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.
2017/05/28 14:17:30
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
2017/05/28 14:40:11
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
ross-128 wrote: Hmm, I had been scratching my head over "why are they making a big deal out of formalizing something that people who didn't care for points probably already houseruled?"
It didn't occur to me that they might want to offer an option for people who couldn't handle the math of points and couldn't understand the idea of a houserule, whether due to age or disability. Could be useful for, say, a parent playing a game with their kids. (Just tell the spouse it's an educational game, you're teaching them math!)
I will say though, the "what if I WANT the game to be unbalanced?" argument is kind of silly. If you really want to be at a disadvantage, just let your opponent bring more points than you.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
Why is it odd? Isn't that sort of a big deal? Making every possible iteration of 40k officially endorsed by GW?
2017/05/28 15:10:47
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Anpu42 wrote: Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
So, to avoid dealing with the math you embrace a point system (power levels) with the same kind of math, just with less accurate numbers to add up. Makes sense to me...
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.
2017/05/28 15:11:42
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Not 'Can't Handle the Math', just don't want to deal with it!
And if you think about it, this was the approach Apocalypse took anyway.
I look at it like Stairs, Wheelchair Ramp, Elevator, as someone without mobility impairments:
Unless there's a reason not to, i'll take the stairs - Matched Play
There are days when it's too hot to get all fussed and bothered climbing up a flight of stairs in blazing heat, so i'll take the ramp - Power Levels
There are days when I have a crate of stuff to move up 5 floors so i'll take the elevator - Narrative, also apocalypse to stretch the metaphor a bit.
They're opening it up to people who could not otherwise get into 40k by offering them 3 different ways to *access* the core of the game we enjoy, which is moving models and rolling dice. Seeing as with the assistance of a carer, and indeed by an accommodating opponent, mobility impairments preventing those two can be mitigated. The intellectual component was the last remaining hurdle for making 40k and its derivatives open to literally anyone who could see and comprehend the position of models and the outcome of dice.
Consider also that they've been trying to accomodate everyone, at the same time, with the same equipment, whilst seeking a profit. I'd suggest it's why we ended up with the mess we got.
My point was that people in the "can handle the math but just don't want it" category likely already houseruled the math away, so it was a bit odd for GW to roll out the carpet and fanfare for "We're officially endorsing house rules!"
Which, incidentally, means you can now use house rules in a GW store so long as you use their models without there being any formal prevention from doing so - just take a look in YMDC to see how hot people get about 'where is it written?' to understand why this might be a big deal.
This seems obvious but i've been in less well managed stores where it was a point of contention by the staff - and also screaming by a person who was obviously very disturbed by the concept until it was explained to him (by, as it happens, a very well trained GW staffer).
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2017/05/28 16:33:54
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
2017/05/28 17:38:09
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
2017/05/28 17:40:26
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
I already have several cutting remarks ready that i can't share here without breaking rule 1 but irl oh it'll be sweet.
2017/05/28 17:44:01
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/28 18:24:20
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.
2017/05/28 18:42:47
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
2017/05/28 18:55:44
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
That's a fair point. What it does do, though, is lower the barrier for entry. I've set up a bunch of narrative scenarios or campaigns in my time, and they all involve a lot of spitballing relative power, negotiating with what players want, and making emergency adjustments when things inevitably turn out mistuned for whatever reason. Having "standard" narrative scenarios that can be built upon, and with costed Stratagems to give guidelines and control over special effects, will provide structure for whatever someone wants to run, whether they want to use points or power levels.
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that
But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
On the inverse, this exact reaction is why GW could never have marketed it as such if they wanted to provide a means for those of diminished capacity to enjoy the game without being walled off in their own little corner by default. At least with a standardised open play method there's a *chance* that anyone will be willing to play at that level.
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
This is almost certainly the case sadly :\
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/05/28 19:42:43
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
2017/05/29 01:10:18
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that
But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
On the inverse, this exact reaction is why GW could never have marketed it as such if they wanted to provide a means for those of diminished capacity to enjoy the game without being walled off in their own little corner by default. At least with a standardised open play method there's a *chance* that anyone will be willing to play at that level.
It reinforces the narrative the WAAC players are preaching that anyone not playing their way is weak. That explanation will be used to attack Narrative and Casual players in the future.
