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.

That's the story and the story can change, question is can the game mechanics forge a narrative, can they do it right, can they immerse the players in?

Yep, Uncharted is an example of a finished story revealed to the "reader" who's function is limited to tuning pages of an interactive book, no matter how complex the process of "turning" can be. It's not a game in a true sense, beacause if we read the definitions of the word "play" we see, besides engaging in a competition, irregular movement, freedom of change and reflection.

Multiplayer Civil War would be a setting. A plot. A number of guidelines you can use to build a story. A story that is revealed by playing it out, not by reading through key events.

How often in a so-called "game" the space between the actual turning points where you make sort of a decision is filled with meaningless actions like mini-games and arcade elements that have no real connection to the plot?

The narrative game would be a story revealed by means of playing it, not by watching cutscenes or reading.

As far as I remember "The Last of Us" got mainly cinematic rewards. Because if we take pure gameplay it is lagging 20 years behind what you would expect of a cutting edge interactive product.

I won't say there is much difference between video and tabletop game mechanics. It is more the single- and multiplayer concepts that present different challenges for the designer.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Ultimately, the difference is "I want to win this game" vs "I want to see what happens in this situation.

This.

Or: "I want to win!" vs "Let's play it out."

I see narrative gaming as about the game itself vs strict focus on the outcome which both players can enjoy, for which only one player can win.

If a narrative game is one in which taking part is more important than winning, to what degree can game rules encourage this structurally?

Perhaps there simply shouldn't be any victory conditions, for example.

Depends on the story been told, but, speed of play would be important or ease or late entry/ reentry into the game.

If the scope of the game is to take part in a story, been left out because of an early elimination will be problematic to players.

Some games are designed to be "last man standing" and players have to accept it is the nature of the game that gradually everyone will be eliminated. Monopoly is a very early example though not a wargame, of course. Other examples include Titan, Kingmaker and Shogun.

This feature can be seen as a design flaw, especially if players are left hanging in but without any hope of getting close to a victory. It gets worse if the game is a very long one.

Even so, I don't think this is a big problem if people understand it going in. And certainly, there is something about a grinding death match that can make for a fun game, though perhaps it works better for two players.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a narrative game is one in which taking part is more important than winning, to what degree can game rules encourage this structurally?

Perhaps there simply shouldn't be any victory conditions, for example.

I don't think saying that "There is no winner" is what's needed. Instead, saying something like:

-You "Win" if you do better than the historical force.
-Your goal is to settle certain rivalries among characters before being massacred
-etc.

I don't know, a lot of sandbox games encourage narrative gameplay simply because there aren't clearly defined goals so the emergent story is the thing.

Victory conditions can encourage "gamey" behavior, so that would have to be taken into account. I could very easily envision a narrative game that didn't have any victory conditions but did have game ending conditions (for example, once every player has completed 3 chapters).

I agree. History is a continuous process so objectives at various levels are not necessarily fixed and can change due to the pressure of events on and off the battlefield. Mission creep in Afghanistan is a great example. That said, most people and nations do actually start a fight with some kind of object in view.

I am necroing this thread because the topic of Narrative play has been re-ignited by GW's announcement of some kind of new rules or supplements for AoS that will more clearly define the game into three strands; casual Open Play, Narrative Play, and Matched Play. Does this tell us what GW consider Narrative to be?

Open Play is basically one-off games with any units you like according to player choice and agreement.

Narrative Play is campaigns, which to me means a series of linked games that might be generated by the players moving their armies around a map or network diagram, or playing through a series of pre-defined scenarios. The second is what you get if you buy the current campaign books.

Matched Play is fair and balanced battles as played in tournaments.

Any thoughts regarding GW's concept?

To me, a campaign generates a narrative but if it's player controlled, the point of map movement is to concentrate forces to overwhelm the enemy by forcing an unfair battle. In one sense this denies the idea of narrative being about playing for the sake of taking part rather than to win. However if both sides take that as given, they both may have the same chance, and there is interest in seeing how the whole campaign develops.

