View Full Version : GM or Player, hard choice

01-04-2007, 20:31
Hi. I think it was a week ago I posted


Not sure why I posted it here and not on the GW forum again. But this just felt as the correct site to post it.

I followed the suggestions as planed. But instead of starting with the senario in the thread I did another senario. A simple one where there where 2 character on each side. A trade and both "traders" had a "sniper" with them. The senario wasent great and the characters was unbalanced but the Inquisitor game was truly awsome. Im sure I did very faults since I just played using a few printed pages from the LRB.

Now im getting the rulebook and a Character to repensent Scrite (see the link). The problem is that if I take it too my club being the only one who knows the game, I will surely be the GM. Id love to be a GM (Iv gamemastered several pen and papper RPGs) The problem is that I would love to be a player too. I love those 54 miniatures. Despite them being expensiv. Another problem I could see is that if Im a GM and tell the player to make characters and go buy them and I have only supplied the rulebook. That wont make me too popular (unless the people testing realy loves the game).

So thats the problem for me now. I dont know who else could be a GM, but someone needs to buy models (and make a warband) first to inspire the others to dont care about money, first I dident liked the prices either. But after looking through the 54 models I relised that they are just so much cooler (specily if you convert them and I was given a great link for finding components to characters). So a problem is that other people might not be too keen on buying expensiv 54 models if im not starting with doing it.

01-04-2007, 20:41
Why not have NPCs that you, as the GM control? you get to take part in the scenario as well as control it, you have to have models so you're not at any kind of advantage and the players can see how you'd prefer to play Inquisitor - not turning it into a slugfest

02-04-2007, 14:25
I GM and play all the time. Take two sides for a given scenario. Then if you have two players who want an intro game they get one side each and you GM or, if there's only one person who fancies trying it out, you get to play the other side.

Naturally, as GM, you need to be more aware that the game is being run "for" the other player, but it doesn't mean it can't be fun and it also allows you to demonstrate how to do things that perhaps your opponent (fresh from "normal" tabletop games) wouldn't think of - like aiming or overwatching.


03-04-2007, 19:07
I will follow your adives. Be a GM when needed and play too. Then I get to do both.

05-06-2007, 10:23
I do both! as most of our games are two player, we just joint GM the game. seems to work, and has the advantage of two evil minds plotting on new, cool things to do!

09-06-2007, 09:42
I am the only GM for our group (Mind like a steel trap for rules), but i like to play too. i usually run single player objective missions (cause thats how the campaign is set up) and throw one player at a bunch of NPCs. if there are other people looking for a game, they play as back or take control of the some of the previously Non playable Characters. then i play who ever is left, or just sit one out and direct.

in one off mutliplayer games, i play the wide card, either the sniper who hides in the tower and bounces .50 cal rounds off the heads of the people who camp, or the sister repentia psychopath who has 6 speed and wields a eviserator without any penalty.

then there is the third option, which is a take on the second one, where you play a multiplayer one off game, but play a fair warband like the rest off your chums and go to as usual.