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.

Rihgu wrote:
The Skyrim-without-the-world comparison seems particularly wrong because the world is... 40k? Right? Or is the Crusade system sold without setting context? I may be confused on what it is but I'm pretty sure Crusade has a world, much like Skyrim has a world.

You are correct, of course- the difference being that 40k as a setting is too big to actually be the time and place where a game takes place.

You can play a 40k set on Terra during the Age of Apostasy, or on Armageddon during Thrakka's Waaaghh, etc.

Skyrim is one world, one time.

The context of the comment though is the ongoing debate about whether the Crusade system is enough, on its own, to run a game. This conversation has taken place within this thread over several pages, even though it is somewhat of a tanget to the actual thread. I think the Crusade system is great as is, and the best thing to happen to 40k since I started playing in 89. Unit1126PLL thinks that the Crusade system is missing something, and it seems like he feels that what's missing is campaign content for lack of a better term- the specific elements of story, linked to time and place.

Interestingly enough, we agree on the topic of the thread- new dexes are missing some of the flavour stuff that has previously been included, and both of us seem to prefer to have that stuff. Crusade came up because some people feel that the bespoke Crusade stuff is what pushed out the fluff.

When I think of narrative gaming, pen and paper RPG's immediately come to mind, because I think they are the most narrative of all types of games that exist. Unit1126PLL brought up Skyrim, and I just used the analogy. But I think actual RPG's are better analogies, so I stuffed those into the argument too. If a narrative game is too closely connected to a particular setting (which can be in time or space or both) in order to help people build stories, it loses versatility.

I think Unit would feel like Crusade would be more if it was connected to a specific time or place, I think that would be a mistake, because the system would not be versatile enough to allow us to play in times and spaces of our own choosing.

I think Unit would feel like Crusade would be more if it was connected to a specific time or place, I think that would be a mistake, because the system would not be versatile enough to allow us to play in times and spaces of our own choosing.

Seems like they'd be very interested in, if you've got them right:

 Jidmah wrote:

Just curious Unit1126PLL, what is your opinion on books like this?
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Crusade-Beyond-The-Veil-Mission-Pack-EN-2020

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real narrative players...

Are they also Scottish?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
... have been kicking ass and taking names in the narrative scene long before Crusade existed, and long after it dies as a system. That's half my point.

The second half is that Crusade isn't actually Narrative. At all.

It's a rule structure for narrative games. D&D is a narrative game, it still has rules. Necromunda is a narrative driven game, and it has extensive campaign rules.

Campaign rules are fantastic for narrative as they give a structure that allows games to progress from one to another. Having a system that allows for unit progression, force escalation, and even downsides to losing units/games is a good thing. It doesn't limit narrative avenues.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you took Skyrim, left in the leveling system (different trees to select from, perk points, skills, etc), but took out the World (tamriel), the Storyline (Alduin Worldeater) and the Secondary Plots (The Skyrim Civil War), you'd basically have crusade.

Yes, there's some elements of the missions that are somewhat narrative, but to use the Skyrim comparison again, the Crusade missions are like if Skyrim consisted exclusively of procedurally generated dungeons in which you could pick three secondary missions to complete (kill the necromancer, release the prisoners, secure the food supplies) in addition to the primary mission (find the macguffin). There's no information provided on how to string these dungeons together or what they mean or even what world they're in. They just exist in an empty void.

Yes, yes, when you complete the Dungeon your character (whose nature is completely irrelevant) gets to level up to Level 25 and choose some perk or another... but that's not narrative. That's just progression. Playing procedurally generated Crusade missions so you can earn Crusade XP and RP so you can progress in leveling up your units and your roster isn't even really the same thing as narrative.

I think that using Skyrim isn't the best example. That game may be as wide as the ocean, but it's as deep as a kid's paddling pool.

I get what you're saying, and I have heard the "Crusade is not narrative" argument before, but I fundamentally disagree that the two aren't meant for one another. It's just a structure behind the games themselves, allowing one to flow onto the next with trackable results for all involved players.

For me, Crusade is 40k Necromunda, and I think that's wonderful.

I can see an argument for Crusade technically not being narrative, but in practice it is. Even without any story written players still get attached to their warbands, have grudges against opposing ones, and enjoy following the progression of both. Even friendly banter during the game over how X must be fighting Y because of Z, or how X is back for a rematch after its defeat to Y, can constitute a narrative.

