I've just got acquainted with Black Crusade, and find myself liking it a whole lot. But one question I keep asking myself, for any roleplaying game really, is what a full campaign looks like rather than just moment to moment gameplay. And with Black Crusade I can't come up with a good answer.

So making the default assumption of the game's narrative structure, let's say the PC's are trying to launch a Black Crusade on the Imperium. This needs all sorts of resources, and the Compact system seems to be a fairly elegant way of setting up the various goals needed to achieve this end. Fleets need to be raised, armies turned to the cause, weapons procured, agriworlds dominated to feed them all... The works. So my question is how this is handled from the perspective of narrative pacing.

In many games, taking over a planet is something it'd take an entire chronicle to do. But one planet doesn't make for much of a crusade. But on the other hand a game where every session takes place on a new world where the challenge of the week presents itself and is subsequently overcome so the planet can be overtaken by the warband leaves something to be desired. The Infamy / Corruption mechanic adds a whole new dimension to this, putting a timetable on each PC's playable life span. Can't dawdle around too long in any one place or become a Chaos Spawn, but make sure you stay long enough to achieve your goals or... Also become a Chaos Spawn.

So I'm looking for input. Thoughts. Comments. Ways other groups have handled this, or if my interpretation is entirely off point. How does one address the concerns of scope and pacing presented in Black Crusade?

Here's how ive always done it.

There is the over arching goal: launch the black crusade against the imperium of mankind.

Now that should only be the final compact.

There should be a number of compacts involving subjugating other warhosts, gathering Oathsworn for your own warband, gathering fleets, wargear, etc etc.

Their ultimate goal should be gathering these, their second goal should be becoming infamous (they'll be infamous just by gathering all the materials) because you can be more infamous than Failbaddon the Armless but even he works like a dog to get each Crusade going.

Also, ive done it in an episodic fashion, where each compact was developed off screen and the session involves the completion of the compact. I do this because otherwise my players will get hopelessly sidetracked, but this may not be an issue for you.

This has always been my favorite line by far, so if you have any questions, just hit me up.

You need, at the minimum, enough ships to defeat the nearest Imperial Navy battlegroup, ergo a full fleet, and a couple million ground troops and several armoured battallions as well as artillery.

So, if you don't want to go the infiltrator route(which, realistically, would also take years), you're stuck spending quite a bit of time building a massive army.Once you have that, you can start conquering worlds one by one, and enjoy possibly years of trying to carve out a piece of the imperium.

OR SO ONE WOULD THINK.

Here is where it all falls apart:

NO STARSHIP COMBAT RULES

NO FUNCTIONAL MASS COMBAT RULES

In other words, unless you make your own, you cannot play the game as advertised. What they actually deliver is something that runs a lot like DnD in space. The only official adventure book is a prime example of this: Minimal population on world (aka managable numbers), PCs vs an army of mooks, big boss fight, magic macguffin saves the day and conquers most of the planet for you. It's an epic level high fantasy campaign. FFG has, completely, failed to deliver anything that lets you actually run something like Abaddon's crusades.

Then you have the "rules" for running a black crusade. They're basically a joke. It stops being an RPG and turns into a boardgame, basically. The game takes you directly from "you have jack ****" to "you have a massive armada". There is zilch to deal with in between. The beginning, 1-2 starship battles? Forget it. Go buy rogue trader. Even more painful is the abstract, arbitrary value assigned to one's forces. Forget tactics, forget RPing a general, mass as many numbers into one sector as possible and wait for the dice to decide. Where have we seen this before?

Risk.

I **** you not, it's basically Risk with d100s and a few modifiers slapped on.

You are better off ending the game with the crusade fleet launching, than slogging through that.

[/End Rant]

Honestly, I would set the goal for the campaign differently and simply omit the advertised invasion scope. Pick a hero of the imperium your group wants to take down, or something they want to pull off, and structure it around that. Be it "kill Kaldor Draigo", "Unleash the void dragon" or "steal Guillimane's corpse from Ultramar". The game itself is far more functional for classic "adventure" type endeavours than any form of grand strategy or administrative tasks.

