PDA

View Full Version : Advice on running an enjoyable 40k campaign over a long period?



Proiteus
04-12-2014, 23:26
I'm looking for advice on running a 40k campaign at either a gaming club or a local hobby centre. I've taken part in many narrative campaigns over the years, however too many of them end due to lack of interest after a few weeks.
So I'm looking for advice on how best to run one, especially on the following points...

Map/Grid type play?
A map based campaign often seems a good idea but the problem I've encountered with this is that you often get stuck fighting the same players. The best way I've seen this done was at GW a few years back; it was simple you won a game you got to put a sticker on a map and gain territory and then fight for other players when there was none left to claim. Still I'm eager to hear other suggestions?

Campaign Rules?
What rules should be in play during a campaign, should players be allowed to run multiple armies? Should those armies be effected by previous games or territory size? I've played in a campaign where there was a lot of maths involved as you had to detract points for territory held and if the force was not your main force, as a result players quickly tired of it.

Run time?
How long would you recommend a campaign should run for?

As always I appreciate any help on the matter?

MasterDecoy
04-12-2014, 23:44
From my experience running campaigns, you want to keep the book keeping to a minimum. Bogging yourself or the players down with detail sounds cool in theory, but is more often than not WAY more hassle than its worth.

While a map is good for visualizing the operations level of the campaign, it really shouldn't be involved with rules, just a reference for where the action is taking place. As this is the 41st millennium, battle lines are often blurred or non existent anyway in an era that involves surgical orbital insertions, air cavalry and teleportation.

Id also steer away from trying to keep an overall complicated army roster that the players draw their forces from, there are many ways to simulate casualty's without the need for in-depth book keeping. For example, If Player A's force gets decimated in a mission, just have his future battles start with less points untill he has re-couperated to represent a smaller pool of soldiers to pull from, or deal d6 automatic casualty to each squad at the start of the battle to represent that his squads aren't at full strength. (characters are an obvious exception to this rule, as it is not hard to keep track of a dozen Sargents and a few commanders)

Personally, I have gravitated towards arranging a battle with a specific mission, for example:
Player A is the attacker, Player B is the defender. Player A's objective is to sabotage the power generator, he wins by destroying a certain amount of objectives, Player B's objective is to stop them.
This is a kill team mission, Player A can dedicate 200 points to this mission, player B can dedicate 250 points (as it is his home ground). Game continues until the objective is compete or one side has been wiped out/routed.
If player A wins this mission, player B's emplaced weapons may only be fired manually for the next 3 missions.

Write up a story breifing Here Is some that I have written (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?392351-The-Fate-of-Segorum-III-An-ongoing-campaign) and give it to both players. Let them write up their lists so they can complete their mission and get onto the next one. Make up the story as you go along, remember to include any cool moments from the games, and direct the story to its natural conclusion.

By keeping the mission rewards simple and easy, players will feel like they are achieving something, and will have an element of continuity about them. Remember to include a few "Pivotal battles" that will swing the war effort one way or the other and Once the story has reached it crescendo, wrap it up with a couple of final missions, whoever's war effort fared the best should be declared the victor.

HelloKitty
05-12-2014, 02:51
Depends on your group and what they want to do.

www.louisvillewargaming.com is preparing to launch a massive Badab war map campaign which uses both 40k and BFG, and will be running from January - June of 2015. There are rules in their files section for the event.

kurisawa
05-12-2014, 05:24
I'm looking for advice on running a 40k campaign at either a gaming club or a local hobby centre. I've taken part in many narrative campaigns over the years, however too many of them end due to lack of interest after a few weeks.
So I'm looking for advice on how best to run one, especially on the following points...

Map/Grid type play?
A map based campaign often seems a good idea but the problem I've encountered with this is that you often get stuck fighting the same players. The best way I've seen this done was at GW a few years back; it was simple you won a game you got to put a sticker on a map and gain territory and then fight for other players when there was none left to claim. Still I'm eager to hear other suggestions?

Campaign Rules?
What rules should be in play during a campaign, should players be allowed to run multiple armies? Should those armies be effected by previous games or territory size? I've played in a campaign where there was a lot of maths involved as you had to detract points for territory held and if the force was not your main force, as a result players quickly tired of it.

Run time?
How long would you recommend a campaign should run for?

As always I appreciate any help on the matter?

OK, as a vet of these, I can tell you one very simple but important guideline: KEEP IT SIMPLE.

1. Yes, use a map, but just use it as a striking visual representation of "points" - IE number of battles won for each player. The stickers thing works best. Let the players come up with interesting narratives from their (excessive) imaginations for anything further. Don't clutter it up with rules.

2. You can be as clever or as simple as you like here: I prefer simple. I've previously found too many (or too powerful) bonuses for winning previous battles tends to generate a "runaway" effect, where early game winners start getting access to lots of new units / extra points / other in-game bonuses, so that it becomes harder and harder for the early losers to catch up. A simple Experience Points system is cool - lets players collect honours for their units from game to game, and if one unit consistently performs well after about 5 games they get a "veteran" skill (either roll or choose something basic like +1I or Ld). The counter to this is that if a unit is ever wiped out during a battle it counts as losing all Experience Points up to that point as replacements come in. Then you'll see players treating their best units much more carefully! haha.

As per above, on overall territory rules, I just say that each game won gets a player one territory "point" on the map. You can have a special week at the end where players can try to "invade" each other, effectively making the last round of battle worth double territory points (the winner gains one point, and the loser loses one).

On running multiple armies, I tend towards letting players free to pick/change their forces between battles - including changing army entirely. Let them come up with a good fluff reason why their territory has suddenly been turned over to a new race! (Aside: Running an XP system above tends to encourage players to stick with their same forces).

3. As your own previous experience has surely shown, shorter campaigns are better. The longest I've run is about 4 months, and that's with a small number of dedicated players in a close group. I'd go for 6 weeks max for looser group arrangements. Then you have a climax and everyone wanting more, infinitely better than players losing interest and wandering off. You can always start a new campaign after the first if players want more - gives them a chance to try a new army or something, change the narrative around etc.

(Aside: If players only get points for winning battles but don't lose points for losing battles, it encourages people to turn up each campaign night as if you miss a week, the more regular participants will get a chance to accumulate points - and territories - ahead of you, even if their win/loss percentage is lower.)


Hope this helps!


K.

AndrewGPaul
05-12-2014, 10:08
My thought would be to avoid rules for the campaign entirely. If you want a narrative, just create something from the games that get played, and go from there. A map can help, but it shouldn't drive things. If I can't play Bob because his army is on the other side of the map from mine, that's annoying. You can adjust future battles on the fly based on , by mutual agreement. If someone builds a new cool conversion or scenery piece, include it. Don't just play the standard missions by the letter of the rules; change things (make an important objective worth more VPs, give some specific special rules rather than the Mysterious Objective rules, use a subset of the Tactical Objectives deck, etc).

What people want to do, in my experience, is play games of 40k, so keep the focus on that. The strapline isn't "In the grim darkness of the far future there is only logistics", after all. :)

Don't try to schedule things too tightly, either. We tried the Infinity Paradiso Campaign, but that relied on all the players playing their "round 1" games before anyone could play their "round 2" games, and when one person missed a couple of weeks, the whole thing died off.

Bonzai
07-12-2014, 04:11
Here is a link to my attempt at one:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?396793-The-Hydraphur-Campaign-(Iyanden-Eldar)

It's a bit of a read, but all the rules are there, including links to our maps, round by round coverage, and even video bat reps. Overall, the players seemed to enjoy it. Then nearly everyone quit to play Bolt Action.