In a way Crusade is more narrative than a structured campaign with specific story elements, because it creates narrative organically by inspiring players to do so on their own. And that is really what narrative play is about; not the existence or depth of a story but just getting people to see their armies as 'characters' in their own right.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I can see an argument for Crusade technically not being narrative, but in practice it is. Even without any story written players still get attached to their warbands, have grudges against opposing ones, and enjoy following the progression of both. Even friendly banter during the game over how X must be fighting Y because of Z, or how X is back for a rematch after its defeat to Y, can constitute a narrative.

That's not at all any different than a non-Crusade game in any edition prior to 9th.

Except it is, because Crusade provides a structure for army progression that applies equally to all factions (or will, when GW finally gets around to getting all the 'Dexes out).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Except it is, because Crusade provides a structure for army progression that applies equally to all factions (or will, when GW finally gets around to getting all the 'Dexes out).

That 'structure' (read: moar rulez!) has nothing to do with any of what I quoted.

Plus, 40K literally had a system of 'progression' based on gaining experience and extra skills during [narrative] campaigns five editions ago! This is nothing remotely new or original.

But it is codeified. And remains at all times entirely optional.

Much as I bemoan the lack of unit by unit background, I’m not blaming the Crusade Rules, and I most definitely don’t advocate it’s ditching.

Just....gimme my unit by unit background back as well!

The campaign rules that GW tacked onto the game in 3rd and 4th were pathetic.

This time they're taking it seriously.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But it is codeified. And remains at all times entirely optional.

Much as I bemoan the lack of unit by unit background, I’m not blaming the Crusade Rules, and I most definitely don’t advocate it’s ditching.

Just....gimme my unit by unit background back as well!

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The campaign rules that GW tacked onto the game in 3rd and 4th were pathetic.

This time they're taking it seriously.

Though, as with any version of Necromunda and its ilk? Those taking part need to do so in the spirit of a narrative campaign - where your journey is just as important as your destination.

I know I'm a few days late to the thread, but I am glad some people are getting to the argument.

First of all, WRT the Veil mission pack: I own it, so I like it. I haven't found anyone to play it with though yet, unfortunately.

But the point has largely been missed still. I also make my own settings for DND. I don't need a good setting prewritten to have a good game. Because I am a narrative player and have already been doing that for ages.

To use the DND analogy, let's say that DND 6th edition releases a single core book that everyone can buy (so no more DMG and no more PHB) that comes with two parts:
1) Dungeon generator (perhaps complete with one of those random online dungeon generator links) - this is basically the crusade mission system. Room 1 is of a random size at the end of random corridors with a random number of doors, and with random enemies and a single objective. The players can pick 3 optional objectives when they enter this randomly generated dungeon. That's the Crusade mission system.

2) XP and levelling guide (encounter worth X CR gives X XP, at Y XP you gain a level. When you gain a level, choose a feat or roll randomly if you want).

What they've given you isn't DND. There's no backgrounds (no requirement for them), there's no languages. There's not even a requirement to name your character. There's no social system, no information about how to connect your player's backstories (I loved the system in the Rogue Trader FF40kRPG for this)... there's basically nothing except progression and random unconnected dungeon generation.

Now, of course, a good DM could take all that information and make a linked setting anyways, picking and choosing what random elements of dungeon to incorporate, building the social encounter mechanisms from scratch, forcing people to name their characters and talk about backstories, etc.

but that's the GM doing the work, not the game, and could always have been done in the history of 40k without the Crusade system.

All crusade brings is a progression system that's "official". It doesn't even mean your guys get the bonuses next game unless you're playing someone from your campaign; I've definitely seen people turn down PUGs against crusade armies specifically because they CBA to use Power Level or because they don't think the CPs offset the bonuses that Crusade offers.

Anyways, my $0.02.

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But the point has largely been missed still. I also make my own settings for DND. I don't need a good setting prewritten to have a good game. Because I am a narrative player and have already been doing that for ages.

D&D has splatbook adventures. How is the Veil book any different to that?

I'm with Unit on this. There are a couple of points that I think are getting missed or conflated.

