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.

Good grief, what state do you play in?!?!?!?

Auticus and I. We have seen the same situations but in different locations. If it's not Cobra Kai approach, don't waste your time.

Sweep the leg.

Jeez. At least in my area it's not always competitive style even if people don't really talk about coming up with the cool scenario or adding in special rules to make things more interesting. I may hate pickup games but at least people tend to run fairly decent and even sometimes fluffy thematic lists.

We do have some interest in narrative play and it even goes on at the GW store, but its hard to keep interest up and the lists that show up are still reflections of the big tournaments.

Most of th enarrative play these days go on outside of any game store, and that removes a lot of the social aspect out which sucks.

Our annual fantasy / AOS campaign ended earlier than it should have because there was a lot of complaining that it wasn't "fair" because the points weren't even 2000 vs 2000 or whatever, and the lists that were brought were starting to get filthy even though it was explicitly asked not to. The 40k campaign coming up will feature a lot of what you read on a goatboy article. Its very much going to be competitive, though the guy running it is very hard into the story. So I'm hoping...

Mordheim and necromunda are what you want for narrative play neither AoS or 40k is designed well for telling stories.

Anything can be used to tell a story. You can tell a story with chess if you wanted to.

I honestly don't see how AOS or 40k cannot be used to tell stories. I've been doing it for many years.

Keeping track of a hundred guys experience through a story is more work than any sane person wants to do but Gruber Godwin losing a leg to a skaven poisoned blade is easy when the warband is eight guys.

You can't create the same intimate tale when using large forces.

 auticus wrote:
Anything can be used to tell a story. You can tell a story with chess if you wanted to.

I honestly don't see how AOS or 40k cannot be used to tell stories. I've been doing it for many years.

Obviously it can be used to tell a story, it just isn't very good for that purpose. When people succeed at telling stories with 40k/AoS it's usually because some exceptionally creative and determined people really wanted to tell a story about the game, not because the rules really encourage and support it.

I don't think telling a story has anything to do with rules really. Like, nothing to do with rules at all.

There are many fantastic stories that deal with war and battles that have thousands on a side.

 auticus wrote:
I don't think telling a story has anything to do with rules really. Like, nothing to do with rules at all.

There are many fantastic stories that deal with war and battles that have thousands on a side.

Of course it has to do with the rules. Good narrative rules give you things like "historical" scenarios and guidelines for constructing forces to use them, character/unit development rules to follow the career of the people in the story, etc. Rules that don't support narrative play very well lack these things and leave it at "here's a 1v1 competitive game, tell a story about what you think happened after you're done". 40k is in the second category.

hobojebus wrote:Keeping track of a hundred guys experience through a story is more work than any sane person wants to do but Gruber Godwin losing a leg to a skaven poisoned blade is easy when the warband is eight guys.

You can't create the same intimate tale when using large forces.

No, but you do it differently.

'Experience' and 'levelling up' are not necessarily part of 'storytelling'. Thryre very much an artificial construct. You've played too much of modern rpg's here and have lost sight of the original concept. You don't need them to get a good narrative going, You are getting bogged down in mechanics, defining the concept by the mechanics and literally can't see beyond that.

Peregrine wrote:[
Of course it has to do with the rules. Good narrative rules give you things like "historical" scenarios and guidelines for constructing forces to use them, character/unit development rules to follow the career of the people in the story, etc. Rules that don't support narrative play very well lack these things and leave it at "here's a 1v1 competitive game, tell a story about what you think happened after you're done". 40k is in the second category.

It's got nothing to do with 'the rules'. all you need for a 'narrative' scenario really is a bit of pre-game cooperative game building, a good hook/concept for a mission, appropriate forces to match up against each other that are appropriate and fit within the context of the narrative and the will/desire to play it through like it would do in the lore. You don't need 'the rules' to tell you this or to give you a historical scenario - you just need to source material by reading your history (or even a what if?), lore or even think about ways of trying to bring a story/scene you enjoy p from a book or a battle from a movie to life (we did this with a story arc from a Simon sparrow book) and treat it respectfully rather then seekimg to power game it. As I said to hobo, you don't need levelling up/experience rules to make something somehow 'narrative' you just need the right attitude. The story Doesn't necessarily start with with 'what happens afterwards' but there is no reason you can't have a chat and figure what what's likely To have happened. What you dônt seem to realise is that All narrative wargaming is is constructing interesting scenarios with appropriately themed forces that would fit the narrative, and playing it out with an eye on what they would have done, as much as the power plays.

