Heresy ain't narrative

[Griefbringer]

As an additional comment about those narrative scenarios in the Adeptus Titanicus rulebook: several of those scenarios have additional rules are related to some dramatic weather or terrain effects that were present at the particular area at particular time. This is an easy way to theme games, though best used in moderation - scenarios where more casualties are caused by weather and terrain hazards than enemy action can get frustrating. And games with just "ordinary" weather and terrain rules also have a place.

 

In an ideal world, one would even have the resources to build dedicated terrain sets to go with the different narrative battleground settings, but building such sets can take quite a lot of time (plus you also need the storage space). Never mind doing multiple tables worth of stuff e.g. for an ice world themed event.

[Brofist]

9 hours ago, Razorblade said:

Again I would love to hear the specific measures you take to make those narrative events.

I'll try to be brief- my thread on this forum has all the pictures and links. I worked with an events crew to pull this off and I stopped running LVO events so I could do this instead. Its a 3 day experience. I'm doing my third one next year.

1. Wrote a short players pack with a setting, fluff, short stories, custom art, and rules
2. We also designed and play-tested 7 custom missions. One was a DMed multiplayer experience that ran all 3 days and anyone could join or exit when they wanted
3. I designed and printed blanche themed tarot cards of different rarities that were part of decks assigned to each table 
4. Each table corresponded to a battlefield on a planet in a system. If a player won they got to draw a tarot card from the deck
5. If you played the multiplayer experience, you could draw a 'destiny' card which let you spend or use tarot cards in interesting ways if you fulfilled the requirements
6. Doing certain things during the 3 days could award a 'boon' or buff to a character model that was represented using a blanche themed card
7. We 3d printed, painted, and provided a unique model with rules that could be included for no points cost. If it did certain things during a game it would grant bonus tarot cards to the controlling player.
8. I kept track of how many cards were issued to different players on each battlefield. This determined who controlled and didn't control which worlds/parts of the system. If your side held a specific section you got benefits to the card mechanics.
9. At this event, each player represented a splinter fleet trying to escape a dying star system. At the end of the event I counted up the value of each faction's cards. The summed total for each faction determined the overall winner. The cards in your hand and your destiny determined the fate of your fleet.
10. I designed and manufactured a bunch of pins. If you won a game, you got a pin.
11. Each player also got two unique pins to give away to people they thought were cool dudes or did impressive hobby. At the end of the event the person with the most cool dude/dudette pins got a prize. We also had a raffle and fake sponsorships.
12. The player who was undefeated from the previous year's event was forced to wear a giant, heavy, golden chain called 'the lead weight'. None of their games contributed to the overall scores of the event. However, if somebody could beat them, the lead weight got passed onto a new player like a curse.
13. None of the games were matched. You either found somebody to play with and then found a table or you waited at a table until somebody joined you.
14. Fully painted was required. If you had an unpainted model in a unit, everyone else had preferred enemy (your unit). WYSIWYG was encouraged.
     

That's a lot to say that we wrote some special missions and then put a card mechanic ontop of it :) Everything was an optional, opt-in, type of experience with peer pressure/social shaming to discourage the type of behaviours we didn't want to see.

 

The core game wasn't touched besides the missions, so you could do this with another system. What made this unique to heresy? The narrative focused people who showed up and wanted this instead of matched play swiss pairings.

 

Edited Monday at 08:18 PM by Brofist

[ThaneOfTas]

1 hour ago, Brofist said:

*snip*

That looks amazing, and I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the files for those cards?

[Brother Ezra]

That's seriously impressive, @Brofist! Kudos to you and your crew!

 

Also, I recently came into possession of a Codex from 3rd edition, and there I found that there used to be "Narrative hooks" pages in the Codices! Those outlined some of the reasons why your dudes might be fighting army X or Y, and sometimes added some faction-specific scenario's. That's also a pretty neat way to bring a bit more narrative into a one-off game.

[Griefbringer]

Brother Ezra, I presume that the WH40K 3rd edition codex you are referring to is either Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters. Those got two pages of narrative hooks, a couple of scenarios, plus special adversary rules. It really feels like the designers were having a good time with them.

 

Other 3rd edition codices tended not to have that kind of material, though there were some thematic scenarios at the back of the some books. Space marines got a planetfall mission, Dark Eldar had a slave raid and Tau needed to rescue an ethereal.

[Brother Ezra]

3 hours ago, Griefbringer said:

Brother Ezra, I presume that the WH40K 3rd edition codex you are referring to is either Witch Hunters or Daemonhunters. Those got two pages of narrative hooks, a couple of scenarios, plus special adversary rules. It really feels like the designers were having a good time with them.

