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.
2017/06/02 00:13:38
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.
And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.
Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.
Yes, it is imbalanced. At most points of the game, one class will dominate the other. The game works because its not intended to pit one player vs another. When that sort of thing happens, you start losing players and/or the campaign ends entirely. The story stops, when it could otherwise continue.
Compare that to 40k, where you can have cadia be scoured of life and cease to exist as a planet, yet players who own cadian armies can still continue to play and advance their stories.
I can compare it better with a Warhammer40k Map-based Campaing where one player starts with 10 planets and a full grown empire and all the other players starts with only 1 planet and they all need to ally ones with others, play the diplomate game, etc... to go against the one that from a competitive standpoint has a builded up imbalance to make a narrative.
All of that can go with rules in the proper missions that offer the "big bad" player more units, or points, a battle where one player with a smaller army has to sabotage some facility of the big player that has much more troops, etc...
But again, all of this works better with a balanced system for units. In any point I have made the statement agains't that. My statement was that the Power Level system has all of his limitations but some virtues over the full point system. And we work with the reality that 40k isn't really a narrative game. "Narrative play" as 40k presents it isn't a narrative game, is just Competitive with some nice lists and extra rules.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/02 00:17:41
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
2017/06/02 00:23:52
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: The title of the threat is "Narrative" vs "Competitive" vs "Casual"; not "Narrative play" vs "Matched play" vs "Open play".
And, despite this nitpick, the OP makes it clear that they're talking about GW's "three ways to play". Their very first sentence:
GW is pushing 3 ways to play to 40K. But I'm confused by how they are setting them apart from one another.
Marmatag wrote: If you have to be told not to bring Roboute Guilliman to a specific part of the story arc, you're missing the point entirely.
No, you're missing the point and defining "narrative" according to your personal preferences for the games you play instead of looking at narrative gaming in general. Perhaps the Guilliman player loves the character and wants to tell Guilliman's story (along with the stories of the Ultramarines fighting by his side)? If that's the case then of course they're going to bring Guilliman to every part of the story arc, because doing anything else would be ruining their narrative experience. By saying "don't bring Guilliman often, it isn't narrative" what you're actually saying is "your story isn't valid, you need to be an NPC in my story by my rules".
Galas wrote: A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)
Actually this is a common misconception. The warrior vs. mage balance problem exists largely because most groups tend to ignore the follower and kingdom building aspects of the game in favor of playing a skirmish-scale miniatures game with token roleplaying rules attached. A higher-level fighter reaches a limit on individual power, but is meant to gain followers and eventually claim territory and become lord of their domain with whole armies at their command. The mage, on the other hand, continues to grow in individual power but is still just a single character. Having a duel between a fighter and a wizard is completely missing the point, the actual duel should be between a wizard and the fighter-king's army (which probably contains some lower-level wizards).
And there is a balance problem when you strip down the game and take away the fighter's greatest endgame assets. It's a major problem for DMs to deal with, since nobody has any fun when a single character does all the cool stuff and the rest of the party never gets their chance to shine. As a DM you have to work a lot harder to keep a high-level game interesting than if fighters and mages were balanced as individual characters.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2017/06/02 00:33:08
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)
Actually this is a common misconception. The warrior vs. mage balance problem exists largely because most groups tend to ignore the follower and kingdom building aspects of the game in favor of playing a skirmish-scale miniatures game with token roleplaying rules attached. A higher-level fighter reaches a limit on individual power, but is meant to gain followers and eventually claim territory and become lord of their domain with whole armies at their command. The mage, on the other hand, continues to grow in individual power but is still just a single character. Having a duel between a fighter and a wizard is completely missing the point, the actual duel should be between a wizard and the fighter-king's army (which probably contains some lower-level wizards).
And there is a balance problem when you strip down the game and take away the fighter's greatest endgame assets. It's a major problem for DMs to deal with, since nobody has any fun when a single character does all the cool stuff and the rest of the party never gets their chance to shine. As a DM you have to work a lot harder to keep a high-level game interesting than if fighters and mages were balanced as individual characters.