"Narrative" is a marketing term. It is meant to evoke a feeling in the customer rather than stake out a meaning for the scholar. I think my old simulation/competition standby fits rather well if you're looking for more of a definition:

 Manchu wrote:
One way to think about game design is as a spectrum between competitive and simulative. Competitive games are obviously played to find out who wins. Competitive game design thus tends to emphasize player agency: the players have a large degree of direct control over what happens during the game. Simulative games, by contrast, are played to find out what happens. Such games tend to put mechanical obstacles between the players' intentions and how things actually play out.

Importantly - playing a game "to see what happens" does not mean the players do not care about winning or losing. Each still plays to win. The big difference is that they are not playing to measure who is more skilled.

That is a good question we do not know what GW means I assumed "Oh they will make pdfs with historical forces terrain and battle conditions for players to recreate" but that is my assumption taking "narrative" as how I would handle it.

Again, don't let the marketing term trip you up. It's pretty simply - the primary goal is to generate dramatic moments, as opposed to testing the relative skillfulness of the players.

This is getting into why "Match Play" is a sham, at least insofar as it's supposed to be a test of skill.

It's been my experience that GW equates "Narrative" gaming to be a Campaign-style of gaming. As this is AoS, think WHFB 'Storm of Chaos', 'Dark Shadows'(Albion), 'Conquest of the New World'(Lustria)...

Sorry, didn't realise this was a necro, so I responded to old posts. I can delete if people want.

 JamesY wrote:
A narrative game would be one in which you play out a story, for example BaC or Space Hulk, the missions join together to form a specific, pre-determined story. Similar to say, metal gear solid. That is not the same as trying to create a narrative from the events that occur in a game.

I'm not sure that's quite right as some games encourage storytelling in a way that others don't even when there's no direct narrative placed on the game. Through all its versions 40k has sometimes had narrative style objectives, and sometimes not, but in each iteration the game has had an emphasis on producing events that'd make for a great story - Yarrick facing off against the Ork Warlord, stuff like that.

This doesn't mean it's okay to ignore balance issues, but there is a kind of trade off. The more detail and special rules you add in to make characters thematic and cool, the more potential you get for exploitation. When designing the game if you chase play balance above all else there's a lot of potentially cool stuff you'd have to leave out, but if you want more of a narrative style feel then you might be happy with a little imbalance, a little scope for cheesy lists, if it means you get more thematic and cool stuff in the game.

And I think that's probably the best way to describe 40k's overall design principle over it's 20 years - when a decision had to be made over making a new unit feel cool and thematic, or making sure it couldn't be cheesed out, the designers always picked the cool, thematic rules.

Whether that's good design or not depends on the individual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Players can infuse such narrative to the game even in abstract games like chess or go, but from a designers perspective this is not relevant, the designers job is to deliver game mechanism that allow the fluff of the game to be delivered on the game table, game balance on the other hand helps both players have fun, even in asymmetrical scenarios were one side is overwhelmingly more powerful.

But a game of 40K lends itself to a narrative more than a game of chess does. Game mechanics play a clear roll in producing that narrative. 40K wouldn't have the same feel if combat was abstracted to the charging unit auto winning, like chess. Genestealers assaulting a guard unit and tearing it apart, dice roll by dice roll, has a basic storytelling element that you don't get from putting your knight on your opponent's pawn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
In a confrontational game, yes, balance matters a lot, there are select few who willingly will set up and play an hour or two (or 5 or more with some game systems) when they know they have no chance of winning.

Sure, if everything is laid out before the game starts, with an impossible mission I doubt many players would like it. And even less would return for a second play. But consider a game where its unknown at the start of the game who will end up being favoured by the scenario, but instead that gets revealed through the game. Waterloo was mentioned earlier - consider a design where a card is drawn each turn to say if Blucher is arriving. Draw the card early and it's impossible for Napoleon, but draw it late and it will become impossible for Wellington to hold on.

