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 I am going to be running a campaign soon and I would like a few hints and tips please. I am going to have just 6 people maybe 8 but it's going to be imperium vs "good" Xenos. I was wondering what is the best way to deal with people who don't show up one day or drop out?I will not be playing in it so in case their is an odd number I can substitute either side but was wondering if there is a better way. Also any hints or tips in general that I should know or be aware of? My only concern is to have consistency and I know one person not making it can effect the campaign. Thank you in advance!

While I couldn't tell you what exactly is the best way to deal with players who aren't always present, this is a question that's often posed to DM's running Dungeons and Dragons campaigns. I bet you could find some good resources relating to DM'ing with a little googling around, and it should be easy to carry that over to a 40k campaign.

Teams.

Also, when you create the teams, don't balance it by the number of physical players, balance it by the activity level of players.

for example, for one of my previous campaigns, we asked everyone how many games a week on average they could play.
We then balanced it by that....

For example team A:
Player who plays 4 games a week.
Player who plays 3 games a week
Player who plays 1 game a week
Player who plays .5 games a week.

Usually the players who are not going to show, or who drop, are the ones who play less games on average (note, not how many the WANT to play, but how many the will play, or have been able to play in the past).

This has for the most part worked well.
I have run and played in several campaigns - and happy to share learnings from our games .....which may or may not be useful....but hey, willing to help!

I've never run a game so I can't say for sure but maybe try to get players to warn you in advance if they're going to be absent. It can give you some time to make up for their absence.

SkavenLord wrote:
I've never run a game so I can't say for sure but maybe try to get players to warn you in advance if they're going to be absent. It can give you some time to make up for their absence.

Tragically, this is not always the case....but if you have mature players they will give as much notice as possible.
Hopefully....

On thing that does help with this is;

Create a mailing list, google group or twitter just for the campaign - this helps coordinate info.

Thank you for the advice guys it makes sense. I will definitely organize the teams properly, I didn't think about breaking it down play time wise. That can make it really simple.

Hey davethepak did you ever try a campaign with a master army list at a set number of points? I was thinking of doing a master list of 20k give or take, points that the players draw their lists from

I think if you force people to only pull from a list that was created at the beginning of the campaign then you are going to have a few upset players. It's better to simply tell each player that they have X points to use throughout the campaign. That way they can adjust their lists from one game to the next.

However, you might put a cap on named characters: For example, if Lysander dies during a game then he doesn't get to come back OR, if he dies you have to roll an X at the end of the game to see if he succumbs to his wounds or not... OR you might simply allow players to give up a certain number of points to bring back the dead... Something interesting anyway.

I've run a few long term campaigns. - as in a year to go through it. We use the planetary empires set to keep track of things.

The flow is pretty simple:

1. At the outset, each side is given a certain # of points. Game sizes range from 500 to Apoc levels. When a battle is over you subtract the dead and units with 50% or less survivors from that total. You are allowed to roll a die for each "killed" named special character. On a 3+, he's still alive, but you still lose the points. On a 1-2 you don't get to use that one anymore.

2. Each Campaign Turn is 2 weeks. In a single Campaign Turn, each player is allowed to make 2 attacks. The players coordinate between themselves to resolve the battle. The attacking player sets the points value while the defending player can use anything up to that amount of points for defending their territory. We have 2 defined game days during the week. If the defending player is unable to attend either of the game days during that week they auto lose the contested territory. This way we keep things moving even if one has to drop out for a week or two.

3. You get bonuses for holding certain territories. For example, if it's a Hive City tile you get to recruit from it - once a week you add 300 points to your point pool. If it's a manufactorum, then when it's attacked the defender gets an extra heavy support unit. etc.

4. Certain territories come with more rules. We usually have various worlds like Daemon, Iced, etc. In our last one we had a space station in which you had to play a zone mortalis game along with low gravity rules. Pretty cool.

5. At the end of each Campaign Turn, points are awarded based on the number (and sometimes type) of territories you hold. Campaign Points can be spent during the regular games on things like seizing the initiative or having a free fortification.

What we've found is that sometimes it is strategically advantageous to simply allow an attacker to win a spot without contesting it. Or, sometimes you show up with the intent to simply do as much point damage as possible even if you are going to lose the game.

Wow clively your are the man! (I hope) That is the whole bunch of ideas I had in my head and you explained it all to me, thanks so much. You really helped me out a lot with that.

