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.

I've been advised to play in more narrative games, as I don't have a particularly competitive list, and I do generally like the narrative of this game. My army makes sense to me, I didn't base any of my model purchases on their gaming capabilities, only on the model design and the stories behind them. So, what is a narrative game, and how do I set one up? I imagine I could go into my FLGS for a pick-up game and suggest a more narrative style, but unless the other person has any ideas I'll look a bit foolish.

I would suggest a campaign, as it creates a narrative framework. It doesn't need to be elaborate. You can just string together a series of battles featuring the same two armies, and set them on one planet as an invasion/defence scenario.

Well, that's basically it. You come up with a story and roll with it. You can try to use a different kind of mission, like the ones in the Altar of War book (if they apply to either of the armies being played), or look up some of the old Rogue Trader Tournament missions (avoid "This is Heavy, Doc" at all costs) or missions and objective systems published in White Dwarf and the old Chapter Approved books. Then you can try playing missions focused on something like killing the opposing commander, or breaking through into the opposing army's deployment zone, stuff like that. Heck, you can make up your own objectives, i.e. for the above you'd get +3 for Slay the Warlord in the first example, or stacking Linebreaker bonuses in the second example (+1 for each unit).

Narrative style gaming being more about telling a story then rolling dice.

I like adding simple things in pick up games when something crazy happens (such as a fully decked out chaos lord on a bike taking like 3 combats to kill a sergeant only to be turned into a chaos spawn on the boon table. we said that he was punished for being tooooo slow)

Another thing is to make themed lists regardless of power level.

Playing Tau? why not a scout cadre with stealth suits and pathfinders galor.

Inquisition ordos herteicus? lots of flamers and sisters ally.

things like that come up with a story as to what your doing and why things are happening.

If you want a "narrative" game outside 40K, there are many alternatives though a lot of them are RPGs for fairly obvious reasons.

"Longstreet" by Sam Mustafa is probably the best current example of a narrative two player tabletop wargame.

The word I would use wouldn't be "narrative", it would be "casual" - you aren't making your list aiming to smash face at tournaments, you make list decisions based on aesthetics / fluff / balance and will almost certainly have more fun playing against an opponent with a similar outlook on the game. Only one person has fun when a tournament list plays against a casual list.

So you can turn up at your FLGS and be like "Hey, want a game? My list is more casual than tournament." or something and the other player should understand what you mean.

Narrative games are more like a game of D&D - you and your opponent come up with a cool idea for a battle (one side is assaulting the enemy's command bunker, or you need to rescue an important diplomat / Inquisitor / puppy) and add in some extra rules to make the game more fun. Rather than both sides fighting for the same objectives, one side could be only scoring Kill-points whilst the other gets points for every unit he gets into the opponent's deployment zone or somesuch - there's no limit! Just finished reading a 40k novel? (or indeed, any book with a battle in it!) and want to re-fight it with your army? Make list choices based on the background for the book (one side might have limited resources - the other might be a fast-moving spearhead!).

Narrative games require much more (or at least, some) planning, IMO you can't really just go into a store and ask for a "narrative" game - you'll just get a random game with maybe some extra objectives thrown in, but feel free to prove me wrong!

 Desubot wrote:
I like adding simple things in pick up games when something crazy happens (such as a fully decked out chaos lord on a bike taking like 3 combats to kill a sergeant only to be turned into a chaos spawn on the boon table. we said that he was punished for being tooooo slow)

Different GW game system, but this reminds me of a funny situation a couple weeks ago, I played an all-Khorne Daemon list against a guy's Dwarf list, 1000 points escalation league (and my list was built poorly, but oh well). I got stomped bad, but there was this one funny combat, one of my blocks of Bloodletters was fighting his big core block of Dwarfs, and my champion ended up in a challenge with Josef Bugman. Bugman of course killed my champion. BUT! When rolling Demonic Instability, I rolled two 1's, which meant all casualties done in that combat came back, including the champion. He and Bugman went at it again, and Bugman killed him... but since they struck at the same time, the Champion got his hit in, rolled a 6 to wound, and did a Killing Blow on Bugman. Rather than give the Champion credit for it, I figured Bugman drank himself to death trying to get over this daemon coming back to life after he just killed it ("Clearly, I'm not drinking enough, let's drink more! *gulp*").

I love fun moments like that. I got trounced hard, but it was fun.

Ok, thanks for the suggestions.

I had fun more narrative experience with my last battle. It was closing time in the shop, and I was getting my ass kicked, but my HQ, my Daemon Prince was still alive, as was my opponent's Commissar. So, we placed the two of them atop a tall tower terrain piece and played assault round after assault round, ignoring all other phases and models. I won in the end, but the duel format worked really well.

I just thought of an interesting CSM vs. LSM narrative. Perhaps they stemmed from the same legion originally, and there are personal grudges between some of the marines? Maybe one of the CSMs used to drive that Rhino and wants to capture it. That would require figuring out a way to commandeer a vehicle, but I'm sure that could be agreed beforehand.

Narrative gaming isn't just about generating stories in around events that happen in a particular game. Its also about making longer term stories as Kilkrazy notes. Using this format you don;t need to have equal armies and one player might not even be trying to win, just trying to take as long as possible to lose. Unbalanced forces, assault missions, VIP escort or extraction, ambushes and the big set piece normal 40k battles can all be used, especially with all the additional rules GW has come up with for city fighting, planetstrike and suchike.

In an ideal world you can get a 3rd party to set up the campaign and akt as a games-master while 2 or more players fight their way through the story. You then write it up and post it as fan fiction (or as a dragonlance book)

Having an umpire helps. Have someone run the scenario, and have two other players. Don't necessarily follow the rules in the book.