Actually I have done that in more than one game with my warriors/knights, so I can understand what you are saying here. But the point remains here, because as the Warrior can build or conquer a Kingdom a Wizard can become the master of all the Magic Towers of the Planet (If that universe has something like that). I have seen a Wizard conquer all the 8 magic towers in a campaing and build a infinite army of inmune-magic golems and then conquer all of the world with that army (Using some gamey mathematical formulas, to be honest )
But I agree that when the game reach that points it becomes normally absurd or boring. My point was basically that, for a good narrative game, you need for people to do their narrative and to have fun doing it. If I want to roleplay a vagabund it doesn't matter to me that other member of the party is a Wizard that has devour God and then give me superpowers. I agree that munchkin and Overpowered characters are anathema for a fun roleplaying or narrative experience. If someone want to do a narrative campaing where he is the little dog
But to be honest, at this point, I don't even know what I'm discussing anymore, so I'll drop it here. Thanks everybody for the discussion! Sorry if I have appeared hostile Peregrine! It wasn't my intention.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/02 00:40:36
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/02 16:49:53
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize for coming across that way; i think you're just missing the mark here. You keep mentioning winning and losing (victory, defeat) but *i don't care* if i win or lose.
Be careful not to simplify narrative games to winners and losers. It's not about winning! When it's a narrative you should want to see everyone do well and have fun. I will play the bad guy and lose every time, I don't care. I'm having fun if everyone is having fun (and I expect something similar from the people i play with).
A lot of gamers i've seen over the years - and i'm not saying this is you - have very fragile egos, and can't handle losing. Getting KO'd in D&D brings people to tears, or table flipping anger. These guys don't fit well with narrative kinds of games, because it ultimately boils down to the NEED to win.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 16:50:44
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/06/02 16:52:17
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/02 16:58:00
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
2017/06/02 17:05:01
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
The issue is, I don't think 40k is a good system for that. It's set up as a direct competition, and doesn't have many, if any, narrative elements in the rules. There's no Inspiration, like in D&D 5E, or Fate Points, from Fate. There's no options for going beyond the rules to do cool things, like swinging from a chandelier. There's no story built in, basically.
Not so say you CAN'T do narrative with 40k. Just saying it takes a heck of a lot of work to make it function as a narrative system, and GW hasn't really put the work in.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/02 17:36:08
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
The issue is, I don't think 40k is a good system for that. It's set up as a direct competition, and doesn't have many, if any, narrative elements in the rules. There's no Inspiration, like in D&D 5E, or Fate Points, from Fate. There's no options for going beyond the rules to do cool things, like swinging from a chandelier. There's no story built in, basically.
Not so say you CAN'T do narrative with 40k. Just saying it takes a heck of a lot of work to make it function as a narrative system, and GW hasn't really put the work in.
As one who put a bunch of effort into a 4th edition D&D campaign to make it, I am not scared of making 40K work for my group. Coming up with simple little mechanics like Fate Points, or allowing models to do ridiculous things, or giving level-up bonuses to characters is easy to figure out. It just takes time, some effort, and a group of players willing to play something different and unusual. In my D&D campaign, did I complain when my players tamed a griffon? Or accidentally one-shot the big-boss with a couple nat-20s? Or taunted the giant ant-queen with their mustaches? Or the bird-bard players being ridiculous and managing to create hijinks in the campaign, including setting fire to a dock and accidentally killing someone in an interrogation? No, I just quickly figured out something for the players to roll against, or came up with some flavorful consequence for their actions (the giant ant-queen did not appreciate the mustache twirling, and focused on the player character that insulted her most, and Derpy the Griffon was a loyal companion for the rest of our sessions).
Balance is not a bad thing at all, and I don't think that any of the Narrative Players think that balance is bad to have. But balance is not the focus of Narrative Play, because that effort put into planning the game or campaign would include some kind of incidental "balancing" in it. That's why I would always recommend having a GM to manage the campaign, while the other players act as the players, making their own decisions and playing their games based upon the story (and any limitations and balancing) created by the GM. Sure, the GM can play, either as an NPC threat against the other players, or fill in for a vacant player on campaign nights. While one player may be playing the OP cheesy army, the GM can come up with some way to bring up the weaker armies, bring down the stronger ones, or have a discussion with that player about what kind of army they ought to bring for their games.
