PDA

View Full Version : Gamemasters and 40K



Easy E
09-09-2007, 13:22
In the old days of RT, the game was played by 2 or more players and a Gamemaster. The GM created the scenario, made rules decisions, set up the board, and designed the opposing armies.

Is this something that 40K still needs?

The_Patriot
09-09-2007, 13:26
I would have to say for regular games no, but there should be a big table in the book for rolling missions and objectives etc... For campaigns I would say yes, because of all the paperwork involved and to keep things honest.

Hand of Dume
09-09-2007, 13:29
no, i think now that the rules have been more simplified and the missions are represented in the rulebook, it kinda made the gamemaster obselete. if there are questions or arguements of rules, the easiest solution is the rolling of a dice.

Fourth Captain Tycon
09-09-2007, 13:31
We used to have a Gamemaster at our club campaign matches. It was usually the guys that were only painting on the nights, or the creator of the campaign. It seemed to help make the games flow without any real incidents because he was there.

I would agree with Patriot, It probably is a good idea for campaign matches or tournament matches, but for one off matches not so much.

Lord Humongous
09-09-2007, 13:37
Needs? No. Even Necromunda doesn't need a GM. But a good one can benefit the game a lot (setting up terrain, tweaking scenarios etc) and I could see that holding true in 40K in some cases - say when you want to play unbalanced games, or use strange army lists, or for games like Apocalypse. Then again, a bad GM can equally easily wreck what might otherwise be a decent game.

Greatoliver
09-09-2007, 16:44
Using =I= as an example, GMs seem to be there for the purpose of deciding what happens in situations where rules collide / things are uncertain. In 40K ATM, the rules are well enough written to have minimal circumstances where a third person is needed to decide what happens. So, no, I don't think that 40K does.