The Crusade rules provide structure for progression. I like that. That's a good thing and I'm glad it exists. But mechanical progression on its own doesn't make a campaign; Crusade is a series of disconnected battles using the same force. There's no larger context. Unit's analogy of a dungeon generator is spot on- it gives you the mechanical rules that you need to implement battles within a campaign, but no meat to string together those battles into a coherent narrative.

You could certainly take the 'dungeon generator' example, play a series of dungeon crawls, have your character level up each time... but that's more like a roguelike videogame than a D&D campaign. If you wanted it to be a campaign, you'd have to start homebrewing. Maybe you have a world map and allow the players to move around it, with different areas producing different dungeons. Maybe you could give the players decisions and progression unrelated to each individual dungeon crawl, like allies to recruit or equipment to buy. Then when they get into a dungeon, you generate and run it according to the given rules. That persistent larger world is what turns a series of disconnected encounters with the same character into a narratively structured campaign.

Crusade doesn't give you the tools to repeat the old WD campaigns, where they had a map and territory control, with ultimate objectives for each side. It just gives you ways to have prior battles affect the next, using the same force- a Crusade 'campaign' is more like a slow-grow tournament than it is like a D&D campaign. GW actually did that in WD, back in the day, but it was a whole different thing from their big narrative campaigns.

GW doesn't need to start publishing narrative campaign sourcebooks giving you dry accounts of each battle. That's the easiest thing to homebrew. They just need to provide a metagame, even if it's simple, for the Crusade system to slot into.

If I want to do a 'Battle for Vraks' campaign, I need:
1. Background on what Vraks is, who's fighting, why they're fighting, etc.
2. An overarching system to track how the campaign is going, what progress each side has made, and where/why an individual battle is occurring.
3. A system to fight the individual battles.
4. A system to handle progression for the forces involved in each battle.

Imperial Armour gives me #1. 40K gives me #3. Crusade gives me #4. Nothing gives me #2. So my choices are to either homebrew #2, or have the same forces fight each other over and over again according to default 40K rules, without any sense of 'place' within the Vraks conflict. That's not really a narrative campaign.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know I'm a few days late to the thread, but I am glad some people are getting to the argument.

First of all, WRT the Veil mission pack: I own it, so I like it. I haven't found anyone to play it with though yet, unfortunately.

But the point has largely been missed still. I also make my own settings for DND. I don't need a good setting prewritten to have a good game. Because I am a narrative player and have already been doing that for ages.

To use the DND analogy, let's say that DND 6th edition releases a single core book that everyone can buy (so no more DMG and no more PHB) that comes with two parts:
1) Dungeon generator (perhaps complete with one of those random online dungeon generator links) - this is basically the crusade mission system. Room 1 is of a random size at the end of random corridors with a random number of doors, and with random enemies and a single objective. The players can pick 3 optional objectives when they enter this randomly generated dungeon. That's the Crusade mission system.

2) XP and levelling guide (encounter worth X CR gives X XP, at Y XP you gain a level. When you gain a level, choose a feat or roll randomly if you want).

What they've given you isn't DND. There's no backgrounds (no requirement for them), there's no languages. There's not even a requirement to name your character. There's no social system, no information about how to connect your player's backstories (I loved the system in the Rogue Trader FF40kRPG for this)... there's basically nothing except progression and random unconnected dungeon generation.

Of course it's D&D.
There's no backgrounds (rules wise) in pre-5e editions of D&D. At least not in the PHB, DMG. Pre-5e the best you get straight out of the core books is vague nods (see 1e DMG). And it's completely optional in 5e. There's definitely no social system in any of them. You do get some vague stuff in additional books though. There's never been anything actually requiring a character name (well, besides a line on the character sheet).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All crusade brings is a progression system that's "official". It doesn't even mean your guys get the bonuses next game unless you're playing someone from your campaign; I've definitely seen people turn down PUGs against crusade armies specifically because they CBA to use Power Level or because they don't think the CPs offset the bonuses that Crusade offers.