If you -do- want the crusade, I would strongly encourage a narrative approach, and letting the Gm handwaive the majority of it, while leaving you focused on key moments. You'll still have to get proper starship combat rules from somewhere (we use battlefleet gothic) as well as adjust the values for troop strength so that mass combats aren't "miss, miss, miss" if you happen to be fielding a couple million renegade guardsmen. Pick out the highlights, though. Don't slog through the entire campaign. Deal with key worlds and places, such as forge worlds, space marine recruitment planets or exciting places like Port Wander or Catachan. But don't do every single planet, unless your group is REALLY into it.

Strangely I would love to pick up a copy of 40K risk. Or a really good CIV mod

Oh hey, me too, but on Boardgame Night, not on RPG night.

The rules for running a full-on Black Crusade are perfectly usable and do what they're set out to do. When DeathByGrotz is complaining that the rules are reducing things to an abstracted board game, they're missing the point; those rules are not intended as the end-all-be-all of actually running the conflict but instead as a supplement to what the PCs are doing without having to pull off the busy work of simulating all fronts in detail. (Check the sidebar on page 80!) Notably, "Key Events" are meant to be run in much the same way as any other personal adventures by the Heretics; those are the parts that you'd actually focus on as the GM, while letting the other parts slide as need be.

As to the original topic, filliman said some good things already. Keep in mind that Infamy rewards are also a pacing mechanism. When the group is drawing up a Compact (which can either be in-character or out-of-character), pay attention to the scope of the various goals set forth as Secondary Objectives and to what the various levels of Infamy tend to mean in-setting (on page 307). Assuming that the warband has completed Goal X as their Primary Objective, where do they stack up against the chart in terms of reputation (ie, Infamy) and power base?

Also, if you do wish to run space combat then use Rogue Trader. (Also let the PCs use PC-powered ships rather than the pre-printed NPC ships.) By default, Black Crusade was not intended to have space combat and similar things as a major focus, and I can respect that. The writers hammered out what they wanted to encourage (PCs being supervillains dedicating their nefarious deeds to the Ruinous Powers to become Daemon Princes and lead Black Crusades) and wrote systems accordingly. From this perspective, Black Crusade doesn't need to be a general system. Instead it has a specific goal (see above), and encouraging players to follow that goal is precisely what they (and you) should be doing.

The rules for running a full-on Black Crusade are perfectly usable and do what they're set out to do.

Looking at these "rules" from a DM perspective, they do not help me simulate anything my players do, be it fleet combat or on the ground. You're also incorrect in that these rules are meant for the GM to run on the side. It is stated, numerous times, that the players should be heavily involved in this...board game.

Now, campaigns, in general, run like this: You have naval superiority? Congrats, the planet is yours because orbital bombardment will eliminate most ground forces. You don't have naval superiority or your fleet needs to head off the sector fleet or there's something on planet you absolutely need? Well, then you're stuck landing troops. You can eliminate a lot of dicerolling that way already. Now, one might think this means that there's really no problem with the system, except:

A) The scale is off. Horrendously off. "Sci fi authours don't do numbers" is no excuse in the age of wikipedia for the troop numbers you're expected to field as a minimum. Congrats, daemon prince, you have less men than most 30 Inf chaos warbands. A proper crusade has millions of soldiers, and it's not just your house troops, it's everyone else's who has pledged their allegiance to you.

B) The actual engagements that matter, the naval ones, and the ground combat on key planets are immensely unrewarding. Essentially, it's "toss in the most units and you win". It doesn't even matter what kind of unit. A host is a host if it's space marines or naked ratlings with pick axes. There are no real "key moments" left open in the rules, because the players' strategy does not matter. An engagement "fails" and the players can intercede, but at that moment, it's entirely up to DM fiat to denote WHY it fails beyond "the enemy outnumbered you, lul".

None of this helps me as a GM. If it's, in the end, left to fiat, all these supposedly helpful rules do is slow down the game. I'm actually better off running it entirely by the seat of my pants.