I've been playing this way with flames of war for about three years now, and the guys I play against have been playing wargames this way since the 70s. It's fun.

Anything can be narrative. Building a castle in the sand pit can be narrative. Going for an afternoon walk can be narrative.

GW's problem is their game is inherently competitive (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) but sucks at the execution of a competitive game so it ends up only being good for a narrative.

Yet it doesn't offer any specific mechanics to make it good as a narrative game any more than a walk in the park can be made in to a good narrative game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Anything can be narrative. Building a castle in the sand pit can be narrative. Going for an afternoon walk can be narrative.

GW's problem is their game is inherently competitive (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) but sucks at the execution of a competitive game so it ends up only being good for a narrative.

Yet it doesn't offer any specific mechanics to make it good as a narrative game any more than a walk in the park can be made in to a good narrative game.

Anything can be competitive too. Building a castle in the sand pit can be competitive. Going for an afternoon walk can be competitive.

However, Having structural components (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) as part of the game doesn't make it not-narrative. It just gives you resolution methods and a way to 'build' your gsmes.

40k sucks in its execution (of everything) because it is a poorly constructed, cobbled together and barely functional game. Let's not confuse the two.

You don't need specific mechanics to make it good as a narrative game. You just need the right approach.

Deadnight wrote:
'Experience' and 'levelling up' are not necessarily part of 'storytelling'. Thryre very much an artificial construct. You've played too much of modern rpg's here and have lost sight of the original concept. You don't need them to get a good narrative going, You are getting bogged down in mechanics, defining the concept by the mechanics and literally can't see beyond that.

No, they very much are part of storytelling. The particular rules for experience, leveling up, etc, are just a way of representing the idea of characters growing and developing over time. The humble tactical marine at the start of the campaign survives, earns his honors, and eventually becomes a sergeant. And then, after more successful campaigns, fought against memorable opponents, he becomes a captain. The chapter master has his eye on our hero as his successor, when he finally falls in battle, but our hero's rival in one of the other companies has something to say about that idea. And so on.

It's got nothing to do with 'the rules'. all you need for a 'narrative' scenario really is a bit of pre-game cooperative game building, a good hook/concept for a mission, appropriate forces to match up against each other that are appropriate and fit within the context of the narrative and the will/desire to play it through like it would do in the lore. You don't need 'the rules' to tell you this or to give you a historical scenario - you just need to source material by reading your history (or even a what if?), lore or even think about ways of trying to bring a story/scene you enjoy p from a book or a battle from a movie to life (we did this with a story arc from a Simon sparrow book) and treat it respectfully rather then seekimg to power game it.

IOW, "all you need to do to have a narrative scenario is to write a whole bunch of rules and make your own version of 40k for the game". You're hardly disproving my point here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
However, Having structural components (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) as part of the game doesn't make it not-narrative.

No, but that's not the point. Nobody is saying that 40k's competitive (or zero-sum, if you don't like the tournament-oriented connotation that "competitive" has) structure prevents you from playing narrative games. The point is that 40k is, at its heart, a competitive game that offers very little support for narrative play. In fact, even as GW added "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" all over the place in 7th edition they removed narrative elements like the suggestions on how to design interesting scenarios and campaigns that previous core rulebooks had. The "narrative" that exists in GW's vision of 40k is rolling lots of dice on some random event/warlord trait/mission objective/etc tables and then talking about how awesome your space marines were and how you're going to buy 10 more boxes of them. If you really want to do it you can overcome this lack of support and play a narrative game, but only by creating your own rules to succeed where GW has so utterly failed.

You don't need specific mechanics to make it good as a narrative game. You just need the right approach.

The right approach involves specific mechanics.

Deadnight wrote:
However, Having structural components (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) as part of the game doesn't make it not-narrative.