Glad that helps.

I really love campaign play. I just feel it gives the games more meaning. Also, although I GM the thing, I also play in it...my personal goal is more as a spoiler than being competitive.

I know a number of people didn't like the Crusade of Fire book. However, I suggest you get a copy if possible. The writing is a bit scattered, but there are several ideas in it concerning map based games that certainly help with generating bonuses for things. We lifted the part about a planet killer missile and starting with Campaign Turn 2, the controlling player at the end of the Campaign Turn is allowed to either fire one planet killing shot which succeeds on a 2+ or can cause the thing to self destruct ( which can be the best option depending on what else is going on). If the player shoots and scores a hit then the target tile is removed from play.

Also, read the Battles section of the big rule book (pg 339 through 384). Concepts such as Secret missions (pg 365), Mission special rules (pg 366/367), and War Zone traits (pg 368/369) can really add a lot to some battles. It's not that hard to extend something like Secret missions into something that players should accomplish during a specific campaign turn. For example, maybe one player is told to attack a particular location and gets extra points for simply holding one objective even if the game is a loss...

I don't think I was clear on this part, but our maps are essentially defining a sector of space where each tile represents a planet. This makes it a bit more believable when one territory (aka planet) is a daemon world and the next is a High Gravity world. Honestly, one set of planetary empires tiles is good enough. Everyone starts with 3 flags to plant anywhere (random roll for who goes first). At the end of each campaign turn each player is awarded another couple flags + some bonus ones depending on specific territories they may be holding. Kind of like Risk.

The campaign we are currently finishing up is around the Badab War. We essentially took some of the ideas from the FW books on the subject, combined it with some of the rules from Crusade of Fire, then sprinkled in our own twists. It's been bloody and everyone has had a good time. Side note: Huron seems on track to rewrite "history".

One last thing. We got rid of the concept of just 2 sides. Each player has their own interest in the relevant region while players are free to make (and break) alliances at any moment. That way it doesn't matter if everyone is playing Marines or even if there is an odd number of players during the campaign. With that in mind, players can team up to do doubles games in which the outcome decides the fate of 2 territories - even if they aren't connected. Or one can "pay" the other to be a mercenary with campaign points to have them take over a particular territory... There are lots of possibilities here.

Overall, the trick as a GM is just to be fair and encouraging while allowing them to flesh out the story. Also, If you see one player really falling behind then you might throw some softball secret Campaign missions to help them get back into the running; be careful with this though.

Okay, that was a bit more than "one last thing.." I'll stop now.

Dat Guy wrote:
Thank you for the advice guys it makes sense. I will definitely organize the teams properly, I didn't think about breaking it down play time wise. That can make it really simple.

Hey davethepak did you ever try a campaign with a master army list at a set number of points? I was thinking of doing a master list of 20k give or take, points that the players draw their lists from

I have played BOTH in "master list" games and in games similar to what clively stated (some great points in there too!!!).


I have found the master list can be a TON of fun.....it leads to a lot of very long turn thinking at times.
(we had a FOC of sorts at the master level, (i.e. 20 units of HQ, 60 units of troops, 30 units of elites, etc.) but not in the individual games - that composition was up to the genearals who assigned the armies.
Two examples - two players managed to take the majority of a team's terminators into a couple of misions that did not really need them, and where they were almost alone (they were very overconfident).
The other players realized they might not be able to win the specific missions (one was to hold part of a town, the other was to repel a river crossing) - however, they did realize that if they really focused, they might be able to kill most of the enemy termines.

Similar things happened in several battles that turn.
team A, had for the most part "won" most of the missions......but in the process, they lost most of their incredibly important units (we had a way to bring back some units. but a loss of some key units this early was crippling).
Where as Team B either "lost" or drew most of the battles....but lost very few units, and then was able to consolidate and focus better.
It was incredibly cool.

We did the named character thing similar to Clively suggests - if a named guy dies (or any IC, for that matter) you roll - on a 4+ they come back, but with one less LD and one less wound.
(we had some specific locations that could modify that, but you get the idea).

have fun!

Wow again to both of you, thanks again. That's fine if one last thing turned into all that lol the more the better and if you have any more 'one'last thing please don't hesitate.

But hell yeah this stuff helps, I am glad I posted this thread it was so worth it.