 

Other 3rd edition codices tended not to have that kind of material, though there were some thematic scenarios at the back of the some books. Space marines got a planetfall mission, Dark Eldar had a slave raid and Tau needed to rescue an ethereal.

 

Aye, the Witch Hunters one to be exact  Sad to hear that the other Codices don't contain something like this!

[Griefbringer]

If you liked the Witch Hunters, try to see if you can get the Daemonhunters codex at a reasonable price somewhere. They have got at least as much narrative material: two pages of scenarios, two pages of narrative hooks, three pages of adversary rules - all with quite small font. Also the modelling section contains a couple of pages of rather personal metal model conversions.

 

Personally, I would rate the Witch Hunters book as more interesting than the Daemonhunters, but that might be because I am not too excited about the Grey Knights. But both are quite inspiring books in my opinion. The inquisitorial retinue rules also provide a great excuse for fielding a rather eclectic lot of converted figures - White Dwarf ended up showing some quite personal looking retinues for the Witch Hunters.

[N1SB]

Brothers, Sisters, I had an argument with one of my closest 40k friend that dealt with this very issue.

  

On 10/2/2026 at 4:43 AM, Razorblade said:

Am I missing something fundamental?

 

Yes, the same thing I missed.  I actually agree with you, Brother Razorblade.  I'm here to share with you others' point of view.

 

 

"Narrative" does NOT mean the same thing to others

 

There IS a fundamental issue, a definitional issue.  GW categorises "Narrative" as opposed to "Competitive".

 

The argument was with Timperial Guard, whom I played Dungeons & Dragons with, who also reads the HH novels.

 

It was from a 1st ed 30k game.  Timperial Guard and I allied together against an opponent's army as big as ours combined.  I played Dark Mechanicum, Timperial Guard was Death Guard and insisted on bringing Mortarion.  Great against MEQs, but our opponent used mostly Terminators instead.

 

We won that game, but as we cleared up after our opponent left, I simply asked him, why bring Mortarion?  I think I kept pressing him, because at some point he snapped, shouting that he was a "Narrative" player, implying I was pushing him on being a "Competitive" army, but I wasn't!

 

I shouted back I was a "Narrative" player, too!  My point was Mortarion wasn't just a Primarch, a great warrior, he was also a commander!  He wouldn't join every battle because he'd delegate it out to one of his subordinates!  Even from a "Narrative" sense, it wouldn't even fit the history!

 

It went on.  He kept on invoking the HH novels.  I was making points from FW's Black Books, written like an incomplete history.

 

And that breaking point lead to enlightenment.  It wasn't just different sources, it was more like...

 

 

"Re-enacting" vs. "Roleplaying"

 

I say "Re-enacting" and "Roleplaying" in quotes, because they're rough terms, but a useful shorthand.

 

Timperial Guard played 30k to "Re-enact" what he read in the novels.  In those stories involving Death Guard, OF COURSE Mortarion would show up to lead his armies, he's a main character!  That was his reason for getting into 30k in the 1st place, the novels lead to the game, for him!

 

I was more "Roleplaying" like in Western video game RPGs, we make OUR OWN characters, spend a whole night in the character creation screen, go into the game right before bed just to save that character.  I got into 30k to figure out how my own character would react to the historic event that is HH.

 

(It's interesting to note character creation is less of a thing in Japanese RPGs; they're happy with pre-made characters.)

 

It was the moment I dropped the word "Re-enact" that immediately calmed things down.  I said something like, "Oh, you're re-enacting the (HH) novels."  I was going off the lore, too, but the way it was laid out in FW Black Books, like a massive sociopolitical event.  He replied like, "Yeah...like a Napoleonic Wargame."

 

He realised the difference, too, thus he invoked Napoleonic Wargames, or just Napoleonic Re-enactment in general.  There, it was very important to paint your miniatures or cosplay very accurately, like you're trying to reproduce that event exactly.  That is a different mindset than me, wanting to create my own story.

 

I apologised 1st, I think.  Not only did I understand him now, AND the difference between us...but OF COURSE I'd also want HIM to use Mortarion so that my characters could be the Techpriests that marched shoulder to shoulder with the Pale Lord of Death, that'd enhance MY story.