I never said it didn't make it non-narrative, as I said anything can be narrative, but 40k is a failed competitive game more than it is a narrative game.

Anything can be made narrative and anything can be made competitive.... but there are specific mechanics that make something better for one or the other.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
However, Having structural components (army construction rules, unit and equipment points values, 1v1 gaming and victory points to determine a winner and loser) as part of the game doesn't make it not-narrative.

I never said it didn't make it non-narrative, as I said anything can be narrative, but 40k is a failed competitive game more than it is a narrative game.

Anything can be made narrative and anything can be made competitive.... but there are specific mechanics that make something better for one or the other.

I see 40k as a failed narrative game as much as a failed competitive game. It's entirely random 'roll on tables so you can roll on more tables and then maybe roll on more tables' doesn't lend itself to telling a narrative. When you're working from a narrative you tend to have everything set out, you know who the players in the story are and what they can do, and what they're trying to do. With 40k, you might know what they're trying to do (if you don't use that silly 'objectives change every turn' gimmick) but some of them you don't know who they are or what they can do after said rolling on tables. Then you have more rolling for nearly everything that isn't a basic movement declaration.

There's so much randomness that to tell your story you need to houserule the game, pre-determine some rolls yourselves and possibly handwaive parts of the game. Now, yes, a narrative game is a cooperative effort between both parties, but the sheer amount of modification that needs to be done to the game to make it work as a narrative game shows that it's not built for actual narrative play (just like the amount of modification for competitive play shows it's failed at that too). GW just shoved that 'forge the narrative' malarky into the rules to avoid actually doing competent rules development.

Yeah forge the narrative was always a BS marketing tactic that most people saw through as an excuse for their bad rules.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, they very much are part of storytelling. The particular rules for experience, leveling up, etc, are just a way of representing the idea of characters growing and developing over time. The humble tactical marine at the start of the campaign survives, earns his honors, and eventually becomes a sergeant. And then, after more successful campaigns, fought against memorable opponents, he becomes a captain. The chapter master has his eye on our hero as his successor, when he finally falls in battle, but our hero's rival in one of the other companies has something to say about that idea. And so on.

Like I said, they're 'not necessarily part' of storytelling. You don't need exp or levelling up to write, or play out a good story, or to have a narrative attached to a game, or a series of games. As you say, they're 'a way of representing characters growing and developing over time'. Nothing wrong with it. But it's not the only way of doing it. I've played pen and paper RPGs that were very limited in terms of both and they were still fun.

That humble space marine that heroically fells a chaos lord in combat. Congrats, in his next game, he is sporting the latest purity seal on his model representing the heroic deed and a chaos marines helmet is adorning his belt as a trophy. And what's stopping me painting a white stripe on his helmet and calling his a sergeant (he got promoted)? No rules used, but here is is, growing and developing over time.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's got nothing to do with 'the rules'. all you need for a 'narrative' scenario really is a bit of pre-game cooperative game building, a good hook/concept for a mission, appropriate forces to match up against each other that are appropriate and fit within the context of the narrative and the will/desire to play it through like it would do in the lore. You don't need 'the rules' to tell you this or to give you a historical scenario - you just need to source material by reading your history (or even a what if?), lore or even think about ways of trying to bring a story/scene you enjoy p from a book or a battle from a movie to life (we did this with a story arc from a Simon sparrow book) and treat it respectfully rather then seekimg to power game it.

IOW, "all you need to do to have a narrative scenario is to write a whole bunch of rules and make your own version of 40k for the game". You're hardly disproving my point here.

Either that, or just write suitable army lists representing what was likely fielded at the time. It's got A lot less to do with 'making my own version of 40k' and a lot more with having a conversation with the other guy and building a good match up with a scenario that isn't 'grab the geometric shape in the centre of the board'.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, but that's not the point. Nobody is saying that 40k's competitive (or zero-sum, if you don't like the tournament-oriented connotation that "competitive" has) structure prevents you from playing narrative games. The point is that 40k is, at its heart, a competitive game that offers very little support for narrative play. In fact, even as GW added "FORGE THE NARRATIVE" all over the place in 7th edition they removed narrative elements like the suggestions on how to design interesting scenarios and campaigns that previous core rulebooks had. The "narrative" that exists in GW's vision of 40k is rolling lots of dice on some random event/warlord trait/mission objective/etc tables and then talking about how awesome your space marines were and how you're going to buy 10 more boxes of them. If you really want to do it you can overcome this lack of support and play a narrative game, but only by creating your own rules to succeed where GW has so utterly failed.

