note, I would definitely recommend 2ed. Not to turn this into an edition war, but DH2 simply ironed out a lot of the creases that bugged me about 1ed. It's far from a perfect system, but definitely better than its predecessor.

It's a really pretty hardcover book too; I love the art style and content layout

[KillingTime]

Hey All

I know I'm extremely late to this party, but DH has been pretty much my main system for about the last 10 years, so I wanted to at least find out how your campaign is shaping up.
Call it a professional interest!

To echo the last point by JellyPooga, if you do enjoy DH1 I do very much recommend trying DH2 at some point. It's basically the same game in many respects, but with some significant changes - mostly to character generation (no more levels!).