This is almost certainly the case sadly :\
Well, I like to answer in a forum debate where I'm part of it You shouldn't assume I have been offended just because I respond to you.
And about your second point, I'll just say that, if you want to believe that, you are in your total right. I can see, obviously, how Open play is more appropiate to people with some mental dissabilities. But to say that is his "primary" market , or the group of people they had in mind at the time of doing it... to me making a very big jump.
Are you saying that GW threated all of Warhammer Fantasy players as dissabled people? Because "Open Play" was the only one game mode of AoS for a full year.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/29 01:27:38
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.
2017/05/29 02:01:25
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
I don't think 'why' gw did it is such a big deal here. Maybe it is for intellectually disabled players, maybe not.
I'm more interested in 'what' they've done, and what they've done isn't really much. They've officially endorsed people's abilities to not follow the rules, or use simplified points values when they play. Which people were (hopefully) capable of doing already, and most likely were doing when playing with like-minded people. I don't see it as having any sort of noticeable affect on people's gaming, i think it'll be business as usual for 99/100 players. The whole thing strikes me as a brief drizzle in a teacup.
2017/05/29 02:10:19
Subject: Re:Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
The fact that you didn't mention Power Levels is exactly the problem. You jumped into a discussion about how Power Levels are just dumbed-down points to rant about how narrative campaigns aren't dumbed down, completely out of context. So who's putting words in whose mouth, then? At best, you have just managed to completely miss the point by jumping to the defense of something that wasn't even being discussed. At worst, you tried to pull a switcheroo by taking a criticism of Power Levels and trying to frame it as a criticism of campaigns, which are something completely different.
2017/05/29 02:12:37
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Galas wrote: Are you sure saying that Narrative playing is for the dissabled? Ok, the GW version one, not generic "narrative playing"; but... wow.
It's what i've been told by a trustworthy employee of GW; whether he was fully informed or not I cannot speak to.
Though I must ask, are you offended by the suggestion? Why?
No, I'm not in any shape or form offended by what a random guy on the internet said about what a random GW employee have said. To be offended I should care about that But to me it speaks volumes about the kind of people that think that people that don't play the "Pure competitive and balance" game is because they are dissabled, or that those other modes of playing the game have been made for "dissabled" people.
The narrative modes of Age of Sigmar just add campaing rules for progresion with your warbands, or to connect battles one with the other. To say that because the version of Narrative play of 40k brings a "Point system-little" to the table has been made for "dissabled" people... I'll let it here.
And I'm talking here about "Narrative Play", the mode of Age of Sigmar and Warhammer 40k 8th edition.
Generic narrative play, to me, requires much more mental effort for the players. Try to run a narrative campaing and compare it with running a competitive tournament, for example.
You know you can run a narrative campaign with full points, right?
Power Levels != Narrative, so you can untwist your panties.
There are numerous reasons why someone might want to use Power Levels instead of Points, or even forego listbuilding entirely in favor of just tossing models on the table. Maybe they're trying to simplify things for a child or disabled person. Maybe they just don't care about the details and just don't want to put as much work into it. Maybe they don't have a list handy and they're in a hurry to throw something together for a pick-up game. Just because it might have utility for one of those reasons, doesn't mean that any of those are the ONLY reason.
But "they want to play a campaign" is not one of those reasons, because you can play a campaign with points just fine. You can also play a campaign without points of course, that's up to you and the people you're playing with, even if doing so would be like playing Dark Heresy without EXP.
This whole thing is just a bunch of nothing. It's just GW formally endorsing some house rules, people who already used those rules will probably continue to do so, people who didn't are probably not going to start. For either of them, pretty much nothing at all is going to change.
Where have I mentioned even one time "Power Levels" in my response? You have put words in my mouth that I haven't say to refute them? I don't understand what do you mean to say by "you can untwist your panties". I assume it was some snarky comment, but as I said, I haven't in any moment make the "Power levels=Narrative" assertion.
The fact that you didn't mention Power Levels is exactly the problem. You jumped into a discussion about how Power Levels are just dumbed-down points to rant about how narrative campaigns aren't dumbed down, completely out of context. So who's putting words in whose mouth, then? At best, you have just managed to completely miss the point by jumping to the defense of something that wasn't even being discussed. At worst, you tried to pull a switcheroo by taking a criticism of Power Levels and trying to frame it as a criticism of campaigns, which are something completely different.