Oh absolutely. Pts or PL, either is fine with me.
But I'm not going to play a game where I haven't got the same option to choose additional free rules for my models/units. 1st, if you're not in our Crusade (where things are documented)? I highly doubt you randomly rolled that upgrade that's so uniquely suited for unit x. And I KNOW you didn't have to pay anything for it. I'll also bet $ I'll never see a Battle Scar on any of your units (it's too rare in Crusade as is...) & if I do it won't be one of any consequence.
Ex: In our Crusade game my Immortals just got a weapons upgrade (Auto-loaders) that generates an additional hit on hit rolls of 6. That is worth sooo much more than giving my opponent +1 starting CP. And, IMO, that's not the best thing I could have Battle Honor wise.

Karol wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

Why bother buying a book only for the rules, if said rules will be reduntant following FAQ/CA/ Pts adjustment in +/- 6 months? That's just throwing money away..
The app is the answer IMO they need to make that a living rules system and keep codexes for fluff and art.

 catbarf wrote:
The Crusade rules provide structure for progression. I like that. That's a good thing and I'm glad it exists. But mechanical progression on its own doesn't make a campaign; Crusade is a series of disconnected battles using the same force. There's no larger context. Unit's analogy of a dungeon generator is spot on- it gives you the mechanical rules that you need to implement battles within a campaign, but no meat to string together those battles into a coherent narrative.

Necromunda has mechanical progression, and it makes a campaign just fine. It has territories, yes, but they're abstract and not finite. You're not fighting over a map, and the game, as written as of this posting, does not contain support for that. And Necromunda has supported campaigns for decades now.

 catbarf wrote:
You could certainly take the 'dungeon generator' example, play a series of dungeon crawls, have your character level up each time... but that's more like a roguelike videogame than a D&D campaign. If you wanted it to be a campaign, you'd have to start homebrewing. Maybe you have a world map and allow the players to move around it, with different areas producing different dungeons. Maybe you could give the players decisions and progression unrelated to each individual dungeon crawl, like allies to recruit or equipment to buy. Then when they get into a dungeon, you generate and run it according to the given rules. That persistent larger world is what turns a series of disconnected encounters with the same character into a narratively structured campaign.

Ok... and? Sorry, I'm not sure what the greater point is here.

Crusade provides a structure for campaign progression. What you do with that campaign progression is up to the players. If there were more rules around maps and territories and other such stuff, the same people would still be complaining about it not being "narrative" and just being "more rules".

 catbarf wrote:
Imperial Armour gives me #1. 40K gives me #3. Crusade gives me #4. Nothing gives me #2. So my choices are to either homebrew #2, or have the same forces fight each other over and over again according to default 40K rules, without any sense of 'place' within the Vraks conflict. That's not really a narrative campaign.

I can't agree with you here. As it is narrative play you can do whatever you want. Do you want specific defined conditions/rules on what a Vraks game should be so that you can have a sense of 'place'. I mean, isn't that just a "trench warfare mission" rules table?

Campaigns don't have to be structured. They don't have to have maps, or anything like that. They need some level of progression so that there's a reason to keep going, so that there's a point to battles beyond just straight win/loss ratios, so people can see their forces grow, or shrink, see heroic deeds rewarded, and bitter defeats sting. And for people who want a setting, that's what their Crusade books are for (like any D&D or other RPG adventure).

I've played many hours of Deathwatch in my life. I've only ever played an official adventure once, and that was during play-testing of a specific adventure book. All the other times we just make up our own stuff. Deathwatch has the rules for character progression, but what we do with that is up to the GM who is writing the campaign, and they can do whatever they want. They don't need a map or anything.

 Argive wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

Why bother buying a book only for the rules, if said rules will be reduntant following FAQ/CA/ Pts adjustment in +/- 6 months? That's just throwing money away..
The app is the answer IMO they need to make that a living rules system and keep codexes for fluff and art.

I'm entirely unclear as to why an app is 'the answer.' Other folks have done 'living rules systems' without an app. Heck, _GW_ did 'living rules' for Epic and BB without an app (before they killed them off).

Then you get to the issue that living rules aren't something that GW has demonstrated any interest in. Its pretty antithetical to their sales model. So the answer to something they don't even want doesn't seem at all useful.

And, of course, I'm entirely unclear on how a sub fee isn't throwing money away? On top of the book you need to buy to get the code to get access all the app features for your army? That seems like throwing more money away. Or rather throwing money away to set more money on fire.

Voss wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

Why bother buying a book only for the rules, if said rules will be reduntant following FAQ/CA/ Pts adjustment in +/- 6 months? That's just throwing money away..
The app is the answer IMO they need to make that a living rules system and keep codexes for fluff and art.

