MEANINGFUL CHOICES! Meaningful choices, as I learned during GDC'15 and should have thought about much earlier since it's kinda obvious, are important! But it seems I didn't see the forest, due to all the trees in the way. So what I want to tackle with this little thing here is: As GM you need to provide these, because meaningful choices are fun. If a choice is obvious, it's boring. If a choice makes no impact whatsoever, it's boring. If a choice is just a farce, it's boring. So what are meaningful choices? "You must mean to make epic story stuffz! Or things like going right and left, right?!" NO! Meaningful choices are so much more, which certain PnPs push harder than others. Let's take Deathwatch as example. There you get requisition points in order to swap your gear. Devastators start with Heavy Bolter, but they can easily grab a Las Cannon instead. Here is a meaningful choice in: Firepower vs. Fire Rate. It can and WILL have an effect during the mission. If against Tyranids both decisions seem more than legit, neither is obvious. Hive Tyrants, Carnifexes and other greater beasts easily will endure your Heavy Bolter, or well... At least they won't struggle with it as much as if you had a Las Cannon. But the hordes? Forget your Las Cannon! So here is definitely an interesting choice to be made. So as GM it's your choice to make it interesting and not just clean out punishing. While I am known as defender of keeping stuff juicy and interesting and hate pre-scripting, certain things SHOULD be scripted, or at least not clearly decided by the GM. Also be fair, but not babying. This means your players should have intel or capable of gathering intel to weigh their options. I.E. there was a report from the planet that insinuated a local Hive Tyrant, but beyond that there were no greater creatures spotted (yet). This means the Devastator in this example may choose the Heavy Bolter rather since it would be more useful overall, or the player decides to take the Las Cannon because it could work as 'Boss Killer' weapon. Now this report should not determine that in fact the Hive Tyrant is the only big monster there. Perhaps give the players the opportunity to send a vanguard? If a scout is in the party or a volunteer-assault or simply the Devastator player be like "Hey, why not send Astartes X ahead to see if the reports are correct?" Then why not let them do that if the group agrees to it? Go with the flow and be more creative, as GM it is YOUR job to offer hints of what players can do, but it is also your job to not force things that shouldn't be. Script the main scenario, but let side things open. I.E. The Hive Tyrant in this scenario could be the key-element to the entire campaign. If the Deathwatch Team decides to prioritize other big creatures or get too wounded to take care of the Hive Tyrant or perhaps even retreat from him because it is too strong or whatever else could have happened that they failed to slay him, perhaps a Hive Fleet comes and consumes the world and the Astartes failed to save this world. Don't just throw Deathwatch, Imperial Navy, or whatever else reinforcements in there. Let them feel their failure. Even if the players die, that is the consequence from whatever they did during the mission or team struggle (like rather arguing than focusing on the enemy). Remember: Be fair, but do not baby your players. Meaningful choices come in many faces. From where to go, how to react to someone, to ask critical questions, to remain silent, to sneak or go full frontal, which weapon to take, which weapon to use when, how to work together in a team or how dysfunctional it is, etc. Animate your players, but do not steer them (except they are lost, then feel free to be their shepherd).