How to handle a narrative campaign plagued with one-sided house rules?

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.

**KommissarKiln**

WARNING: This OP will probably be a decently long rant and will be spoiler'ed, but I urge you to read to see just how much went on.

So, just yesterday I took part in what was originally a 4 player, 2 on 2, Guard vs Tau narrative campaign. This was the 5th part out of 6. The first ones had some issues (such as deployment zones being mere inches apart vs fusion blaster spam in one game), but overall were pretty tolerable and fluffy. However, yesterday's game has had so many spontaneous additions from the GM, on the Tau side, that the game went from still somewhat balanced to an outright steamroll, with some rather unfluffy content.

Spoiler:

I think it's pretty fair to say this was egregious cheating on the GM's part, plain and simple. From army and deployment edits to free units, free CPs, and free rerolls, no details were shared prior to meeting for the game. Further, the mid-game changes were not added with balance and fun for all the players in mind; in fact, the 'Tau' side already had a pretty decisive lead in kill points prior to 'things magically appearing'.

This experience has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I am tempted to refuse the next game altogether. However, I'm concerned quitting might come off the wrong way to the other IG player and non-GM Tau player, and I have contact with neither of them outside our FLGS. Would it be best to refuse the next game anyways, play the next game and tolerate whatever may ensue, or make certain demands from concerning balance, free units for one side, unannounced changes, etc. prior to the next game?

**Kap'n Krump**

I think that yes, that definitely sounds 1-sided.

If you want to play future kustom games with the same person, I would definitely want to know all of the scenario changes up front - in the one you mentioned, for example, it sounds like nothing but buffs for the red side and nothing extra for the IG side.

Maybe it could have been something simple as IG gets the sustained assault rules (units come back on a 4+).

Probably the best thing to do would be mention your concerns with this game to the GM, and say that for future kustom scenarios you'd want to have some input on it.

But walking into a game where one side gets nothing but buffs and free units and the other side doesn't even get a numerical advantage is definitely unfair.

**MechaEmperor7000**

The way it went, it sounds like the GM wanted to keep some of the "traps" a legit secret, cuz I can see why those things would appear for narrative reasons.

Unfortunately the guy has absolutely no idea how to do balance. If you hide traps like that you really gotta give the other side something to balance it out. And finally while he may have wanted to keep it a surprise, you NEVER pull rules in the middle of the game; even in narrative campaigns you have to let your opponent know everything from the getgo. Pulling rules out in the middle of the game is just a dick move and makes no one look good (there are other ways to make it a "surprise", such as detailing what it does but instead have it randomly happen on certain turns and locations).

**Formerly Wu**

I would argue that a balanced game is not a requirement of playing Narrative. However, setting proper expectations and ensuring enjoyment is definitely a requirement, and one where this GM failed.

KommissarKiln wrote:
I think it's pretty fair to say this was egregious cheating on the GM's part, plain and simple.

If the campaign was set up so that the GM has "god power," then he can't be cheating by definition. I only make this somewhat pedantic point so that, when/if you decide to approach the GM about the issues you had, you don't unnecessarily antagonize him by accusing him of breaking rules that don't apply.

no details were shared prior to meeting for the game

This was the major failing on the part of the GM. The appearance of the Necrons was planned to be a surprise to the Guard; it should not have been a surprise to the players. Knowing that you'll be playing an imbalanced game lets you moderate your expectations and find ways of achieving success. Getting effectively pantsed by the scenario is very bad.

Further, the mid-game changes were not added with balance and fun for all the players in mind; in fact, the 'Tau' side already had a pretty decisive lead in kill points prior to 'things magically appearing'.

Again, there was no requirement on the GM's part that the additions balance out the game. The story was that the Guard get bushwhacked, so that's what happened. However, he should certainly have also made some changes to allow the Guard to salvage something from the affair once it became obvious that only one side was having any fun.

This experience has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I am tempted to refuse the next game altogether. However, I'm concerned quitting might come off the wrong way to the other IG player and non-GM Tau player, and I have contact with neither of them outside our FLGS. Would it be best to refuse the next game anyways, play the next game and tolerate whatever may ensue, or make certain demands from concerning balance, free units for one side, unannounced changes, etc. prior to the next game?

I wouldn't frame this as "making demands." However, I would certainly put your case to the GM (and to the other players) that he needs to properly set expectations, including providing full scenario information, before game, and that in-game modifications need to be made for the fun of all parties (whether or not they effect balance). If he's unwilling to agree to that, I think you're well in your rights to refuse another game, because they're breaking the one rule of narrative: everyone is in it for the fun.

**HuskyWarhammer**

Gah, this is such a messy situation, and because of the GM. I get why you wouldn't want to play. Some of the stuff wasn't horrible, but he clearly wanted the guard to lose here and took pains to make it happen.

Asking for a stat sheet for any special characters that "suddenly appear" is reasonable and might've avoided some of this narrative cheese the GM was adding in. "I just want to know what I'm fighting."

How good of a relationship do you have with the other IG player? Maybe talking it over with them first, and the two of you approaching the GM might go over better than just one person doing so.

**Crimson Devil**

NO game is better than a BAD game.

**auticus**

From my perspective and experience, narrative games are not matched play games.

A lot of people want all games to be like matched play games. That may not apply to you. But a lot of complaints I hear about narrative games are basically that things weren't 100% balanced on either side so its bad.

In a culture where the vast overwhelming majority of games are pick up or tournament based games based on the premise that imbalance is bad (yet listbuilding causing imbalances is the goal of the game) this style of play will come off as bad to a lot of players.

