Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey dakkanauts,

I've got a group that is interested in 40k, but in a plot-driven, co-op campaign. We're 10+ DnD players and a couple of them don't think a traditional 40k campaign of strategic map maneuvering + skirmishes is going to draw and hild their attention, so we're kicking around and brainstorming how to make it more set piece and plot driven and wanted to see if any if you had run or been apart of something in this vein.

This thought process thus far is shaping up to have 2-4 players as an allied force that will work together as commanders of an equal number of factions fighting a DM-controlled NPC faction through a series of kill team sized and 2k a side point skirmishes, as well as roleplaying and non-combat encounters using the Deathwatch mechanics. This will culminate in an Apoc sized fight, the details, forces participating in and location to be determined by choices made and battle outcomes of the campaign.

We've got some rough ideas and mechanics we're working through to bridge the gap between the skirmish sections and RPG elements, but wanted to see if anyone had given this concept a fair shake before hand.

Thanks much.

I'm working on a project based on Mordheim which may support some of this, but at the moment I have no plans to integrate it back into 40k. Don't know how much it'll help, it may depend on what you're aiming for in the long run.

It's not completely finished/posted but it will be mentioned here and posted at the blog linked to in my signature when it is.

We're actually doing essentially that with our Deathwatch campaign right now. I do a lot of gaming theory and so I convert over our Deathwatch characters over to 40k and they can use them as they'd like during battle. We use extremely narrative scenerios and give the characters special license in battle (though they can still be killed).
We usually roleplay weekly until there is a large scale tactical battle and then work our way up to actual 40k. This could easily be done in reverse with unique 40k characters who go on small scale missions after battle.
However, a lot of our complaints with it is that Space Marines offer much less in roleplay ability in comparison to humans or other races. So I might reccomend Only War or Dark Heresy if theyre way more into character develolment and actions than combat. Id be happy to give any practical advice youd like along the way and its so far been extremely fun and a great way to play!

That's a pretty nice idea, which I shall steal.

I've been looking for a way to get the 40k and D&D players to join together in a campaign, seeing as though some of the 40k players find D&D boring and some of the D&D players don't want to learn how to play 40k.

Why not also have a rule that the players can pick better characters for their D&D games so that they are more likely to succeed in the rp, however if that character should die then there are consequences in the 40k games. For example: they choose a very high ranking comissar as their character for the increased charisma but should he die then the troops in the 40k game have reduced leadership, or you may take a techmarine for the ability to repair and interact with mechanical things in the rp world but if he dies then vehicles in the 40k game have -1 to a random armour facing or fire snapshots on 3 or less.

Give some consequences to the rp game (besides the deciding where battles are held and what is being faught over).

I think KISS is your friend here. You don't want to make things too complicated to manage/balance/explain. Plus, having an unwieldy rules set might turn off players who don't want to learn yet another set of rules.

Here are a couple ideas for you:

* Each "round" (every two weeks or however often you plan to meet up for this campaign), present the players with several different missions. Give them enough information to imply what sort of shenanigans will be involved, but keep some of the mission-specific secrets up your sleeve. Then, let the players decide how they want to divvy up their forces.

For instance, you might let Side A know that there's a survival-mode mission, an intercept-the-convoy mission, and a blow up the shield generator mission. Your dark eldar player might decide he'd be great at one of those last two but crummy at the first one. The imperial fist player might love the idea of holding the line in the survival mission. That sort of thing. It's an easy way to give the players a sense of control over the scenarios they find themselves in.

Then, sprinkle surprises. The ground between terrain might flood with water every other turn in the interceptor mission, rewarding players with skimmers who can hop between islands easily but slowing down foot-slogging players. There might be a terminal in the middle of the battlefield on the blow-up-the-generator mission that provides bonuses to player's with tech-savy models like tech priests.

That sort of thing. The players get to put themselves in scenarios that fit their armies, the fluffy nature of the scenarios help paint a mental image of the story (forge the narrative), and the special rules let you spice things up (or help out a side of less skilled players) while also rewarding certain fluffy army selection options.

40k campaigns are very ambitious! Since 40k is so lethal (with probably a good 60-90% of your army being destroyed in a game), focusing on the small stories of the individual or even a small team is not going to give you a lot of continuance. HQs will also often die during a game. As such I would suggest focusing on the idea that the players are sending their subordinates into battle. If there are characters that the players want to track, if they're removed as a casualty, have them roll a d6 at the end of the battle. On a 1, the character dies. On a 2-5, they're injured and can't be used for some amount of time. On a 6, the character was merely knocked out or otherwise incapacitated, but is fine for the next battle.

As for the stories of the games themselves, since the battles in the 40k realm are huge and sprawling, with no sudden victories or defeats, frame these battles as being the exception to the rule. Other battles have larger forces against smaller ones, but these are critical battles that matter most to the greater war, and also where neither side can know the outcome because the forces are so close. Please post some games, because I'd love to see what you end up doing!

I've been toying with the idea of trying something similar with my D&D group too, so will be watching this with interest for ideas!

Well as far as HQs dying, we've always just used an injury table like Battle Companies from LOTR, basically just roll after battle
12-11= dead
10-5=Seriously Wounded (Critical Damage Chart from Deathwatch=number just rolled)
4-3= lightly wounded (Start next mission at 1d10 less wounds )
2= Total Recovery
Course, we also have been making a point to kill each others characters which is why its so skewed to massive damage