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.

 Talys wrote:


Overall, GW places a much greater emphasis on a narrative, sportsmanship, and being an interesting player over building smart lists

Sorry, but that's about as irrational as you can get. It's pure GW kool aid. GW does not give a single dime about narrative, sportsmanship or "interesting" players. If you seriously think that they do, then you're horribly misled and blind to reality. GW is a business and not only do their business practices show that they don't care for their customers at all, they also publicly admit to looking down on their customers and consider them being clichéed jokes. The company that just dumped years over years of fantasy lore cares about narratives? The company that openly admits to hating tournaments which are the epitome of good sportsmanship cares about the latter? The company that actually WANTS its players to INSULT each other and give bonuses to players who do? You have to be kidding me.

If you want to see a really good company, then try one that actively engages with its community, initiates publi betas and incorporates actual player feedback into their rules. A company that not only acknowledges, but also cooperates with its community. If you really want to find one, you will soon discover not only one, but quite a few of those.

GW was one of those companies. Storm of Chaos was absolutely amazing until they turned full slowed and went 180° on everything. That GW, however, is dead and GW has decided to go for a minimum effort-maximum profit approach that only focuses on short-term profits and throws stuff out with minimum effort.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

One of the dangers of intentionally shrinking volume and the size of the customer base is that it increases the damage done each time a customer stops buying. Both in terms of less sales as each customer represents a greater portion of their revenue but also in terms of word of mouth and social momentum for local communities. I know that through the tail end of 7th Ed fantasy, many gaming groups and local communities for that game lost a key individual or reached a network effect tipping point and WHFB gaming in many areas went from a regular, reliable occurrence to a rarity.

40k has had this process occur in some areas. There are places where an active and vibrant 40k community has lost a key person or dwindled to the point of the game being played becoming a rarity. 40k is a lot more popular than WHFB, but when the decline of fantasy accelerated, it faded fast. With GW's abandonment of a broad customer base in favor of superfans, local gaming groups and communities are increasingly vulnerable to a sudden drop off in the popularity of their games.

The loss of a superfan is more than just their revenue. Their excitement can inspire other more casual players to start a new army as people talk during painting night. They'll talk about the fiction and lend people novels and host games and generally give some real momentum to a local scene. When the customer base is wide and varied their loss can be irrelevant, but when it's narrow and concentrated their loss can be devastating to a local community and by extension, GW's sales.

--

@Sigvatr - I will respectfully disagree with you.

End Times, Shield of Baal, the 264 page AoS book, Realmgate Wars -- that's just recently -- are all highly campaign and narrative focused. Crack open 7e brb and check the first page of text, and look at all the grey boxes that indicate how they think the game should be played.

It's ok to think they're nuts because you don't like a game that is played that way. But there ARE people who like tabletop miniatures played in that fashion and could give a rats ass about competitive play, and would sooner never play with someone with a hypercompetitive list.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

Ummm... Because they *TELL* us to "forge the narrative" duhh...

Seriously though, I always had fun scenario games with the Lord of The Rings and Hobbit stuff. Of course, they're dropping those just as they're telling us to forge the narrative sooo... Lol

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

How about campaign specific rules, sourcebooks and models?
As I mentioned, most recently, the age of sigmar 264 page book, the upcoming Realmgate wars book, the whole End Tines, and Shield of Baal.

Formations and scenarios like those out of Baal, models like Nagash and Karlaen, and sourcebooks that are really good for nothing else.

That there exists a model (and rules) for the God of the freaking undead? Or a manifestation of the God of Blood? These things make as much sense as Hades in a game about Greeks vs Persians -- unless it's narrative based, and the heroes must defeat Hades at the end of a long adventure. It would make no sense to run into the God of the Underworld in EVERY ENCOUNTER.

So yes, you can do whatever you like with your game and miniatures, but GW writes it in a way most enjoyed by the storytelling folks and least enjoyed by the tournament types -- at least, without modification. If you don't think that GW puts a lot of effort into their campaign stuff, it's probably because you don't buy their campaign stuff ;D if they put half as much effort into tournament rules, those would probably be great. But that's not their focus, and no matter how loudly people scream at them for lousy RAW competitive rules, they won't make it their focus.

