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.

Saw this posted on the AOS Narrative Play facebook group and thought it would be a good question. The original question had a poll but I won't include that here.

For me, narrative play is hard to quantify correctly because IMHO it's so much more than how you approach the game, it's how you actually play the game on the table. First and foremost, I feel the cornerstone of a narrative scenario is that it's asymmetrical. Whether you're using matched play points (which for the record I think work fine in Narrative, although likely you would be using the "Points Only" variant), wounds, number of warscrolls, or whatever, each side having a different objective they need to achieve is IMHO one of the main things that differentiate narrative play from a matched play scenario where both players are trying to do the same thing. Second, of course, every narrative game needs a narrative behind it, whether it's a couple of sentences (e.g. "Vandus Hammerhand's Hammers of Sigmar are trying to bring down Khorgos Khul's fortress") to much larger novellas. Something that sets the scene for the game more than "Bob and I both were at the game store and decided to play each other" ; typically this extends to having armies themed around something and can be as far as entire backstories for heavily converted forces.

Now, the harder part to quantify is how you play a narrative game. To me, the way you play a narrative game differs from how you approach a more competitive (or even non-narrative casual) game. This is hard to explain properly, but there's a certain mindset that goes with it. Now, 'm not arguing that you should play poorly, but narrative play typically sees less "gamey" elements than a non-narrative game, where the main thing is the rules let or don't let you do something. In a narrative game this still exists, of course, but there's also a player's own self-imposed restrictions that may crop up during the game, because it fits the narrative. In a narrative game you care less about playing to the rules of the game (this is not to say that a narrative player will cheat, although it is common in narrative play to agree to adjust the rules or come up with ad-hoc rules to help the narrative) and more about playing out the narrative to see how it turns out. What I mean is that you may not see "metagame" concepts and tactics bleed into a narrative game, while you certainly would see it in a competitive game and often see it in casual matched play games as well. Metagame tactics like "bubblewrap" or "daisy-chaining" are less likely to be seen in a narrative game, simply because they feel "gamey". This might extend to not always doing the 100% tactically optimal thing (although again, not purposely doing something stupid to cost you the game). As an example, in a narrative game a Khorne player might charge with their Mighty Lord of Khorne if they feel they have a good chance of killing an enemy hero, even if the more tactically sound choice might be to stand still, as long as it's not going to cost them the game.

What do you consider to be narrative play? Is it just adding a storyline to the game, or something more? Post your thoughts!

A great question and I ask this question several times a year, and always get various responses back.

Competitive play is easy to answer. Narrative play it seems has a bunch of definitions.

Narrative play is to me playing to the story. It is playing a game that reflects the literature. It has a story behind it. The forces follow the literature. They aren't min/max monstrosities.

To a lot of others, narrative play is simply playing tournament lists and slapping a story behind it. This is what I find with most narrative events these days, to my disappointment. However it is technically no less narrative than what I feel narrative is.

A good chunk of people that I play with in real life and correspond with online are just as happy gaming the game in a narrative event as they are in a competitive event because to them its all still the same game.

For me it's two things, that define narrative game:

1) as you wrote, it is asymmetric mission construction. For me, well enough constructed scenario is a self-defined "narrative background snippet", giving valid reasons for objectives and forces used. I don't really care for "narrative background" or "established fluff" that much, as I do for "inner narrative reason" to play a mission constructed in a particular way, on a particularily designed terrain layout.

2) during the game, "heroic turns of tide" and overall "emerging narrative" is much more important than "simply winning". Resulting games need to be first and foremost memorable in a "story telling" way. Those are the games when making a gambit decision and relying on a single dice roll to do something spectacular can matter more than more predictable, average outcome. In more "analytic" games, during later parts of the game, when different "final tactics" present themselves, me and my most common play partner usually resolve few of them to simply gain more experience from playing. With narrative games we tend to do more "feth it, I'm diving head in" heat of the moment decisions. And what is most important here - those are not decisions from player perspective, but rather from model, RPG like perspective.

For me, the ultimate goal of narrative game is to unfold a story that lies hidden within models, forces, terrain and mission by using structured ruleset and do so. Not to measure who is better rules user (or abuser). This is why it's usually more of a cooperative effort of "solving" each turn than decieving and outsmarting each other on a player vs player level.

I usually consider narrative play to either be some sort of cooperative venture, RPG-like elements such as unit, map, or character progression over time, or one involving player agency pre or post scenarios. At the very least I’d go with a series of linked scenarios that have at least some in-game effects as you play them out.

A somewhat odd example would be Star Wars Armada and it’s corellian conflict expansion.

I really don’t like the narrative = non-competitive thing which is what most people seem to think. Asymmetrical also doesn’t have to mean non-competitive either, nor should it define a narrative experience. While they can be casual affairs, in reality a real narrative experience usually involves more work and dedication from its participants than other game types as well.

Anyway, it’s an interesting topic. I personally do not agree with most of what GW has done to define a narrative experience, but I can appreciate the willingness to try something different and the work that goes into trying to make that happen.

Virtually everything Malifaux does for me screams "narrative" the style of scenarios and the purpose behind them. I dont think really anything GW has done recently would be in my definition of narrative for AoS or 40k. realmgate wars were close.