Provide a 'fog of war' in thAt the players have different objectives, abilities, once-a-game 'special action' and each player won't know what they other player has to do.

I ran a three way infinity game last night with three linked missions, each one feeding into the next. Being the victor in one would set you up with a positional advantage in the next. Each player had a once off special move. One guy had 'snake in the grass' in which one if his opponents units was actually his all along, and he could take control of it at any tine - he used it to murderous effect. The other had 'cut them off at the pass' where they had a second team where he could 'resurrect' up to six of his guys and bring them on at either his, or his opponents deployment zone (the back up team, as the high command suspected a snake in the grass'. Again, he used it to great effect to cut off his opponentS escape route. The third guy was defending the base. When his last guy died, he could initiate the self destruct button, and bugger up everyone's day. Back this up with different objectives fur each player - one was to kill all the civilian staff, and capture the enemy kommandant, the other was to kill the kommandant, and rescue one of the civilians, who was his secret agent at the base. As it was, he got to use his 'snake in the grass' ability to take control of one if his opponents men when he got close to the agents hiding place.

Again, great game, and it alternated from great humour and cameraderie to tense silence and seriousness when plays were made and counter plays were enacted. Yeah, great fun. I'd recommend it!

Oh wow, that sounds like great fun. I assume that each player was informed of a possible list of special rules, and just didn't know who had what, or if they had them?

 calamarialldayerrday wrote:
Oh wow, that sounds like great fun. I assume that each player was informed of a possible list of special rules, and just didn't know who had what, or if they had them?

It was a blast.

The way it worked was I, as the umpire set up the boards, defined the deployment zones, set the story, and mediated any in-game issues. Two players were 'primary' factions, the third took the role of background villain, or 'evil bad guy' opposing the other two. His job essentially was to throw a spanner in the works every chsnce he got, and bugger up every one else's plans. The other two shared the primary narrative.

I got the boards together and explained the basic synopsis. It would start with two opposing teams opposing a mutual enemy. I explained the basics of the three-linked scenarios. Each player got a 'mission sheet' listing their objectives and once off special rules. Any questions, I answered. I took the players outside individually to let them know different things. Essentially, each was privy to different information, which may, or may not have mstched the 'official' briefing (hey, there are spies, agents and misinformation everywhere. What was revealed to the other guy at the common briefing might be a cover story...,) and was designed to give them a certain insight, but they'd still not know (a) what the other guy knew, (b), if what they knew was the full, or accurate story, or (c) what the other guys objectives were (which may, Or may not have been entirely incompatible with their own. It's easy to work together when all you gotta do is kill the other guy. But when you have to rescue one of the 'civilians' who is actually your secret agent, when you've figured out his job is to kill all the civilians, it's kind of hard to stay on the same page as 'allies')!With some things, it's fair to say everyone needs to know. I conveyed how the two 'allies' were allies, and would not be fighting each other in the first, could fight each other in the second, and would be at each other's throats at the last.

First mission was essentially with scouting forces to 'seize the guardhouse' guarding the main enemy complex. Board was divided in two, representing each primary plsyer fought an independent enemy force. Whoever seized their gatehouse first would gain a positional advantage in the second mission. If the third player held on, he'd effectively 'pull back' regardless fir the second mission, but would gain a stronger defense as every one retreated to the inner base.

The second mission was the 'inner courtyard' of the enemy complex. All players got larger forces with better access to bigger guns and gear. One big board, using a mixture of buildings and space hulk templates to represent corridors, pillboxes, bunkers and trenches and underground passages. Third player defended, while the two main players sought to get through this, and into the main complex beyond the inner compound (basically, an 'end zone" on the defending players side). All three players shared the board, the to main ones were technically still allies, but I conveyed how neither should trust the other, and was waiting fir one to stab the other in the back. Bear in mind, this word be entirely optional. Neither actually 'had' to go after the other and in the end, neither did. But the threat was ever present. It could have been a bloodbath. But would that have accomplished anything? Both fought their still mutual endmy. I added some secondary missions (destroy the communication array etc) to this part too. Winning, again would confer a positional advantage in the third, and final mission.

Third mission was the inner base. All players gig big armies with lots of gear. It was entirely indoors. I used space hulk templates (corridors, Rooms etc) to create this. I set it up on the board in two parts, so there were two separate 'levels'. Models could move from one level to the other via ladders scattered throughout the board to make things interesting. The person who won the second mission coud deploy forces on both levels, as he'd had time to infiltrate the base, the other would be deployed on the upper level, bad the base defenders were holed up fir a last stand (but wold have reinforcements coming in) It was here the main mission objectives had to be obtained. All gloves were off, all pretence of allies was done, each man was for themselves.

Overall it was a blast. Even though as umpire, my only contribution on the table top was moving around civilians on the final mission as they were discovered and gunned down, I genuinely enjoyed running it. The guys had a great time.

It takes tine, effort and a fair bit of work to come up with these once off scenarios. But they are good fun.

I had one that i wanted to try. Have a fortress with one side having more points. The lower point player has the fortress and has to survive X number of turns for extraction. Winning condition for attacking player could be killing the commander or killing a certain % of the defenders models making the extraction team see that it isn't worth the risk to try and rescue such few survivors.

Read some of the battle reports and you'll see fluff games here and there. Some of my favorites are when units that are never taken in most games come out like daemonetts, whyches, Ogryn, guardians, stealthsuits, tyranid warriors, light armored vehicles like the vyper and landspeeder. I never see these units in tournament lists but having them on the board tells you that the game isn't a competitive one and that the players are both having fun for a change.