Looking at these "rules" from a DM perspective, they do not help me simulate anything my players do, be it fleet combat or on the ground. You're also incorrect in that these rules are meant for the GM to run on the side. It is stated, numerous times, that the players should be heavily involved in this...board game.

I'd not claimed that the rules are just an aside for the GM. By all means the players are intended to be involved, but in a war with multiple fronts they're not going to be in all those places at once (in-character or out-of-character). This, then, is a mechanic to streamline the parts you're not focusing on and to spotlight the parts you are focusing on. (Keep in mind that the Key Events are intended to be proposed well before combat is played out, so that the group can prepare whatever they need to for that session.)

Now, campaigns, in general, run like this: You have naval superiority? Congrats, the planet is yours because orbital bombardment will eliminate most ground forces. You don't have naval superiority or your fleet needs to head off the sector fleet or there's something on planet you absolutely need? Well, then you're stuck landing troops. You can eliminate a lot of dicerolling that way already. Now, one might think this means that there's really no problem with the system, except:

Artillery doesn't win wars on its own; you'll still want boots on the ground.

A) The scale is off. Horrendously off. "Sci fi authours don't do numbers" is no excuse in the age of wikipedia for the troop numbers you're expected to field as a minimum. Congrats, daemon prince, you have less men than most 30 Inf chaos warbands. A proper crusade has millions of soldiers, and it's not just your house troops, it's everyone else's who has pledged their allegiance to you.

I don't believe anyone was going to defend the numbers given in the flavor (there was a kerfuffle about them when the book was released), but they're not really relevant to the topic at hand.

B) The actual engagements that matter, the naval ones, and the ground combat on key planets are immensely unrewarding. Essentially, it's "toss in the most units and you win". It doesn't even matter what kind of unit. A host is a host if it's space marines or naked ratlings with pick axes. There are no real "key moments" left open in the rules, because the players' strategy does not matter. An engagement "fails" and the players can intercede, but at that moment, it's entirely up to DM fiat to denote WHY it fails beyond "the enemy outnumbered you, lul".

None of this helps me as a GM. If it's, in the end, left to fiat, all these supposedly helpful rules do is slow down the game. I'm actually better off running it entirely by the seat of my pants.

The PCs are not going to have unlimited units by any means; choices will have to be made about distributing things, often hard ones. As to the question of why an engagement failed...there could be many reasons. (In my game that'd be the point at which I smile like a gambler and ask the players.) Sounds like the perfect opportunity for some of the PCs to swoop in, kick ass, and take names on the next crusade turn.

It's fairly obvious by now that we run completely different games and that I find the rules insufficient for mine. This doesn't mean that people who like playing Risk 40k won't enjoy them, but we sure as hell don't.You're not going to convince me otherwise by attempting to "explain" them. I've already read them and think they suck.

A) The scale is off. Horrendously off. "Sci fi authours don't do numbers" is no excuse in the age of wikipedia for the troop numbers you're expected to field as a minimum. Congrats, daemon prince, you have less men than most 30 Inf chaos warbands. A proper crusade has millions of soldiers, and it's not just your house troops, it's everyone else's who has pledged their allegiance to you.

Now i agree that most of the time the numbers are off but I believe you are greatly overestermating the ammount of troops required to take a planet in a space fareing society; the issue is how planets are populated, From my understanding of the setting the population of a planet is not spread accross a thousand or so cities on every continent (btw there are about ~2,900 cities on earth currently) like the present day (terra excepted) but instead are grouped in a relitivly small number of hives (1-8) or population centers depending on the planet; what this density means is that force multiplers, such as artillery are far more effective then they are in current times (in addition to the lax rules of engagement). the addition of relitivly easy access to space means that a army can redeploy on the other side of the planet without having to fight all the way there. this density also means that strike teams such as Spacemaries or assasins can take out key individuals without having to move through hundreds of kilometers of occupied territory. Yes hives will be a problem; density can work the same way in defence but there is a reason why seige warefare was invented. the majority of planets though are lightly populated, as backwards as tech is in 40k they still do have a tendancy to have huge machines which are more effiecent then the people operating them.