Or consider a modern wargame, where the force composition and objectives for each side are determined by the drawing of cards, these might even evolve with new cards drawn each turn. So a player might play through a couple of turns, expecting his tanks to turn up and begin a flanking attack to sieze the last and most critical town from the enemy, but he could then draw a card telling him his expected armour will no longer be arriving, and he can now look to just hold the positions already taken. That might make completing his objectives much easier, it might also become impossible, especially if his opponent got some excellent reinforcements. There'd be a lot of luck involved, and also a lot of improvisation as the battlefield circumstances change.

Both of those games could be really fun to play out, even though post-game discussion will likely recognise that one or the other player was left with an impossible situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a narrative game is one in which taking part is more important than winning, to what degree can game rules encourage this structurally?

Perhaps there simply shouldn't be any victory conditions, for example.

I think victory conditions are essential, because you need to encourage players to act as the commanders would have acted. Tailored and asymmetric victory conditions can be a pretty important part of a narrative game.

Outside of that, I'd say the game probably needs detail in the right places, to make the events come to life. Perhaps lots of weapons detail and complex damage systems are unwieldy and don't add much strategic depth, but if they give the combat a feeling of reality, then maybe they can be justified.

The game you describe doesn't sound fun, sounds random and not rewarding to the players.

My main issue with 40k and its rues is that the rules do not deliver the narrative, sure it can give moments to talk for years to come as for example a friend of mine who managed to roll 13 "1s" on a 2+ wound roll and loose a store campaign on the last round, but these are mostly extreme luck/ bad luck stories, not the narrative of the system, space marines for example are mowed down like no tomorrow in contrast with the fluff.

There is a narrative, the rules system does not support it though.

Seems to me that generating "stories you will tell for years to come" is exactly what "narrative gaming" is about - it's certainly not about simulating the capabilities of BL protagonists.

Sure, I just rate a game system whose story was how a force maneuvered and outclassed the enemy force by making smart tactical choices way more than a game system whose story was how super or abysmal ones luck was.

It sounds like you prefer a design that emphasizes skill.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Sure, I just rate a game system whose story was how a force maneuvered and outclassed the enemy force by making smart tactical choices way more than a game system whose story was how super or abysmal ones luck was.

Bro, are you new here? Do you even 40k?

Short answer not after the early stages of 5th.

Sure, but even in 2E, 3E, 40k was about something statistically unusual. Like one-shotting a Land Raider on Turn 1.

To be entirely honest I much preferred 1st edition (without the random tables).

2nd edition was wacky, but also the edition I played most, it is also the edition that got the most development and by its end it was a different beast than when it started, true vehicles was a huge issue that is why nobody played them except the really broken glass cannons.

3rd edition was a great idea mishandled, 4th was bad but at ultimately the change of fluff with codex necrons was what killed it for me, in 5th after Alesio left and the design started heading the lands it has already reached now I quit, gifted most of my collection, I was playing Infinity anyway so no big loss.

Great thread and since design issues are kind of timeless, I don't think it's really a true necropost.

The more I consider it, the more I agree that "narrative" gaming is pretty meaningless marketing jargon that relies on subjective interpretation. It only seems to have definition as somehow being oppositional to "competitive" play, which is nonsensical.

The simulations/competitiveness is one division and speaks to the traditional simulation v. game approach. I don't know that "narrative" wargaming approximates simulationism, however. Rather it seems to embrace some sort of storytelling aspect. I know I am using a lot of weasel words here, but it's the best I can come up with for such a vague term that doesn't seem to embrace it's actual meaning. In fact, a traditional narrative is nearly the polar opposite of interactive gaming.

I guess "narrative wargaming" could be wargames where the primary goal is to produce some sort of story or tale? Still super vague to the point of meaninglessness, and seems awfully close to "battle report wargaming".

