When I originally started GMing Only War, it was only supposed to be me and four other guys as the players. When we did actually start, two more guys wanted in. From there, we had another want to play. I now GM sessions of 6 or 7 players at a time. To manage this, we've changed a few of the rules to make the game faster and more simple (none of the players have any experience with P&P games). The group, after all, contains half of the starting Varsity football team at my school.

Now we've had two more people express interest in playing. Obviously, I am running a group larger that what is recommended for the game in the first place. If the two guys do actually get into the game, I've come up with a solution to my current problem: split it into two groups of four players.

One of my players and I came up with the idea; he offered to GM the second group. This gave me an idea: what if one group played as a squad of Guardsmen, while the other was a squad of Severan Dominate soldiers? They could fight in the same campaign, though probably not against each other, except for some climatic battles.

Any thoughts? It doesn't sound like one of the guys is interested, so all this might be a moot point. However, I thought it could use some feedback from some more knowledgeable people.

I've done this before using a DW team and a BC heretic group. Its hard to co=ordinate properly but worthwhile for the few mixed encounters.

To be honest what you are suggesting is less complicated than it sounds though, you're basically just splitting the group into two. However, I personally don't think you should worry about this too much. IMO OW and DW actually work best when played in groups of 7-9 players and a GM. If the GM limits the options availible (for example in DW I only allowed one Tech, one Dev, one Apoc etc the rest of the guys had to be tactical marines or assault marines). In OW this is easily done with the hammer of the emperor book ("ok, no one can play the same class"). Having this many players actually really makes the squad feel alive, far more than a bunch of redshirt NPCs will. The only question is whether or not you can handle that many players as a GM, as it takes some experience.

My advice if you do that is don't feel like you need to be involved too much. If the players are the right kind of people, they'll do most fo the work for you through their own in character conversations and drama.

I've handled it well enough thus far, my only issue has been with people not roleplaying (my players usually end up arguing over who takes point and are super into the game, but not necessarily their roles) the best I've done is got them to at least call each other by their character names for an extra 200 xp at the end of the session.

As for splitting it up, the 8th guy isn't going to do it so it's a non-issue. Besides, I would be worried about the other GM just giving the other squad the best weapons and armor so they beat the one I'd be running. We are competitive like that.

The saving grace I think has been my decision early in the campaign to not do Comrades. I felt it was a bit much considering the large group, and the fact everyone was so new. When I started OW I was overwhelmed with playing the game as one character, let alone two. That and doing away with half actions has made everything relatively quick, with no loss to the game itself.

At the end of the day everyone has fun and wants to do it again, so whatever I'm doing, has been working.

This kind of sounds a bit like you felt I was attacking your ability, and if thats how I came across I'm very sorry. It wasn't my intention.

Oh no not at all, I very much appreciated your response. I am just well aware of my general lack of experience as a GM, and while typing my previous comment I was trying to defend myself from anyone (real or otherwise) that would criticize my choices made with the game. I understand some people get very nitpicky about rules and everything, not that you were or that I was expecting an attack.

That being said, I would greatly appreciate any help you might have regarding the roleplaying. Besides throw the experience bone, I am at a loss for what to do. People had fun roleplaying, but also have fun just playing it casually. As the GM, I would prefer they roleplay, but I'd also prefer they read the rules, try to get into the fluff, and come up with how they want to spend experience before we play. So really, I am picking my battles. Any ideas?

Honestly, it sounds like your players just want Call of Duty: 40,000 with dice. The fact that you have to give them 200xp per session just to call each other by character-names makes me really sad.

Honestly, it sounds like your players just want Call of Duty: 40,000 with dice.

But OW is Call of Duty: 40.000 with a dice . Just look at all those social interaction options in the book like awesome and useful social talents and super-important Fellowship characteristic (sarcasm mode off ).

Honestly the main thing is that everyone is having fun. If your players are happy running it in a more 'roleplay-lite' fashion then it might be best just to role with it.

That being said the best option is often to lead by example. Speak as the NPCs rather than just relaying information (avoid saying "he tells you X" basically). Using handouts written from an in game perspective can help too, they actually have to read the information or decipher it themselves (this kind of puzzle can help with the immersion, even if its as simple as making out someones bad handwriting).

More specifically for OW you can give them tactical maps of the area before they plan an operation. Give them pens so they can circle areas they want to attack and draw up battle plans. Also music, especially background ambience can really help get people in the mindset.

The COD comparison someone made is fairly apt, but if that (or any other computer game) is their benchmark of experience don't fight it, work with it. Look at the games you and they play and try to emulate the parts of those games that made you suspend your disbelief that it was a game. A stand out moment for me in COD 4 was when the SAS have to fall back to the farm at the top of the hill using a 3 tiered fallback approach and the game shows the map while the characters discuss the plan. Give them the scenario and the tools and they'll most likely do the rest themselves. Also not everyone is going to be a 40k fan. If playing space soldiers is good enough for them then thats really all they need for this game on a base level, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Most OW games ape Aliens or Starship Troopers anyway.