What I am getting at is that the RULES may not be "balanced", but us Narrative Gamers can figure out ways to "balance" our GAMES. In the end, so long as everyone has fun, that is the most important thing to happen. Is 40K set up to be a Narrative Game over a Competitive Game? That is hard to answer, and the fact that they will be releasing different supplemental rules for both Matched Play and Narrative Play tells us that GW intends for both versions to be played and enjoyed. To use an example, in the General's Handbook for Age of Sigmar, both the Narrative Play and Matched Play sections make reference to house-rules being available to players to make their games a better experience - think about that, GW making reference to house-rules being okay for your games and tournaments.
I guess I am lucky in that there are enough players in the area who are fed up with the WAAC players that we are excited for the global campaigns from GW, and in coming up with out own stories based on our models's exploits on the tabletop.
2017/06/02 17:38:54
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/02 17:43:58
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Just need a fast way to get lists onto the table, and to easily determine if something is too strong.
Points don't tell if a unit is too strong, because strength lies in customization. Look at kill team as the prime example. There are a host of restrictions above and beyond point totals, because points are insufficient to balance relative power scales.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/06/02 17:44:49
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
Age of Sigmar has a couple neat ideas with Path to Glory, and a couple other ideas in the General's Handbook.
But for 40K 8th Edition? I have no idea what is official or not yet, other than we are getting distinct sections for Open, Matched, and Narrative Play. I haven't noticed anything in the leaks about Narrative rules support. I would imagine something very similar to Age of Sigmar, with additional stuff to come later.
2017/06/02 17:46:47
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Path to Glory is kinda crap, though. It's insanely unbalanced-not "Oh, he's got a 10% advantage," no, it can easily be "He's got 1800 points and I have 600."
Without any real provisions for addressing the disparity.
As a side note, have you ever written up your campaign system for 40k? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2017/06/02 17:58:11
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
JNAProductions wrote: Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
How do we know it is unbalanced, because it was made by GW. The GW from a year ago is dead...we have a new one that wants a fresh start and it looks like they tried their best.
JNAProductions wrote: Path to Glory is kinda crap, though. It's insanely unbalanced-not "Oh, he's got a 10% advantage," no, it can easily be "He's got 1800 points and I have 600."
Without any real provisions for addressing the disparity.
Hence why a GM should be included, or the players take notice of their advantages
JNAProductions wrote: As a side note, have you ever written up your campaign system for 40k? I'd be interested in seeing it.
I haven't compiled my 40K ideas yet, but I have played in several 40K campaigns run by friends, one was a large (HUGE) scale campaign with 30+ players that scales out of control, and it was based on map-control with bonuses to the armies for controlling certain worlds (Forge Worlds, Hive Worlds, etc), but that campaign died before turn 2 was finished (you ever try getting 30 people to respond to their team leaders? UGH). The other campaign was a modified Kill Team campaign that functioned a lot like Necromunda/SW:A, but was a PVE campaig, with everyone going up against the GM's Chaos army; ever seen Geanstealer Cult, Space Marines, Eldar, Necrons, and Orks all working together to fight Chaos before? It was a hoot and a half!
Once 8th Edition drops, I will definitely start writing up my ideas for Narrative Play, and will make sure to make it public for others to use as they see fit. I did get something written up for our local Age of Sigmar group at one point, but I can't find the document I was working on...
2017/06/02 21:53:19
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
It has no one. Warhammer40k as a game isn't a Narrative Game. Players can make it one with a bunch of house rules, just like you see players modding so much a videogame that it doesn't look as the "vanilla" game.
But that doesn't mean that house ruling 40k to make it a more narrative driven game isn't fun.
But I agree. Balance is good to everybody. Is just that in a list of priorities, in the "narrative experience" isn't as high as a "competitive experience". I don't know if I explain myself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/02 21:54:29
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/06/02 23:39:57
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
You have been critted by a wall of quotes. Roll for damage.
Spoiler:
JNAProductions wrote:Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
I would agree with that. Perfect balance being of course impossible, but that doesn't mean gw shouldn't put the effort in to get it as balanced as possible.
hobojebus wrote: Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.
You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.
What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.
Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.
It's not an argument, it's a statement.
You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.
That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.
Granular points accompany a specific mindset. Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.
Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?