Ehm... no. I jumped into a discussion about how "Narrative play" is useless because Power Levels are just Points-little to say that "Narrative play" brings more rules to the table that just the change of points for Power Levels. I didn't intend to defend Power Levels in any shape or form. They are what they are, and they have the advantages they have.
As is obvious by my flag, English isn't my native lenguage, so maybe i haven't made my original point clear enough. I apologize for that. Personally I'll prefer if we just put asside all this hostile tone, please.
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.
2017/05/29 02:33:06
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
It's funny that one of the biggest things people hold up is that points will be 'more balanced' than powerlevels, and the accompanying hyposthesis that 'matched play' will be more balanced than narrative or open, which is silly.
There is a core, fundamental difference between 'matched play' and narrative play which is what the point of playing the game actually is. Matched play games are played for the sake of winning. Applying your game skill against your opponent and chasing victory, which is quite a lot of fun most of the time. Narrative games are played for the sake of seeing what happens, of being able to walk away from the table with a story to tell; winning is just how you know that particular story is finished. Nothing more.
And because of this fundamental difference in what you're trying to get out of the game, Narrative will always be more balanced than matched no matter what comp system you use. Narrative games self correct because an even battle is ALWAYS more interesting and dramatic than a sportless slaughter. If one side turns out to have a clear advantage, people playing a narrative game will adjust it, often during the game to balance it out and make it more interesting. Because that's the entire point of what they're doing.
Matched play, on the other hand, is about winning and part of that is finding as many advantages as you possibly can. The whole purpose of building a competitive list is to break the point system as much as you can in your favor. Even if taking the absolute most efficient army only gives you a 10% boost in power relative to the baseline value, you've still created an imbalance in your favor, which again is the entire point of matched play.
2017/05/29 02:38:02
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
2017/05/29 02:44:03
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
Torga_DW wrote: I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
Thats why Warhammer has never been a narrative ruleset.
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.
2017/05/29 02:59:03
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
ERJAK wrote: It's funny that one of the biggest things people hold up is that points will be 'more balanced' than powerlevels, and the accompanying hyposthesis that 'matched play' will be more balanced than narrative or open, which is silly.
There is a core, fundamental difference between 'matched play' and narrative play which is what the point of playing the game actually is. Matched play games are played for the sake of winning. Applying your game skill against your opponent and chasing victory, which is quite a lot of fun most of the time. Narrative games are played for the sake of seeing what happens, of being able to walk away from the table with a story to tell; winning is just how you know that particular story is finished. Nothing more.
And because of this fundamental difference in what you're trying to get out of the game, Narrative will always be more balanced than matched no matter what comp system you use. Narrative games self correct because an even battle is ALWAYS more interesting and dramatic than a sportless slaughter. If one side turns out to have a clear advantage, people playing a narrative game will adjust it, often during the game to balance it out and make it more interesting. Because that's the entire point of what they're doing.
Matched play, on the other hand, is about winning and part of that is finding as many advantages as you possibly can. The whole purpose of building a competitive list is to break the point system as much as you can in your favor. Even if taking the absolute most efficient army only gives you a 10% boost in power relative to the baseline value, you've still created an imbalance in your favor, which again is the entire point of matched play.
Have an exalt, sir.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
2017/05/29 03:24:36
Subject: Narrative vs Competitive vs Casual, Help me Understand.
I disagree. Any game where two players go head to head where only one player wins, the point of the game is to win. Narrative or matched. The objective of *any* game, however, is to have fun, and there are many ways to have fun in a game. This is not tied to narrative or matched play.
I believe you have those switched around. The objective of the game is often to win, but that is not the point of playing it. Neither is it the only possible objective.
You know, i believe i have. I'd be interested in hearing some other possible objectives to a pvp game? I'm only seeing win, lose and draw here unless we're talking campaign games.
See? Narrative play is obviously not what you're interested in so you can play Matched exclusively and have a game mode that is tuned for what you find most enjoyable to the game. Your focus is heavily on W/L/D and that's fine, it's an important and legitimate way to play the game. Just remember that plenty of people don't even bother to tally totals at the end of games and have plenty of enjoyment from their time.