As far as them learning the rules go, sometimes you just have to roll with it if they wont. So long as they know their stats and the basic weapon damage for whatever they are using thats normally sufficient. If they are a group of new players then trying to make them learn the rules is likely to be counter productive to getting them to play in character more. Making the effects seem more abstract will probably work with the sense of immersion anyway.

However, not everyone is a drama student. Some people don't naturally take to playing a role as easily as others. But if everyone is having fun, you're doing your job right.

Honestly, it sounds like your players just want Call of Duty: 40,000 with dice. The fact that you have to give them 200xp per session just to call each other by character-names makes me really sad.

That would be their background, yes. All of my players have played Call of Duty or other shooters; none are pen and paper players. I didn't like the 200xp per session either, so I don't give it to them unless they roleplay. That was the only solution I could think of, and it was somewhat effective.

Honestly the main thing is that everyone is having fun. If your players are happy running it in a more 'roleplay-lite' fashion then it might be best just to role with it.

That being said the best option is often to lead by example. Speak as the NPCs rather than just relaying information (avoid saying "he tells you X" basically). Using handouts written from an in game perspective can help too, they actually have to read the information or decipher it themselves (this kind of puzzle can help with the immersion, even if its as simple as making out someones bad handwriting).

More specifically for OW you can give them tactical maps of the area before they plan an operation. Give them pens so they can circle areas they want to attack and draw up battle plans. Also music, especially background ambience can really help get people in the mindset.

The COD comparison someone made is fairly apt, but if that (or any other computer game) is their benchmark of experience don't fight it, work with it. Look at the games you and they play and try to emulate the parts of those games that made you suspend your disbelief that it was a game. A stand out moment for me in COD 4 was when the SAS have to fall back to the farm at the top of the hill using a 3 tiered fallback approach and the game shows the map while the characters discuss the plan. Give them the scenario and the tools and they'll most likely do the rest themselves. Also not everyone is going to be a 40k fan. If playing space soldiers is good enough for them then thats really all they need for this game on a base level, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Most OW games ape Aliens or Starship Troopers anyway.

As far as them learning the rules go, sometimes you just have to roll with it if they wont. So long as they know their stats and the basic weapon damage for whatever they are using thats normally sufficient. If they are a group of new players then trying to make them learn the rules is likely to be counter productive to getting them to play in character more. Making the effects seem more abstract will probably work with the sense of immersion anyway.

However, not everyone is a drama student. Some people don't naturally take to playing a role as easily as others. But if everyone is having fun, you're doing your job right.

First let me say thank you for all of your examples. I roleplay all the NPCs, and the certain players involved speak in character. That never stops the other players from chiming in with suggestions for what to say, which starts an argument (never a vicious one, everyone has fun with it) that takes several minutes to resolve. Our problem is the players want to do the best approach for literally everything, from kicking down a door to entering a town. They are extremely cautious (due to some quick deaths after a poorly coordinated frontal assault) and spend the longest time deciding trivial things.

I prepare maps and tactical displays of the battlefield on my computer, for my own sake as well as theirs. However, I like the idea of printing them off and giving it to the players. Normally they just point out where and what they want to do, but I think giving them a hard copy would be a good idea. Additionally, the handouts with information are a great idea. I've never thought of that, and will definitely try it to add some immersion.

Modeling missions and scenarios on various video games and movie scenes is something I've tried as well, though the one instance wasn't entirely thought out on my part. I attempted to have a segment that was a parallel to the movie Lone Survivor, where the squad has to fight a running battle with a larger force. It was nearing the time for people to leave so everyone was a bit antsy, which was most likely the problem.

All of those are excellent ideas that I will try to add into missions to spice things up. I've realized that my group likes big shooting missions with lots of combat, but really enjoyed a mission I ran that had a lot of mystery and clue gathering. I am for sure going to include more of that sort of variety, for their enjoyment as well as mine. I want to have fun too!

That being said, are there any scenarios that you guys had a lot of fun with? Like basic plot hooks, and such. I've read over the list of 100 OW missions, and taken inspiration from those, but many of them are very combat heavy and thus easy for me to come up with on my own.

That being said, are there any scenarios that you guys had a lot of fun with?

Regimental exterminatus. The Squad is picked to be the part of a small (roughly company sized) task force and tasked to eliminate another Imperial Guard Astra Militarum regiment. The regiment in question was deemed heretical by an Imperial investigation and thus it was condemned to be wiped out. Problem is that Battlefield Command cannot allocate enough resources to destroy it in an open battle and the chance that parts of the regiment might survive is too high for an all-out assault. So the Squad and other units must infiltrate the regiment under the disguise of support units and eradicate it from the inside using stealth and other underhanded methods.