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The game you describe doesn't sound fun, sounds random and not rewarding to the players.

If the focus is winning, and making choices that contribute to the win. The examples I gave are of examples that are totally different, it's about the experience, doing the best you can with what you have and hoping to catch a break. You might not like a game like that, but you are not all players.

To stick with GW games, did you ever play Necromunda or Blood Bowl? Bloodbowl is a very tight ruleset with a lot of tactical play, and surrounding it is a campaign system that gives you some but not complete control over how your team develops. It’s a great game for a tight, competitive league.

Necromunda is a much looser ruleset, the core rules are tight, but surrounding that are very loose scenario rules and a campaign system that’s almost completely luck based. I found that stuff bothersome for a long time, because I was trying to play the game just to win, and all this random crazy stuff got in the way. But over time I’ve come to enjoy just watching the game play out, and seeing funny little stories develop.

My main issue with 40k and its rues is that the rules do not deliver the narrative, sure it can give moments to talk for years to come as for example a friend of mine who managed to roll 13 "1s"…

I think you missed what I said. It isn’t about talking about unlikely dice rolls, that’s an element in literally every game with dice. The narrative in this sense is about creating the ‘reality’ of the battle. Did you see in my post about genestealers assaulting a guard unit and tearing it apart? Think about how that plays out when each ‘stealer has its own attacks, and those attacks are based on In, WS and Str. Then compare to a more efficient, more abstract system, where the genestealers and guard units both have an abstract combat score. You would compare those scores, roll on a table or add a dice to each combat score or something, and that’d give you a result. It’d resolve quicker and be just as good for tactical purposes. But its unlikely to fuel as much imagination among players, all that detail of attack hitting and wounding, compared to a single, abstract roll.

That’s the narrative detail, and certain systems definitely support it more than others. Doesn’t mean a game is better to have it or not, it’s just different methods for different purposes. But there’s no point pretending it isn’t there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
Great thread and since design issues are kind of timeless, I don't think it's really a true necropost.

The more I consider it, the more I agree that "narrative" gaming is pretty meaningless marketing jargon that relies on subjective interpretation. It only seems to have definition as somehow being oppositional to "competitive" play, which is nonsensical.

Sounds like you're a fellow veteran of the great GNS debacle from the early 2000s, yeah?

I think you're probably right in that what I'm describing could be better described as simulationist, but I'd rather stick with narrative as it is the term used here to describe trying to simulate an event, as opposed to balancing a tactical game. I don’t think we need to worry about stepping GNS toes because that stuff is long since dead (I hope), and the way narrative was described in those situations described barely any roleplaying, it certainly applies to even less wargaming.

Bloodball became the tight rule-set it is now, when I played it it was still the usual randomness of GW games with cards drawn and "funny" spells that could turn the tide because luck.

Once the game stepped out of GW commercial custody it became much more streamlined and well designed.

Necromunda was always a random unfair mess to be exploited and this is what we did, our gangs were optimized to break the game and exploit the randomness junk of the game system, we enjoyed it at the time because throwing broken and OP stuff at each-other was cool at the time, but I would not play it again now, this goes for all such games GW did, mordheim and gorgamorka, poor game design depending on randomness to hopefully balance itself out only left open to massive exploit.

I think you missed my point.

Each setting has its own background fictional or real, its the purpose of the game system to deliver that background on the tabletop and allow the players to recreate that fictional background, I would say allow them to "forge a narrative" if in your example a lone guardsman fends off a genestealer brood once its a great luck of dice and an interesting story to tell for sure, if this happens all too often then the game mechanics as a whole has failed to deliver the background of the game.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Bloodball became the tight rule-set it is now, when I played it it was still the usual randomness of GW games with cards drawn and "funny" spells that could turn the tide because luck.

Once the game stepped out of GW commercial custody it became much more streamlined and well designed.