I think you'll find it a tricky statement to justify as you never actually tried to investigate my level of comprehension you've just assumed your superior and decided to talk to me and others in a very condescending manner.
Balance has in point of fact always been my point in this thread.
Why would you play any game if there's no chance at victory? Be it a co-op game of zombiecide or a 100/6 of x-wing if the outcome is predetermined playing is a waste of time and effort, if all your doing is telling a story you don't need to touch a model, telling a story using a wargame must have the outcome be uncertain with the possibility of triumphant victory as likely as a crushing defeat.
If your story can't shift to accommodate every outcome then its honestly not much cop.
A good gm can work with any twist and turn their players throw at them you should never put your group an tracks with no option to divert from what you've scripted, their decision making must matter or there's no point in their participation.
I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize for coming across that way; i think you're just missing the mark here. You keep mentioning winning and losing (victory, defeat) but *i don't care* if i win or lose.
Be careful not to simplify narrative games to winners and losers. It's not about winning! When it's a narrative you should want to see everyone do well and have fun. I will play the bad guy and lose every time, I don't care. I'm having fun if everyone is having fun (and I expect something similar from the people i play with).
A lot of gamers i've seen over the years - and i'm not saying this is you - have very fragile egos, and can't handle losing. Getting KO'd in D&D brings people to tears, or table flipping anger. These guys don't fit well with narrative kinds of games, because it ultimately boils down to the NEED to win.
I agree that everyone should have fun, and that fun is different for different people. Part of being a gm is to lose in the encounters so the players can progress the story, the trick is to not make victory a sure thing otherwise where's the thrill from overcoming a challenge? Be it combat, or solving a puzzle, or negotiating with the drow ambassador. My sticking point is predetermined outcomes - at what point is someone playing a game with a narrative, vs telling a narrative with the game being a sidenote that gets put aside when it looks like it might influence the outcome? The balance levels of the scenario, of the units involved, of the special rules, will influence the story if you're playing a narrative *game* based on something like 40k. If the story is more important than the game, then at some point you cease playing a game entirely and are just moving toy soldiers across the table and telling a story, which is certainly narrative but not necessarily narrative gaming.
Spoiler:
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Narrative Gaming is a lot like RPGs are intended - a story telling experience between multiple players. They are not here to "win" at anything, but just have a good time. Think along the lines of needing a GM for a Narrative Game or Campaign. They are the writer and facilitator of the story, whether it is homebrewed (custom) or running pre-published modules (what is in the GW books).
It boils down to your desired gaming experience, and what you want out of your games:
- Are you here to recreate battles from the lore and/or create your own?
- Do you want to just move models around and roll dice?
- Are you interested in seeing who among your friends is the best tabletop commander?
- Do you want to play WITH other players, or AGAINST them?
Basically, what is your definition of fun? And does that mesh with what other players want for fun?
I largely agree here, i just think its important to note that there's a fine line between playing a game with a narrative, and telling a story with a narrative. The latter requires little to no rules at all.
Spoiler:
BunkhouseBuster wrote:As one who put a bunch of effort into a 4th edition D&D campaign to make it, I am not scared of making 40K work for my group. Coming up with simple little mechanics like Fate Points, or allowing models to do ridiculous things, or giving level-up bonuses to characters is easy to figure out. It just takes time, some effort, and a group of players willing to play something different and unusual. In my D&D campaign, did I complain when my players tamed a griffon? Or accidentally one-shot the big-boss with a couple nat-20s? Or taunted the giant ant-queen with their mustaches? Or the bird-bard players being ridiculous and managing to create hijinks in the campaign, including setting fire to a dock and accidentally killing someone in an interrogation? No, I just quickly figured out something for the players to roll against, or came up with some flavorful consequence for their actions (the giant ant-queen did not appreciate the mustache twirling, and focused on the player character that insulted her most, and Derpy the Griffon was a loyal companion for the rest of our sessions).
Balance is not a bad thing at all, and I don't think that any of the Narrative Players think that balance is bad to have. But balance is not the focus of Narrative Play, because that effort put into planning the game or campaign would include some kind of incidental "balancing" in it. That's why I would always recommend having a GM to manage the campaign, while the other players act as the players, making their own decisions and playing their games based upon the story (and any limitations and balancing) created by the GM. Sure, the GM can play, either as an NPC threat against the other players, or fill in for a vacant player on campaign nights. While one player may be playing the OP cheesy army, the GM can come up with some way to bring up the weaker armies, bring down the stronger ones, or have a discussion with that player about what kind of army they ought to bring for their games.