I'm entirely unclear as to why an app is 'the answer.' Other folks have done 'living rules systems' without an app. Heck, _GW_ did 'living rules' for Epic and BB without an app (before they killed them off).

Then you get to the issue that living rules aren't something that GW has demonstrated any interest in. Its pretty antithetical to their sales model. So the answer to something they don't even want doesn't seem at all useful.

And, of course, I'm entirely unclear on how a sub fee isn't throwing money away? On top of the book you need to buy to get the code to get access all the app features for your army? That seems like throwing more money away. Or rather throwing money away to set more money on fire.

Because paper rules by GW dont work because they feth up and change everything mid edition every time..
If you only wnat the rules makes sense to have the app where it updates pts and faq everything as and when. the codex just sits there being incorrect.. I dont get why people want to pay for GW's paper rules... IMO might as well get pictures, art and fluff if thats the only option..

Are people complaining about having to carry around a codex with a dozen or two more pages? Or about a codex costing more if it had the same amount of fluff as before + crusade rules? Because that was something no one suggested.

 Argive wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Argive wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Argive wrote:

I agree.
If im going to be charged £30+ ish for a codex which will have its rules redundant within 6 moths I dont mind paying abit more and have a hefty bigger book full of art and fluff. I dotn even care if its a C&P of my 8th ed codex..

Good for you, but what about all the people that only buy the book for the rules. You are making them pay more for a book, with stuff they don't want and will neve need.

And while you can enjoy downloaded books with lore at home, it is a lot harder to waltz in to a store with printed out rules and absolutly no one is going to believe that the print out comes from a print out of the GW app, but you just forgot to bring your phone with you. But it is of course totaly legit, and you of course bought the rules set in another store, that is why the store owner doesn't remember you ever buying it.

Why bother buying a book only for the rules, if said rules will be reduntant following FAQ/CA/ Pts adjustment in +/- 6 months? That's just throwing money away..
The app is the answer IMO they need to make that a living rules system and keep codexes for fluff and art.

I'm entirely unclear as to why an app is 'the answer.' Other folks have done 'living rules systems' without an app. Heck, _GW_ did 'living rules' for Epic and BB without an app (before they killed them off).

Then you get to the issue that living rules aren't something that GW has demonstrated any interest in. Its pretty antithetical to their sales model. So the answer to something they don't even want doesn't seem at all useful.

And, of course, I'm entirely unclear on how a sub fee isn't throwing money away? On top of the book you need to buy to get the code to get access all the app features for your army? That seems like throwing more money away. Or rather throwing money away to set more money on fire.

Because paper rules by GW dont work because they feth up and change everything mid edition every time..
If you only wnat the rules makes sense to have the app where it updates pts and faq everything as and when. the codex just sits there being incorrect.. I dont get why people want to pay for GW's paper rules... IMO might as well get pictures, art and fluff if thats the only option..

That addresses nothing I asked.

Also, errata doesn't make anything unusable, otherwise the entire publishing industry has been non-functional since its inception.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

 catbarf wrote:
The Crusade rules provide structure for progression. I like that. That's a good thing and I'm glad it exists. But mechanical progression on its own doesn't make a campaign; Crusade is a series of disconnected battles using the same force. There's no larger context. Unit's analogy of a dungeon generator is spot on- it gives you the mechanical rules that you need to implement battles within a campaign, but no meat to string together those battles into a coherent narrative.

Necromunda has mechanical progression, and it makes a campaign just fine. It has territories, yes, but they're abstract and not finite. You're not fighting over a map, and the game, as written as of this posting, does not contain support for that. And Necromunda has supported campaigns for decades now.

 catbarf wrote:
You could certainly take the 'dungeon generator' example, play a series of dungeon crawls, have your character level up each time... but that's more like a roguelike videogame than a D&D campaign. If you wanted it to be a campaign, you'd have to start homebrewing. Maybe you have a world map and allow the players to move around it, with different areas producing different dungeons. Maybe you could give the players decisions and progression unrelated to each individual dungeon crawl, like allies to recruit or equipment to buy. Then when they get into a dungeon, you generate and run it according to the given rules. That persistent larger world is what turns a series of disconnected encounters with the same character into a narratively structured campaign.