the capturing of the calix sector only took about 120 million fighting men/women over 200 years and that was to utterly clear the Xenos taint from the couple hundred planets (remeber the maps generally show systems, not indvidual planets). a "black crusade" isnt there to capture and hold every planet it comes accros, it is generally go and raid and pillage as it goes sweeping through a sector to its main goal (ie most of abbadons crusades are technically succesful even though the imperium drives the forces back to the Eye of Terror) so the numbers needed may be alot small then what you believe. (or you may have a different view on how 40k works)

The funny thing is, I agree completely there. If your goal is just to raid and pillage, you don't need many troopers. Raids are easy. You can do them well before you even hit close to BC levels of infamy. Chaos raiders at inf 30 do them quite a bit.

If your goal is conquer however, you're going to need the numbers to secure a planet or several planets, and there's where millions come into play. Holding a position needs a lot more men than taking it. If that main goal is a fortress or forge world, for example, you might even be talking millions to scour it in a timely manner and dig out all the defenders before the imperium's counter attack.

It's fairly obvious by now that we run completely different games and that I find the rules insufficient for mine. This doesn't mean that people who like playing Risk 40k won't enjoy them, but we sure as hell don't.You're not going to convince me otherwise by attempting to "explain" them. I've already read them and think they suck.

This may be true but since the OP's question is specifically about a Black Crusade your comments really aren't in anyway helpful.

The rules are quite open and lend to many role-playing opportunities for GMs and groups that have the skills, ability and imagination to do so such as NFK appears to possess.

The alternate suggestions you've given to focus on instead of aiming for a Black Crusade are useful and may give the OP some more thoughts about what kind of game he wants to run but everything else is pretty much a waste of space.

Let me paraphrase your post here to illustrate what you just said:

"Criticism of the rules as written is a terrible thing, even if they're objectively bad at what they're supposed to do. If you don't like it, you're not good enough to use them, and you have no imagination. The majority of your comments are a waste of space."

Let me illuminate you why I stopped replying to NFK:

HIs style is the crass opposite of mine. I did not, however, stoop so low as to call it or anyone else's unimaginitive, lacking in skill and ability.

You did.

And that is why you are now on ignore, sir. Because you have proven yourself a complete "waste of space".

I have no problem with criticism of the rules, I have a problem with people have a big whinge about them instead of actually answering OP questions.

If you don't like the rules start your own post on them and discuss with other like minded people instead of constantly telling someone who is asking for help why the rules suck. Absolutely no value whatsoever.

But since you chose to run away instead of debate farewell, you won't be missed. The fact that you chose to do that in fact makes me think my comments were a little to close to home for you.

I think this conversation has strayed well out of the range of the original question with a lot of focus on a particular mechanic in a suppliment rather than the broader applications of narrative pacing and scope over the course of a campagin. If we're going to be making ad hominem attacks at each other, let's at least try to stay on topic while we do it.

I think this conversation has strayed well out of the range of the original question with a lot of focus on a particular mechanic in a suppliment rather than the broader applications of narrative pacing and scope over the course of a campagin. If we're going to be making ad hominem attacks at each other, let's at least try to stay on topic while we do it.

Nowhere in the book you will find crunch for military logistics, relative strategic and tactical mobility of various kinds of troops, etc. If you want that, GM will have to handwave things. I don't see it as a problem. However, when my players have enough ships, troops, allies, blessings and infamy to begin Black Crusade, I leave the calculating functions to scribes and data-magistrates.

What I do is focus on "lieutenants" - minor chaos lords, reaver admirals, bound daemons, mercenaries, etc. Anyone wanting to lead a Black Crusade will have to not only be a mighty warlord himself, but gather such allies as well. Make them multidimensional, with their own agendas and goals. Focus on inevitable conflicts between them, within their own warband, them and the Warmaster, etc. Who are they? Why are they following you? Because you ended up the highest bidder? Because they owe you a favor? Because you convinced them you could lead them to glory? Because you enslaved him with magic? Because you promised them revenge and plunder? Because you took someone important for him as hostage? Because this particular lieutenant has genuinely fell in love with you, and now he wishes to have you all for himself, following your every command, no matter how humiliating or cruel, but at the same time jealously stalks you and murders anyone he/she believes to be stealing you?