Oh right, so the GW rules allow for more creative play because they tell you how to be creative?



Have another go.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh right, so the GW rules allow for more creative play because they tell you how to be creative?



Have another go.

Yes, campaign sourcebooks and campaign models direct gameplay, and help those who can't or don't have the time to write them from scratch a way of playing adventures.

If you're really creative, for it... Sculpt your own minis, write your own story, and express your creativity! It's the same reason people buy D&D sourcebooks, man.

You asked for concrete examples of GW doing more for campaign players than other game systems. I gave you End Times, ET models, and Shield of Baal AoS Book (with Shimmerfall) and Realmgate Wars, all produced in the last year, Bd containing models, rules, and background. The Ork campaign too.

So either refute those as not being pro-campaign, or concede that GW likes their campaigns and does stuff for people that like campaigns.

Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

Put on the other shoe, Az. There's also no reason that players can't write their own Tournament rules for Age of Sigmar, either (just look at what ITC rules are for 40k).

You don't care about campaign sets, and you think players can write those themselves. Others don't care about tournament/competitive rules, and think that players can write those themselves, too. The thing is, Games Workshop caters to one group, and that happens to not be yours.

Everyone has different priorities, which is all I'm trying to get you to understand, and there are a significant number of players who care about narrative-based, less competitive, more friendly gaming than some people give credit for. That number is certainly not zero, and despite attrition in revenues (That's maybe stabilized a little? We'll see in the next few years.) it is high enough to keep GW as probably the most profitable miniature/wargame company out there.

And even if you were to write your own campaign, 99.999% of gamers could never sculpt a Nagash Or a Dragonfate Dias, Balefule Realmgats, Ophidian Archway, or Numinous Occulum -- all terrain that you can certainly use in your own adventures, but are also campaign features.

It is a lot easier to make a campaign on your own than it is to balance an unbalanced system.

For example, lets say D&D never released any world information (Forgotten Realms, Darksun etc.), just character races and classes in the players handbook, the enemies in the monster manual and basic guidelines about building encounters in a mini DMs guide.

People could take that and easily construct their own campaign worlds using those rules provided. They can easily create encounters tailored to the level of the party and know whether it will be challenging, easy or whatever.

Now, what if DnD released the players handbook, monster manual and DMs guide but none of the monsters in the Guide had levels or XP values.

It is a lot harder for the person creating the campaign to work out what would be a balanced encounter for their players. The DM has to try and work out on their own how much more dangerous a Lich is than a Beholder and whether it is a good idea to throw the 1st level party up against an ancient silver dragon. Or it could be that the Monster Manual had XP values and levels but some monsters were far more effective and dangerous than their XP and level would suggest, which is akin to what we have in 40K with undercosted, overpowered units.

This imbalance could result in unfair encounters and frustration amongst the DM and players, just as it can in 40K.

@ A Town Called Malus - Yes, as I've repeatedly said, I think 40k would be a better game with better balance. I also think that there should be more restrictions on really powerful stuff so that they're not a part of the main game, for those who want to compete.

I'm only specifically replying to the Az's assertion that GW does nothing more for people who like campaigns than any other gaming company. It's just untrue, as GW does *tons* for people who like campaigns -- almost as much as they do for people who just want nice models.

Comparatively, they do almost nothing for people who want to run tournaments or competitions.

It's not a judgment of "better or worse"; it's a statement of observable facts: everything from fortifications to campaign terrain to sourcebooks to rules and premium character models ... to a game where the vast majority of the printed material that isn't artwork or photography screams "campaign".

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Still doesn't answer the question of what about any game (I used Infinity, feel free to use another example) means there's no way that a player could write their own campaign, or the producers of whatever game you choose couldn't decide to make campaign books in the same manner?

Put on the other shoe, Az. There's also no reason that players can't write their own Tournament rules for Age of Sigmar, either (just look at what ITC rules are for 40k).

Don't deflect. It's much easier to unbalance something balanced than the reverse. Besides, that still doesn't answer my question.