During mission briefing, give the players the feeling that this regiment should be extra-heretical and irredeemable. The investigation uncovered some pretty hard evidence including pict records of human sacrifices for the Dark Gods, vile orgies and stuff like that. Also, make the rest of the task force into a bunch of cool guys, like include some old acquaintances (NPC friends from other regiments and such). Extra points if the heretic regiment is from some noname world while the members of the task force are all from famous regiments like Cadia, Catachan and Krieg.

At this point, make it crystal clear that the objective of the mission is to kill every member of the regiment, no exceptions. This includes any support staff or civilian followers/helpers. All of them must die.

Then let the cold reality hit the fan when the players infiltrate the regiment and recognize that only a tiny fraction (a single squad or platoon) of the regiment turned heretic and they all died in the last battle. The others are either entirely clueless, planned to weed out the heresy in the name of the Emperor or helped the investigation so they are actually good guys. Introduce likable characters from the doomed regiment and make the PCs feel that they are going to kill innocents here.

When hell breaks loose (even if the PCs decide to keep the regiment alive, the other units of the task force will carry out the mission) make the death of the regiment as horrible as you can. If the PC's try to give the guardsmen some sort of merciful death (like overdosing them with sleeping gas) than turn their plans upside down (the sleeping gas turns out to be a nerve-agent that kills slowly and painfully). You can even implement some twists to make the killing more interesting, like reveal one or more of the task force units to be heretical or unleash an "anti-witness assassination unit" on the Squad after the regiment is destroyed.

Also, reward the players for creativity. "Recruiting" part of the regiment with the promise of salvation then killing them anyway when they are weak from the fighting is a pretty cool idea and it should give a pretty big advantage to the Squad. Subtlety is also desirable, don't be afraid to push the players towards this direction (with conveniently unguarded water reserves for example).

I like it, deliciously cruel with the opportunity of giving some 40k background fluff. I will have to try it out!

Really? A game like that says A LOT about the nature of the Gm! (And the players if they carry it out!). Alternatively, I would provide the players with a hard but possible way to save the doomed regiment. Perhaps the Inquisitor or Commissar who gave the orders is in reality the TRUE Heretic. The company must then somehow Exfiltrate and track down the offending party and remove them. Ideally, The Players must provide evidence of the regiment's innocence to an authority of equal power to the original. (perhaps by uncovering the fact that the Heretic was going to use the sacrifice of the regiment as part of a Sorcerous ritual of some sort!)This would be the only way to save the Party from being executed themselves for failing to follow orders! (Even if said authority had themselves discovered that the regiment was innocent).

Honestly, it sounds like your players just want Call of Duty: 40,000 with dice.

But OW is Call of Duty: 40.000 with a dice . Just look at all those social interaction options in the book like awesome and useful social talents and super-important Fellowship characteristic (sarcasm mode off ).

Not sure where the sarcasm began so I'll just leave this here:

You can choose to play OW as a pure, mindless shooter with dice. You can also choose not to. So long as everyone clearly understands that there isn't just one kind of OW campaign.

You can choose to play OW as a pure, mindless shooter with dice. You can also choose not to. So long as everyone clearly understands that there isn't just one kind of OW campaign.

I think OW has even less non-combat support (rules wise) than DW. Playing a non-combat adventure with OW is like playing a political adventure with D&D 3.5 - it is possible but the system is not meant to played that way. At that point you would be better off playing DH (the new 2.0 version if possible).

I think OW has even less non-combat support (rules wise) than DW.

My take is the opposite, but then I was never a huge fan of DW. And admittedly the OW game I do play in is fairly heavy on the action.

From reading the rules there really doesn't seem to be much outside of fighting and dying in interesting ways. There aren't many non-combat examples in the book, for one thing. On the other hand, picture your average grunt in World War II (essentially what most IG is based off of) when they weren't fighting or recuperating from fighting, what "non-combat" missions did they do?

From reading the rules there really doesn't seem to be much outside of fighting and dying in interesting ways. There aren't many non-combat examples in the book, for one thing. On the other hand, picture your average grunt in World War II (essentially what most IG is based off of) when they weren't fighting or recuperating from fighting, what "non-combat" missions did they do?

It's not that there will be non-combat missions, per se. That is unlikely to happen. A Squad could certainly choose to avoid conflict on a recon operation - determining that discretion is the better part of valor when the job is to gather intel and monitor enemy operations, not stop them. But, at the end of the day, it's a combat-focused game for certain.

What I am saying is that there are plenty of opportunities for good RP (both inter-character and with NPCs). There are, similarly, lots of exciting, soldiery things to do in OW that don't actually involve your character's trigger finger. Interrogations, tactical discussions, complaining about the sh*tty rations... and so on. Hell, some of the most fun I've seen my players have in an OW campaign was a session that ended up being little more than them scrounging and dealing for gear (from ammo to high provendor), only to turn up some intel that never made it to their regiment HQ regarding Severan troop movements.

They had a ball, contributed to the war effort and never even once pulled the trigger on a weapon.

I've had sessions where all we did was craft, try to gather the materials, and attempt to requisition gear. It was fun and easy, but like you said, this is a combat focused game.