This was the majority of scenarios in the late 80s and most of the 90s however, so when I see something like this I don't really blink twice at it.

How I would handle it is to approach the GM and voice your complaints... to him.

**Peregrine**

Stop playing with this

.

**zedmeister**

Crimson Devil wrote:
NO game is better than a BAD game.

This all over. gak games make you feel like rubbish and ruin the hobby for yourself. It's supposed to be a fun pastime, not an exercise in frustration. I'd bet the other IG and Tau player's are doing a bit of simultaneous head scratching as well

**MrVulcanator**

That's pretty bad. What was the GM's personality like? Was he pleased with himself or mocking the IG?

**JohnnyHell**

Demand to write secret stratagems for the next game!

Example mission: 'The Surprise'

- 75 PL a side
- Set up terrain
- Dawn of War deployment
- Tau and Necrons deploy first
- EXTERMINATUS boom whoops the whole planet is destroyed from space
- Guard win

**JinxDragon**

As a Storyteller, that made me hurt... too many forget that Storytellers are meant to be on the loosing side, we play the 'Bad guys' so the Players can feel good when they smash them.
I really wish I could say that your Storyteller simply made a few miscalculations but both sides in this battle started equal in points I can not do so. This informs me no calculations where made at all, for it would be obvious to any other Storyteller planning something like this how poor of a position you would be in to deal with it. I want to say all this storyteller was thinking on was how 'epic' it would be for you to bring down this sudden overwhelming force and they forgot entirely to factor in the fact there was a battle still going on... but I don't feel that way with how you told this story.

**Sgt. Cortez**

The open war card deck has some Sudden Death objectives for games in which one side is at a disadvantage. You could suggest these.
After all, even though Narrative games are not about balance in the same way a matches play game is, there should be a way for both sides to win.

**Lance845**

Don't play with idiots.

**DoomMouse**

I'd play the next game if you're 5/6 games in. It might be that the GM wanted a tau/Cron win for narrative reasons? Not saying that they did a good job of that scenario though

**Elbows**

If you can't approach the GM and have an adult conversation which basically consists of "Hey man, I didn't really enjoy X game. It felt really slanted without a proper story to explain why, and I'd like a better balanced scenario next time, etc." then I'd go ahead and skip the games in the future and simply tell them/him/her that you didn't enjoy the game, but thanks for the invite.

**Jidmah**

KommissarKiln wrote:

I think it's pretty fair to say this was egregious cheating on the GM's part, plain and simple. From army and deployment edits to free units, free CPs, and free rerolls, no details were shared prior to meeting for the game. Further, the mid-game changes were not added with balance and fun for all the players in mind; in fact, the 'Tau' side already had a pretty decisive lead in kill points prior to 'things magically appearing'.

This experience has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I am tempted to refuse the next game altogether. However, I'm concerned quitting might come off the wrong way to the other IG player and non-GM Tau player, and I have contact with neither of them outside our FLGS. Would it be best to refuse the next game anyways, play the next game and tolerate whatever may ensue, or make certain demands from concerning balance, free units for one side, unannounced changes, etc. prior to the next game?

I'd like to advice something different from most: Definitely go play that last game.

Yes, that game was a load of gargantuan squiggoth guano, and he failed as a GM when two players were not having fun because he pulled eldar-necron superman out of his... army case.

However, I've playing P&P games under multiple game masters and mastered myself for many years, and know that game masters come in varying qualities. Not everyone is good at telling stories, reacting to things not going as planned and making situations threatening and difficult without the players feeling cheated.
Some things that might have happened:
- the GM was trying to create a threatening scenario where the Imperials go from being superior and cornering the tau/necrons to being cornered themselves. The whole thing blew up in his face because the tau were, in fact, not pushed into a corner, because they were not at any disadvantage to begin with. That way they went from being stronger to totally steamrolling the imperials. He did a bad job at balancing his scenario and still wanted to go through with it. If superman was going to show up anyways, he might as well have played with less PL for the tau.
- he needed the imperials to lose for his plot. A good game master should be able to continue the campaign no matter who won the mission, but considering your story he probably isn't that great. I've often encountered GMs which needed a certain NPC to win a fight and started fudging rolls in their favor, created divine interventions and made up/broke rules because the fight was not going as planned. These type of scenarios are by far the hardest to do, as you need to create the illusion of the players having a chance to win without actually allowing them to win.
- he is one of the GMs who is bad at losing. Some GMs see a campaign as a game of them against their players. A good GM wins if everyone is having fun.

Unless you play the next game, you will never know whether he is just bad at being a GM or a huge jerk.
Still - keep in mind that campaigns do not always make for fair games. Sometimes you will lose the game by design, though it's your GM's job to not make it feel like complete BS.

**JNAProductions**

Talk to him out of game. Explain that it wasn't fun, and give him some advice on how to make future games more enjoyable for you.

If he's an experience GM, and just bad, then not much will be solved, and you're probably better off not playing with him. Not that he's a bad person, just not fun to game with. If, on the other hand, he's less experienced, then this is a good chance to help him learn and grow.

**supreme overlord**

an allied necron/eldar LOW? this "campaign" doesnt even sound fluffy, sounds like the GM to use you as a beat stick. I'd talk to the other players about developing a more fluffy scenario (one where tau and necrons dont fight together and a magical eldar/necron LOW doesnt just show up.) just my $0.02

**Marmatag**

How I would respond would be to go to the next game, but build an incredibly soft list, of models you don't get to play very often.

Just have fun with the game, rather than trying to win. If you lose every game it will end faster.

Bailing on a campaign you signed up for is kind of bad form, especially because of one bad session.