How do those people stick together? Is there a chance someone is conspiring against you or one another? Who will you accept when all of them fight for a place of your closest subordinate? How their attitudes will change after a few battles? Maybe you won, maybe you lost, maybe you fought on the frontline, maybe you locked yourself in strategium, moving hosts and armadas like regicide pieces - but this will have an effect on your lieutenants, sometimes even opposite effect depending on particular individual.

Speaking of logistics, what are your industrial capabilities? Have you earned favour of the Pit-Lord of Guelph? Or do you prefer to make deals with Meinloka court on Ghibelline? Do you prefer to buy weapons and gear from forge Pollux or Castir? Which great city of Q'Sal you were able to convince that your endeavor suits their goals - Tarnor, Surgub or Velklir? Which one of the Blood Forges of Tallax burns with the passionate heat of Gorgeth's anger, molding metal into tanks and artillery pieces for your war? What do you pay them with? Or what have you promised them? Each of them has rivaling forges, which are now your enemies - how do you deal with them? Is what you are getting really enough to supply your troops, and if it is, is it worth the effort you have to put to keep your suppliers in check?

Now, when we dealt with our own forces and their supplies, what about your enemies - rival Chaos Lords, Astartes captains, Guard generals, Navy admirals, inquisitors, rogue traders, eldar farseers and harlequins, Sororitas canonesses, Mechanicus Skitarii Tribunes and forge magos, planetary governors, or, may the Dark Gods give you strength, a Living Saint emerging from the rank and file of imperial forces to smite you? They are also multidimensional, with their own quirks, strengths and weaknesses, they too are not always working together quite well, just like your own Lieutenants, but to lesser degree.

This is how I GM micro-management of a Black Crusade.

I think this conversation has strayed well out of the range of the original question with a lot of focus on a particular mechanic in a suppliment rather than the broader applications of narrative pacing and scope over the course of a campagin. If we're going to be making ad hominem attacks at each other, let's at least try to stay on topic while we do it.

Nowhere in the book you will find crunch for military logistics, relative strategic and tactical mobility of various kinds of troops, etc. If you want that, GM will have to handwave things. I don't see it as a problem. However, when my players have enough ships, troops, allies, blessings and infamy to begin Black Crusade, I leave the calculating functions to scribes and data-magistrates.

What I do is focus on "lieutenants" - minor chaos lords, reaver admirals, bound daemons, mercenaries, etc. Anyone wanting to lead a Black Crusade will have to not only be a mighty warlord himself, but gather such allies as well. Make them multidimensional, with their own agendas and goals. Focus on inevitable conflicts between them, within their own warband, them and the Warmaster, etc. Who are they? Why are they following you? Because you ended up the highest bidder? Because they owe you a favor? Because you convinced them you could lead them to glory? Because you enslaved him with magic? Because you promised them revenge and plunder? Because you took someone important for him as hostage? Because this particular lieutenant has genuinely fell in love with you, and now he wishes to have you all for himself, following your every command, no matter how humiliating or cruel, but at the same time jealously stalks you and murders anyone he/she believes to be stealing you?

How do those people stick together? Is there a chance someone is conspiring against you or one another? Who will you accept when all of them fight for a place of your closest subordinate? How their attitudes will change after a few battles? Maybe you won, maybe you lost, maybe you fought on the frontline, maybe you locked yourself in strategium, moving hosts and armadas like regicide pieces - but this will have an effect on your lieutenants, sometimes even opposite effect depending on particular individual.

Speaking of logistics, what are your industrial capabilities? Have you earned favour of the Pit-Lord of Guelph? Or do you prefer to make deals with Meinloka court on Ghibelline? Do you prefer to buy weapons and gear from forge Pollux or Castir? Which great city of Q'Sal you were able to convince that your endeavor suits their goals - Tarnor, Surgub or Velklir? Which one of the Blood Forges of Tallax burns with the passionate heat of Gorgeth's anger, molding metal into tanks and artillery pieces for your war? What do you pay them with? Or what have you promised them? Each of them has rivaling forges, which are now your enemies - how do you deal with them? Is what you are getting really enough to supply your troops, and if it is, is it worth the effort you have to put to keep your suppliers in check?