 

On 10/7/2026 at 3:27 PM, Razorblade said:

Necromunda, BB, Mordheim, TC all have progression systems baked into their rules. 40k ditched it's progression system (which I think is smart for a larger scale game) but has its asymmetrical missions and terrain objectives instead of people standing in the same random 6" circles, and an entire campaign deck that looks tailor made for weekend events. 

 

And how is it that 40k had Crusade rules in previous editions but not 30k?  30k Marines were ON the Great Crusade!

 

Those are NOT Roleplaying games, in fact Necromunda Roleplay will be a thing (probably soon to be re-named)...but they're "Roleplaying" a bit, y'know?  Like the idea of a progression system is kinda like RPGs, and asymmetrical scenarios like a few characters facing a horde, that's RPG stuff.

 

And it's not just progression systems, those games you cited are designed for Campaign-play, not just 1 game.  Honestly, the Horus Heresy WAS an actual Campaign, it was a Campaign to get to Terra, then the Siege of Terra.  Even in 1st ed, new units were added to reflect that.

 

You see how 30k is more "Re-enactment" than it is "Roleplaying", which is how you and I probably consider more "Narrative"?

 

And that's the difference I see even in this thread.  We're all seeped into the same lore, but they're talking more along the lines of "Re-enactment" whereas "Roleplaying" isn't exactly the right term, but you see it's closer to how you and I see "Narrative", Brother Razorblade?

 

The biggest thing about that argument between Timperial Guard and I is what I see here, we don't disagree, we were talking past each other.  Our very definition of "Narrative" was different, and everything built on that fundamental point changed.  It was very interesting then as now to think about.

Edited 22 hours ago by N1SB

[jaxom]

For me, narrative gameplay depends on three things:

1. Well designed missions which can be linked together into a series of events.
2. Options which enable and empower theme-lists, to a specific level of power.
3. Emergent narrative within gameplay because of player buy-in (either because of player culture or because of mechanical rewards, i.e. well designed missions).

The Black Books were good at 1 and 3. 2 depended on faction/subfaction and who you ask 

 

I think 3.0 flattened out the power curve while still enabling 2 (I think I'm in the minority based on previous threads about losing RoW). The core rules did a lot to enable more weapons and unit types being good to take. The detachment system allows a good amount of flexibility to make a themed-list.

 

I haven't really got into the Journals, so I can't say how they do on 1.

[jaxom]

20 hours ago, Brother Ezra said:

Also, I recently came into possession of a Codex from 3rd edition, and there I found that there used to be "Narrative hooks" pages in the Codices! Those outlined some of the reasons why your dudes might be fighting army X or Y, and sometimes added some faction-specific scenario's. That's also a pretty neat way to bring a bit more narrative into a one-off game.

The Daemonhunter codex will always be my gold standard for that.

[Brofist]

On 10/12/2026 at 2:24 PM, ThaneOfTas said:

That looks amazing, and I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the files for those cards?

 

Of course dude. Just hit me up.

[Griefbringer]

N1SB and jaxom gave some views on looking at what it means to be narrative. I would also like to represent some different levels of viewing narratives in gaming.

 

1.) Army themed around background: essentially, building your army around a "narrative concept" inspired by the background, and units picked to reflect that narrative (rather than for optimal winning-ness). May involve special conversions/kit-bashing, unique paint jobs, thematically decorated bases, names for characters (squads, vehicles), written background on their past etc. or other works which give them personality. Depending on how well a game is balanced, the theme of your force may or may not result in disadvantage on tabletop games against more optimised builds.

 

2.) Group development gaming: this is specific to games where your group (gang, warband, cult etc.) is involved in a continuous series of battles against their rivals, without any over-arcing plot (e.g. Necromunda). As the games progress, the group develops (experience, injuries, resources, new members), but the battles have little effect on the larger surroundings (other than some local resources temporarily changing ownership). The continuing series of battles also results in the group gaining a history.

 

3.) Narrative missions ("re-enactment"): rather than fighting over some abstract victory conditions in some abstract location, the battle takes place in a specific locale during a specific time period, with a meaningful objective. Special rules may apply to represent various conditions. For example, force A is guarding a strategic industrial city, that side B needs to invade. An advance party of the invading force makes a drop pod landing on a lightly defended area that houses power generator systems for a battery of orbital defence lasers - they need to do destroy the generators quickly before the defending side can rush in reinforcements.

 

4.) Grand narrative campaigns: a series of related games (involving two or more players), where the sides involved are fighting for control of some vital, strategic assets. For example, the drop pod assault described above could form the first one in a series of battles over the control of said industrial city, with the outcomes of the individual battles affecting following ones (and eventually the final outcome of the campaign).