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.

Sorry this is late, but we have an exciting podcast for you today. We were able to get two debate teams together to argue narrative vs competitive. It is a dream come true. After that wander over to the facebook page and vote for the team you think won!

http://traffic.libsyn.com/mobrule/Ep-14_Narative_Debate.mp3

So, I gave this a partial listen, just to see if the "debate" was interesting. Honestly, you guys could have probably have just gone with a discussion instead.

I noticed no one bothered to define what the difference between "narrative" and "competitive" games are, and things got a little muddied because of that.

Is narrative gaming just adding a story to a regular game? Because any game quickly becomes a narrative game when I can rattle off in a couple minutes why x force is fighting y force in z location for reasons a, b, and c.

Is it playing "not to win"? Because I've always had a problem with that. Sure, the miniature wargaming hobby is, at its heart, cooperative. You can't have a game if your opponent doesn't do anything. But at the same time, it's a game. Games have defined winners and losers. In wargames, it's one side or the other. Leave the true co-op experience for the role-playing games and board games, when it’s the players (and GM) against the narrative and luck.

At the same time, the competitive side had some iffy points. The statement that “every game except for one” has points is pretty far off base, as is saying that doing Helm’s Deep or the Battle of Thermopylae in a game is impossible. The outnumbered defender is a classic wargaming (and real life) scenario. I’d go as far to say that it was a pretty big mistake to let the defenders in the game that started the whole discussion (3000 points of Orks v 3000 points of Imperials) take those Macro Cannons. If anything, the attackers should have outnumbered the defenders by 1.5 to 2 times the amount of points.

And there’s a pretty good argument against the idea that only competitive games can be played across a country – people don’t fly out to conventions and do nothing at, say, Historicon, where a vast majority of games being played are scenarios and not tournaments.

Just from what I heard from this podcast, I guess you guys are primarily 40k players, and I guess it reflects on the points made in your “debate.”

IMO,the debate is flawed, as it is working on the false dichotomy, arising from the poor game development found in one game .(40k.)

Competitive and narrative play styles are not mutually exclusive.

All war games where players have opposed objectives to win the game are by definition, competitive.

All games where the players make up a narrative to explain the reason for the competition to win the war game happening in the first place, are by definition ,narrative.

Its only because the rules for 40k result in a barely playable game ,(without considerable player agreement before hand to arrive at any sort of level of fun.)
And with little thought given to game play let a lone balance in 40k.

This is why some people seem to think the narrative and competitive divide exists!

However, point values on their own do not arrive at enough balance for random pick up games.
ALL good war games that are developed with random pick up games in mind, use a structured force composition and point values to arrive at a decent level of balance.

Accurate point values gives comparable in game worth at the level of interaction.

Structured force composition ensures enjoyable match ups.

Writing rules that deliver enough game balance for enjoyable random pick up games takes a lot of time and effort.
Its what other game companies do to add worth to their product range.

GW plc the self declared 'minatures company' seem to think that the customers will 'just sort it out themselves.'Even though thy charge a premium for a non functioning product.(Rule book that does not give well defined and concise instructions on how a game is played.Codex books that do not deliver enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games.)

*edit

I misread a part of Lanrak's post. 100% agreed, and funny to see that someone posted basically the same thing in half a second.

I see what you mean and I agree that we should have done better at defining the topic with a definition, in the future if we go with this format I will surely take your advice!

In the discussion after the debate we talked, in a more open format, about the pros and cons and what it was that we saw as narrative and competitive. One of the nice things about the discussion, and is somewhat echoed in your statements, is that competitive and narrative play are not black or white but shades of grey. Thus, in the end the subtext could have been more on what level is important and enjoyable. In the future we may go with a more black and white topic with stronger dogmatic views.

Regardless, I am glad that we got people talking and it was a lot of fun to put together! Woo hoo!

What would be some topics you would like to see debated?
So far we are tossing around:
Painting requirement in tournaments
Who was right, Horus or the Emperor
ITC vs BRB
Should recasts be legal (though we are thinking about Fox Newsing that one where we pot the volume down and talk over the pro-recast team)

What do you think?

BTW, please vote for the team you thought won here:
https://www.facebook.com/MobRuleAk/

 MachineSlave wrote:
Should recasts be legal (though we are thinking about Fox Newsing that one where we pot the volume down and talk over the pro-recast team)

I would rather see that discussion done honestly or not at all.

For this one, I didn't get all the way through. I got to the rebuttals and was like "they're talking past eachother, so this is going nowhere."

frozenwastes wrote:
I would rather see that discussion done honestly or not at all.

Seems like it can be a real blood boiler for a lot of folks, I don't know many people on the fence about that topic, they seem to be either all in or all out. What is your take on recasts?

They're a very rude thing to bring to a local store that's trying to sell miniatures. I have no real issue with what people do in the privacy of their own home though.

I've also done some accounting work for a small company I used to work for that had some of it's work duplicated by a customer. Bronze statuary and plaster mouldings depicting people. I learned something that many people won't believe or accept. That as far as the courts are concerned, if the item isn't distributed or publically displayed that no infringement has occurred. As in your case doesn't get past pre trial stages. We were told by the judge that we could file again if the defendant sold his house without first removing the duplicated items but until then he was free to enjoy the duplicate custom statues and mouldings.

Apparently there has never been a successful suit for infringement that did not include some form of distribution (even giving away counts) or public display. While many people believe the very act of creating a duplicate constitutes infringement (and can quote the law to made it sound that way), the courts in pretty much every jurisdiction have a more stringent standard necessitated by other, more impactful laws and legal principles.


EDIT: tablet + paragraphs = annoying errors

Well my opinions are as follows.
If tournaments want to have a mimimum standard for painting,its up to them.No debate necessary.IMO.
(I think armies of grey plastic seems to be limited to non Historicals in my experience.)

No dictator with absolute power can determine who was right, just who is left.(Neither Horus or the Emperor was 'right'.no debate IMO..)

ITC vs BRB? Internet tournament comps vs big rule book?Not sure on these abbreviations...

Recasts are legal if you do not distribute them or use them in public display.(As frozenwastes said.)

So are recasts ethically acceptable ? is the actual debate.This is a can of worms I would not want to open with friends.(As they may not be friends for too long! )

How about this discussion..
Who is responsible for game balance , the publisher of a rule set that charges 2 to 8 times the cost of other rule sets.
Or the customer who has paid the publisher for the rule set?

Please bear in mind that purchasing recasts from some guy in China or Russia is distribution. There may also be a law against knowingly importing infringing goods in your jurisdiction.

As for the ethics, my take is that it is a matter of commerce that has been propagandized into an moral issue. Like the attempts to equate it to theft despite it having its own body of law. I don't think there's a single place on the planet where they use the laws related to theft for copyright.

For me it goes back to commercial concerns and politeness. Is it polite to Dakka to promote recasting when their advertising revenue comes from people who make miniatures? Hell. No.