What I am getting at is that the RULES may not be "balanced", but us Narrative Gamers can figure out ways to "balance" our GAMES. In the end, so long as everyone has fun, that is the most important thing to happen. Is 40K set up to be a Narrative Game over a Competitive Game? That is hard to answer, and the fact that they will be releasing different supplemental rules for both Matched Play and Narrative Play tells us that GW intends for both versions to be played and enjoyed. To use an example, in the General's Handbook for Age of Sigmar, both the Narrative Play and Matched Play sections make reference to house-rules being available to players to make their games a better experience - think about that, GW making reference to house-rules being okay for your games and tournaments.
I guess I am lucky in that there are enough players in the area who are fed up with the WAAC players that we are excited for the global campaigns from GW, and in coming up with out own stories based on our models's exploits on the tabletop.
[spoiler]
From the murky depths of my memory, gw has referenced house rules in the past, most likely in white dwarf. I guess its good that they're letting certain people know they have control over the games they own, but it seems a bit redundant to me and still ends up requiring opponent's consent. Leaving us with the situation we have already - the people that want to alter the rules will do so, the people that don't won't.
What i'm reading from your post is that some players largely abandon the rules altogether in favour of telling a story. My contention is that if you alter or ignore the rules enough, that's fine but at a certain point you're no longer playing 40k. Again, that's fine nothing wrong with that. You could alter the game to be a co-operative d&d-type experience, without a shadow of a doubt. It's just important to realize that at that point you're not actually playing 40k, and might be better served by using rules from one of the rpgs as a starting point to your game, like dark heresy, etc.
I'll be interested in seeing exactly what support is given to narrative play when the game releases.
[spoiler]
Marmatag wrote:Just need a fast way to get lists onto the table, and to easily determine if something is too strong.
Points don't tell if a unit is too strong, because strength lies in customization. Look at kill team as the prime example. There are a host of restrictions above and beyond point totals, because points are insufficient to balance relative power scales.
But power is a less accurate version of points. A fast way to get lists onto the table - maybe. To easily determine if something is too strong - probably not. I've already seen the inceptor vs thousand sons argument, so out of the box we have a problem in that respect.
Spoiler:
Anpu42 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Question to everybody on this thread-can we at least agree that GW should make a balanced system?
For narrative or matched play, I think it's pretty sensible to say the SYSTEM ITSELF should be balanced, and any unbalance should be the player's choice, not inherent to the game.
How do we know it is unbalanced, because it was made by GW. The GW from a year ago is dead...we have a new one that wants a fresh start and it looks like they tried their best.
I've heard this many times before. As always, i'll be taking a wait and see approach before i commit to giving them any more of my money.
Spoiler:
Galas wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: And that's cool as hell. More effort than my group is willing to put into 40k.
But that being said, what mechanics does the system have natively for narrative play? Because it sounds a lot like you're adding basically all the narrative elements.
It has no one. Warhammer40k as a game isn't a Narrative Game. Players can make it one with a bunch of house rules, just like you see players modding so much a videogame that it doesn't look as the "vanilla" game.
But that doesn't mean that house ruling 40k to make it a more narrative driven game isn't fun.
But I agree. Balance is good to everybody. Is just that in a list of priorities, in the "narrative experience" isn't as high as a "competitive experience". I don't know if I explain myself.
I understand what you're saying, and largely agree. I think it depends on how much of the game you end up using and how much you end up throwing out. A 'true' narrative experience doesn't require any rules whatsoever.
2017/06/03 01:52:28
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Matched is the standard game, "open" is just formal endorsement of tossing aside restrictions and playing whatever you and your friends feel like, and "narrative" is playing to a story, and perfectly compatible with either. Narrative scenarios have always been in the game in some form or another.
Someone came up with splitting the Generals Handbook up this way, then pushed it really hard. Now they're still pushing it when honestly you could probably compress the idea of open play to a short paragraph and present narrative as an extensive set of scenarios rather than trying to push it as a nebulously seperate form of play.
)