Now, when we dealt with our own forces and their supplies, what about your enemies - rival Chaos Lords, Astartes captains, Guard generals, Navy admirals, inquisitors, rogue traders, eldar farseers and harlequins, Sororitas canonesses, Mechanicus Skitarii Tribunes and forge magos, planetary governors, or, may the Dark Gods give you strength, a Living Saint emerging from the rank and file of imperial forces to smite you? They are also multidimensional, with their own quirks, strengths and weaknesses, they too are not always working together quite well, just like your own Lieutenants, but to lesser degree.

This is how I GM micro-management of a Black Crusade.

This guy right here.

I think this conversation has strayed well out of the range of the original question with a lot of focus on a particular mechanic in a suppliment rather than the broader applications of narrative pacing and scope over the course of a campagin. If we're going to be making ad hominem attacks at each other, let's at least try to stay on topic while we do it.

Nowhere in the book you will find crunch for military logistics, relative strategic and tactical mobility of various kinds of troops, etc. If you want that, GM will have to handwave things. I don't see it as a problem. However, when my players have enough ships, troops, allies, blessings and infamy to begin Black Crusade, I leave the calculating functions to scribes and data-magistrates.

What I do is focus on "lieutenants" - minor chaos lords, reaver admirals, bound daemons, mercenaries, etc. Anyone wanting to lead a Black Crusade will have to not only be a mighty warlord himself, but gather such allies as well. Make them multidimensional, with their own agendas and goals. Focus on inevitable conflicts between them, within their own warband, them and the Warmaster, etc. Who are they? Why are they following you? Because you ended up the highest bidder? Because they owe you a favor? Because you convinced them you could lead them to glory? Because you enslaved him with magic? Because you promised them revenge and plunder? Because you took someone important for him as hostage? Because this particular lieutenant has genuinely fell in love with you, and now he wishes to have you all for himself, following your every command, no matter how humiliating or cruel, but at the same time jealously stalks you and murders anyone he/she believes to be stealing you?

How do those people stick together? Is there a chance someone is conspiring against you or one another? Who will you accept when all of them fight for a place of your closest subordinate? How their attitudes will change after a few battles? Maybe you won, maybe you lost, maybe you fought on the frontline, maybe you locked yourself in strategium, moving hosts and armadas like regicide pieces - but this will have an effect on your lieutenants, sometimes even opposite effect depending on particular individual.

Speaking of logistics, what are your industrial capabilities? Have you earned favour of the Pit-Lord of Guelph? Or do you prefer to make deals with Meinloka court on Ghibelline? Do you prefer to buy weapons and gear from forge Pollux or Castir? Which great city of Q'Sal you were able to convince that your endeavor suits their goals - Tarnor, Surgub or Velklir? Which one of the Blood Forges of Tallax burns with the passionate heat of Gorgeth's anger, molding metal into tanks and artillery pieces for your war? What do you pay them with? Or what have you promised them? Each of them has rivaling forges, which are now your enemies - how do you deal with them? Is what you are getting really enough to supply your troops, and if it is, is it worth the effort you have to put to keep your suppliers in check?

Now, when we dealt with our own forces and their supplies, what about your enemies - rival Chaos Lords, Astartes captains, Guard generals, Navy admirals, inquisitors, rogue traders, eldar farseers and harlequins, Sororitas canonesses, Mechanicus Skitarii Tribunes and forge magos, planetary governors, or, may the Dark Gods give you strength, a Living Saint emerging from the rank and file of imperial forces to smite you? They are also multidimensional, with their own quirks, strengths and weaknesses, they too are not always working together quite well, just like your own Lieutenants, but to lesser degree.

This is how I GM micro-management of a Black Crusade.

This guy right here.

Seconded, that's awesome!

And yes you are right Tamesh my comments weren't helpful or nice so I do apologise and retract them, think I am getting grumpy in my old age,