Ok... and? Sorry, I'm not sure what the greater point is here.

Crusade provides a structure for campaign progression. What you do with that campaign progression is up to the players. If there were more rules around maps and territories and other such stuff, the same people would still be complaining about it not being "narrative" and just being "more rules".

 catbarf wrote:
Imperial Armour gives me #1. 40K gives me #3. Crusade gives me #4. Nothing gives me #2. So my choices are to either homebrew #2, or have the same forces fight each other over and over again according to default 40K rules, without any sense of 'place' within the Vraks conflict. That's not really a narrative campaign.

I can't agree with you here. As it is narrative play you can do whatever you want. Do you want specific defined conditions/rules on what a Vraks came should be so that you can have a sense of 'place'. I mean, isn't that just a "trench warfare mission" rules table?

Campaigns don't have to be structured. They don't have to have maps, or anything like that. They need some level of progression so that there's a reason to keep going, so that there's a point to battles beyond just straight win/loss ratios, so people can see their forces grow, or shrink, see heroic deeds rewarded, and bitter defeats sting. And for people who want a setting, that's what their Crusade books are for (like any D&D or other RPG adventure).

I've played many hours of Deathwatch in my life. I've only ever played an official adventure once, and that was during play-testing of a specific adventure book. All the other times we just make up our own stuff. Deathwatch has the rules for character progression, but what we do with that is up to the GM who is writing the campaign, and they can do whatever they want. They don't need a map or anything.

I agree with H.B.M.C. here, you get the basic crusade rules for progression, armies get unique rules to properly display their fluff like the blood angels slowly falling to the black thirst or a DG warband spreading their unique plague, and the crusade mission packs like Beyond the Veil to tie together your battles in a story.

All of that combined is crusade, and that's plenty for narrative gaming. I'm not sure what more you would to go ahead with a narrative campaign.

 Argive wrote:

Because paper rules by GW dont work because they feth up and change everything mid edition every time..
If you only wnat the rules makes sense to have the app where it updates pts and faq everything as and when. the codex just sits there being incorrect.. I dont get why people want to pay for GW's paper rules... IMO might as well get pictures, art and fluff if thats the only option..

1) I for one don't WANT my rules to auto-update.
Sure, I want access to whatever the errata is. Throw it on the site & I'll print it out. But I want the people I play with & I to be in control of when it's applied. If GW comes out with some change we don't agree with? We can decide xyz will not apply, do it according to codex/rule book. That becomes alot harder if things just auto-change.

2) I spend enough time looking at a screen. I don't do that come game time.

3) The older I get, the harder it's becoming to read stuff on tablets & phone screens. You'll get there too one day.

4) I'm not paying GW a monthly fee to play their games.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Necromunda has mechanical progression, and it makes a campaign just fine. It has territories, yes, but they're abstract and not finite. You're not fighting over a map, and the game, as written as of this posting, does not contain support for that. And Necromunda has supported campaigns for decades now.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Necromunda's Dominion system is a metagame about territory control, which provides context for the individual battles. You care about the outcome of a battle beyond the direct impact on the participants; there's something at stake. If you win a battle, that has consequences.

Sure, it's abstract; it doesn't need to be a hard-copy map with little zones that you move Monopoly pieces around. It just serves as the connective tissue for battles. You are fighting over control of territory. The objective of the campaign to control the most territory. The game gives you rules for controlling territory and what territory does for you. Simple.

I'm not asking for a whole new layer of extremely complex gameplay; just something to make a campaign out of a series of battles. And yes, I could DIY something like the Dominion system for Crusade pretty easily. But it ain't in the box.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've played many hours of Deathwatch in my life. I've only ever played an official adventure once, and that was during play-testing of a specific adventure book. All the other times we just make up our own stuff. Deathwatch has the rules for character progression, but what we do with that is up to the GM who is writing the campaign, and they can do whatever they want. They don't need a map or anything.

Let me put it this way: Have all of your Deathwatch sessions been randomly-generated one-shot encounters, with no relevance to prior ones besides using the same character?

Imagine the GM rolls a die and go 'okay, got a 6, today's session is Fighting A Genestealer Cult', and then you take your existing character and fight this isolated scenario. Regardless of what happens, the only impact to the next scenario will be that your character will experience some progression. That's the Crusade experience.