Hardly. I played under the last Jervis edition, Bloodblowl + Deathzone, and I play now under LRB. The changes are minimal. You used to get star players permanently, and special play cards used to exist, and they were quite random (some very good cards that could stop touchdowns, and some okay cards, and a few that did absolutely nothing like Crazy Referee). Other than that it's really just some minor tinkering (limiting the impact of some skills in producing deaths, and making repeated fouling less effective) and a few more teams.

Necromunda was always a random unfair mess to be exploited and this is what we did, our gangs were optimized to break the game and exploit the randomness junk of the game system, we enjoyed it at the time because throwing broken and OP stuff at each-other was cool at the time, but I would not play it again now, this goes for all such games GW did, mordheim and gorgamorka, poor game design depending on randomness to hopefully balance itself out only left open to massive exploit.

I think you missed my point.

No, you're missing my point. If you play Necromunda as a game where you turn up and say 'man I really hope I win today' is, in your words, a random unfair mess to be exploited. As a competitive game it's a total disaster.

The point, though, is that you don't play Necromunda by turning up and saying 'man I really hope I win today'. It's more about watching the lives of these little guys play out, a juve slowly becoming a skilled marksman, before losing an eye and suffering two serious leg injuries in a horrific multple injury role, only to find a bionic eye, and a very useful skills of Infiltrator and Evade have turned him in to an elite sniper... until he fails an initiative check and falls off a building, to be eaten by scavvies.

If half of those things were choices, if I picked my skills and had more than a little input in to injuries, then it would be a more skillful game. It'd also be a lot less good at producing fun stories.

Each setting has its own background fictional or real, its the purpose of the game system to deliver that background on the tabletop and allow the players to recreate that fictional background, I would say allow them to "forge a narrative" if in your example a lone guardsman fends off a genestealer brood once its a great luck of dice and an interesting story to tell for sure, if this happens all too often then the game mechanics as a whole has failed to deliver the background of the game.

You've misread my example and so misread my point entirely. I never said anything about the guardsman fending off the genestealer. This isn't about making a narrative after seeing some unusual dice. Once again, any game can produce weird dice results and prompt stories to come from that. This is about some games resolving things with some level of in-game detail, and that increasing the experience of the game.

To repeat my earlier point - there is a different between a unit having a combat score, and a combat system going down in to the detail of what equipment a model is holding, and whether he's got good weapon skill, good strength etc. There's a difference between both units having a melee stat compared on a table, with a D6 roll, which makes the guard unit lose 3 guys and break, and the 'stealers rolling their attacks, scoring 3 kills, then the guard player rolling his attacks and missing, and then breaking. The former is abstract, the latter is, albeit at the most basic level, something of a story.

So except removing the huge game changing random cards the tweaking is minimal, yep sounds about what I said.

No I am not missing the point, Necromunda was never played as that, nor as a game to win, it was played as "how I am going to exploit the system in order to get the best outcome with the minimal risk win or loose" hence the huge hunt for underdog bonus the sacrificial lamps for the bottle check ectr and yes, the randomness was ridiculous, random stat changes, right because my heavy needs to be WS6 S4 and 3A instead I don't know do her job a shoot stuff?

I have to disagree on your point, both are telling a story one with fewer steps (though all described on the second example can be modifiers) one with more steps, none is better at telling a story, the first though is probably more capable in telling the story right.

The funny thing is that Necromunda isn't a battle campaign. Necromunda is actually a team-building game, for the finals. The battle is the least important part of the game, but the most time-consuming. The most important thing is actually the after-battle stuff.

Mordheim is the same way. I was always baffled by people who'd actually fight it to the end with multiple heroes out, or not start over after a bad early game - that's how you lose the campaign!

People fought till the bitter end? why?

Ok I will give it that the battle part was the most expensive and time consuming so one should at least assume it is important, but it really was not.

Mordheim at least as a version 1,5 of the system allowed models to choose between WS and BS advancement.