Plenty people are saying or implying however that it's a competitive game, therefore not narrative, cos there's no rules. I just find that to be a bs excuse justifying not even bothering.

And the point is that 40k is, at its heart, a game that offers very little support for narrative and competitive play. It's just a poorly designed mess a thing the best of times. Rolling on tables for 'hand of God' effects can be interesting when they're used right. I have no disagreement with you that gw use too much of it and as a bandaid to cover The poorly designed nature of the game. But rolling on tables isn't necessarily 'anti-narrative' either. There will always be things out of your control, and it can be nice to see things like that in play. Like I said, when they're used right

 Peregrine wrote:

You don't need specific mechanics to make it good as a narrative game. You just need the right approach.

The right approach involves specific mechanics.

Like I said, we've been doing this for three years and having a blast with the 'approach' method. I'm sure even if there were mechanics for doing what we do, we'd still do our own thing.

Really what I think could dramatically help 40k actually be a narrative game, and realistically speaking as well, would be getting rid of random objectives and going back to actual Attacker/Defender scenarios. One of the things I liked so much about 2nd and 3rd edition (2nd mission cards in particular I thought were amazing and should make a comeback, but to be fair I was like 16 then) was that you could take a couple of those missions, and play out a series of games and have a mini-narrative right there based on it, instead of this we both set up and oh hey I need to go to this building. Now I need to go to that forest. Now there's something in this statue. now I need to kill an enemy unit.

But really though, what I see all too frequently is the fact that Warhammer players don't want to communicate, they want to let the rules be the only thing that gets discussed. How may points, what mission type to use, that's it. Anything else is "wasting time".

Well we've illustrated a very interesting divide in "what is narrative" amongst different people.

Some people require rules that they feel are "narrative". That game mechanics dictate writing a story and lack of game mechanics mean a story cannot be written or that it would be difficult for them to write a story without those mechanics and you would have to try a lot harder.

Other people don't need rules to be "narrative", they just tell the story of what happened on the table.

Food for thought: There are two identical buildings in downtown Lafayette, IN which is the area I live in (West Lafayete specifically in my domicile's case, but lets not bog down the convo) with one being currently used for a Dart League with cash prizes and people from other areas coming to compete and the other is what is essentially a beatnik coffeehouse. Both function very well at what they do. What they have in common is a solid foundation. Now, if you were to try to hold the Beatnik poetry reading and expresso night out in the woods or amongs a hilly field with no wind breaks and uneven terrain, it'd still be a success. Not so much with the Dart League.

Now this incredibly gakky analogy makes me think of how the rules USED to be for both 40K and WFB, but most assuredly AREN'T for either current 40K or AOS. It is fairly easy to take a rigid ruleset and make it narrative. I just reread Tears of Isha as part of a project to try to "adjust" some 5th Ed WFB scenarios for 6th Ed WFB, and that's a great example of being able to do narrative with a tight ruleset. Now, a 6th Ed WFB tourney was also easily doable because of the ruleset.

Now, try the reverse. Even WITH Asur Comp or Generals Handbook, you still can't manage a tight enough ruleset with AOS to play it competitively, because there's no balance there, and has far too many exploitable synergies (Ugh, I think I may have vomited blood just typing that word. Synergy... Yep, copper and bile, definitely threw up blood.) to keep track of.

My brother has a Dark Elf trooper with a human head hanging from its waist. Through rolling dice over a few games, that one model took down a Marine Captain, a total of 4 Terminators (1 in HTH oddly enough), and enough Devastators to make the unit unusable. There's a GREAT narrative tied to that model, or the Blaster warrior who passed his Last Man Standing as literally the last model in the army vs. Necrons in the last turn when he did a single casualty which turned out to be the activating amount for the Phase Out. Tight rules made that possible, not rolling to roll to find out how much more you need to roll.