Deathwatch is designed around those encounters fitting into an overall narrative. It has a GM acting as referee, who constructs the scenarios. You aren't randomly generating encounters ex nihilo; the GM is given the tools they need to build an encounter based on player actions and decisions.

Now, you absolutely could do the same with Crusade- have a GM who tracks the status of the combatants in the context of the larger campaign, where their forces are deployed on a world, what they're fighting over, what they've captured and how it affects future encounters, and how the battlefield should be set up to represent the engagement that is about to occur. That'd probably be a lot of fun. But since none of that is provided or supported by the rules, you'll have to homebrew all the mechanics. That's my point.

Crusade is hampered because it was written for pick up games, and further hamstrung by the fact that fact specific rules would be dribbling in slowly with codex releases.

Catbarf gets the point.

Your army is a character generated using the normal 40k rules (so Crusade doesn't offer that).

Your army plays missions that are entirely randomly generated save for the Agendas that you get to pick. There is no connection between the missions (save that your force exists in both) and no requirement that your Agendas conform to any sort of pre-existing structure. So far, we haven't left what regular 40k provides, except that we changed the name of Secondary Objectives to Agendas, and they reward XP rather than VP...

And XP is just feeding a progression system. My keeper of secrets gets exploding 6s, yours does not, because mine got 6xp last battle and therefore an upgrade. Never mind that we're both timeless destroyers from beyond the bounds of time and space...

yep, when I think narrative, I wonder why my Fire Prism can't have the "Accelerator" upgrade for its laser until it kills one more psyker. I definitely don't think "why am I here and why am I fighting this battle"? Which Crusade doesn't provide. Its splatbooks might (e.g. Veil) but people don't actually play with those in my experience, just like how they didn't play with Campaign Books back in the day (unless they gave them some kind of matched play advantage like the Vigilus formations specialist detachments).

I mean heck, even as a progression system it's flawed. If I kill 30 termagaunts in 3 units of 10, I get 1 XP, if I kill 30 termagaunts in one unit of 30, I get nothing. Why does the administrative division of the enemy force affect my progression? If I kill 30 bandits in Skyrim, do I get less XP because they were all in the same ruin instead of 10 bandits per ruin in 3 ruins? Or in D&D if I kill 3 Beholders in the same dungeon run, am I out XP vs killing 3 beholders one at a time?

Great discussion all around- Unit, that last post was super articulate; Catbarf- knocked it out of the park, and great rebuttal by H.B.M.C. And everyone else too.

And I agree about Crusade itself being short on the "Background" bits (CB's #2). I think that the reason it can afford to be light on that part is that 40k itself gives us so much of that... But this brings us back to OP, because the whole thread is about how new dexes are doing less of that.

And it's also true about the tree campaigns, ladder campaigns and map based campaigns- those types of systems have previously been detailed in other core books, so we know them if we've been playing for a long time, but they were not brought out again and repolished for Crusade.

I'm still using Urban Conquest's Streets of Death territory system, though I've modified it fairly heavily.

For my part, I think I'm glad that Crusade lets us hand this part ourselves. I'd be afraid that if they tried to go too far on the "Background" piece, they'd limit the utility of Crusade by locking it to certain times/ places/ factions.

As for campaign systems, it could have been helpful to reprint these for newer players for sure. But I'm glad Crusade focussed on giving us things we hadn't seen before, rather than reprinting information about the difference between map based campaigns and ladder campaigns.

I do understand a lot more about where Unit is coming from though. It's been a good conversation.

Books like Beyond the Veil are the story telling part part of crusade and people like them, so why does the main criticism seem to be that crusade is not telling a story?

I'm confused.

If we're still using the Dungeons and Dragons analogy, Crusade offers the exact same progression and structure as DnD does.

There is not a single line in the PHB, DMG, or MM explaining where your campaign takes you or why your players are in a dungeon or fighting a monster.

The 40k campaign books that did offer this kind of stuff were not extremely popular with the player base. I for one have never had interest in Dnd campaign books which do give you the where, why, and when and have always favored homebrew. I've also never met another person who had any interest in the campaign books for any system, but I am aware that they exist within the tabletop rpg world.

I'm not sure how many people bought the End Times books for WHFB because they were excited about playing the scenarios within.