Which Would You Prefer

Which Would You Prefer

Guardsman Lowe
Trainee
Joined: Nov 14 2009, 12:57 AM

Sep 10 2014, 07:13 AM #1

I am planning to run an Only War campaign at my LGS soon.

I played in a previous one along with 6 others and the GM let us make our own regiments, which ended up in there being 4 different ones (some of the guys ran characters from the same regiment). This made thing a little confusing sometimes.

I was wondering what people's opinions are on the following

1. Would you rather have no option on the regiment you're from - as in the GM chooses all the options and all the player does is build his character.

or

2. Would your rather have some options on the regiment you're from - as in the GM chooses say the home world type and then the player builds a regiment from there with all that it ensues.

thank in advance for your help
Quote
Like
Share

Falken95th
Lieutenant
Falken95th
Lieutenant
Joined: Aug 18 2011, 03:52 AM

Sep 10 2014, 03:25 PM #2

That would depend most on the situation of the campaign, and how experienced your players are at role-playing.

If the scenario is putting together a squad to go behind enemy lines and blow something up or to explore an open flank, then the troops are probably hand-picked and can be from any number of regiments. Also, these mixtures are great for experienced RPGers who love the customization options.

If the mission is being part of a large scale assault, of which your PCs are participating, then it is more likely that they are all from the same regiment and you should determine those traits. This is better if you're dealing with people relatively new to RPGs.

One Only War campaign I heard about started by the GM giving a list of regiments on the planet (along with their stories and planet types) and allowing the PCs to pick from that list. This idea was one I liked because it sits somewhere in between the two options.
Quote
Like
Share

Makoto
Brigadier General
Makoto
Brigadier General
Joined: Jan 12 2005, 05:44 PM

Sep 10 2014, 04:56 PM #3

Depends on Your players:

If they're experienced or imaginative enough, giving them complete freedom is a good idea, even better when they create their parent regiments together. This works especially well if You're planning on main regiment starting as more or less veteran unit rather than completely green one - it'd mean an amalgamate of veterans from few units melded into one. It won't even need to be a "hardened veterans" as such - after all, often a few regiments get massacred on their first battle, and survivors are just grouped together with Departamento Munitorum not caring they're creating an armoured-paratroop group or some suchlike hybrid.
This might create some confusion and make life surprisingly easier for the party on most missions, but at the same time it will add extra dimension to the "social" part of their character's life, perhaps even some smaller or larger quest hooks to be used later, and think of all the supply SNAFUs this invokes, when parts of use to the regiment as a whole end up in the wrong company.

If the players are relatively inexperienced, You feel they'd abuse the possibilities of making an amalgamate, or they'd just be lost with too many options, then the short list of available regiments is a better idea.
The correct answer is: Because that is our job

I sometimes question my sanity. Occasionally it replies.
Quote
Like
Share

Guardsman Lowe
Trainee
Joined: Nov 14 2009, 12:57 AM

Sep 11 2014, 01:56 AM #4

The players are somewhat experienced - we've played a few rp's of various systems.

the idea for the campaign was to have them working behind the lines eventually.

in the previous one the regiment were
a highborn armoured regiment
a death world guerrilla regiment - mine
a rough riders regiment who rode wolves
a storm trooper regiment
Quote
Like
Share