You don't care about campaign sets

Says who?

, and you think players can write those themselves. Others don't care about tournament/competitive rules, and think that players can write those themselves, too. The thing is, Games Workshop caters to one group, and that happens to not be yours.

Rubbish. There's nothing inherent to campaign/narrative gaming that requires a poorly balanced ruleset.

Everyone has different priorities, which is all I'm trying to get you to understand, and there are a significant number of players who care about narrative-based, less competitive, more friendly gaming than some people give credit for. That number is certainly not zero, and despite attrition in revenues (That's maybe stabilized a little? We'll see in the next few years.) it is high enough to keep GW as probably the most profitable miniature/wargame company out there.

I understand that different people have different priorities (have you got your patronising hat on today?) the issue is that one set of priorities needn't clash with the other, well written, there's room for both approaches.

Still doesn't answer why GW's rules are better at narrative games than anyone else's.

And even if you were to write your own campaign, 99.999% of gamers could never sculpt a Nagash Or a Dragonfate Dias, Balefule Realmgats, Ophidian Archway, or Numinous Occulum -- all terrain that you can certainly use in your own adventures, but are also campaign features.

So? The rules are the topic right now, not the miniatures. There's plenty of miniature agnostic rulesets and rules agnostic minis out there, this is utterly irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm just reposting the original challenge, so while Talys tries to answer another question, the actual question isn't lost..

 Azreal13 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing in GWs rules that makes it any more suitable to narrative gaming than any other game system.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what specifically about GW rules lends them more towards narrative play over, say, Infinity's?

Other than they don't work played any other way, of course.

Also, most of those things you listed as "campaign books" wouldn't really fit the criteria for me. With how they were written, victory in a single battle had no impact on subsequent battles in the "campaign". They're thematically linked (Orks vs Space Wolves in Sotrmclaw, for example) but apart from that the actual battles themselves are disjointed. Grukk could be killed in the first mission of Stormclaw but then still has to turn up at the end if you're playing from the book. It has nothing to take those kinds of events into consideration.

They are just mission books, not campaigns. There is no army progression, no rewards for units who achieve objectives etc.

If you want to see a proper guide for campaign play in 40K then look in the back of the 4th Ed main rulebook, where it gives you examples of different campaign styles (tree, map etc.), units earning XP which can be spent on upgrades if they achieve certain conditions in battles (and also people modelling their units to show off the trophies earned in battle) etc.

Anyone who wants to know what GW thinks of supporting a deep and we'll crafted game experience should take a look at the AoS warscrolls for your favorite 7th or 8th edition WHFB army.

What's important to GW is making as much money as possible while spending as little as possible so they can maximize their earnings per share and their dividend payments. The latest financial report talks about large investments in product production and a coming reset of the 40k product line.

AoS is also a pretty clear demonstration as to what elements GW believes will make a successful product. Expect this approach to be spread to 40k (much of which is already there) as GW believes (and their revenue bears out) that there's enough people willing to pay a premium price for this approach.

I happen to believe they'd be making more money now if they had found a way to be more inclusive of a variety of approaches, but such speculation is theoretical.

The end result is that I, and many others here , are not GW's target audience and even if we don't like their current approach they are finding enough people who do. I believe it will eventually lead them to a catastrophic failure, but not within the predictable future. They're watching their costs too closely and have earnings per share comparable with the LOTR days. Instead, we'll see a continued slide towards irrelevancy as they segregate their market and become more and more direct only, concentrating on finding tthe ttype of customers Talys is talking about.

One way it can work: they actually do end up finding the right combination of staff and locations for their stores and multiply their direct sales by reaching their ttarget audience through their retail operation. Their report indicates they are going this route, but doesn't really ttalk about much of a plan or planned future investment to make it happen. So likely they'll just continue to have flat revenue as they sell less product to more people at a higher price.

--

I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

I think GW's idea of narrative gaming is one where you don't care about the quality of the narrative and just enjoy the Michael Bay type experience. Where the narrative iis basically a big joke and the game isn't taken seriously and somehow it's supposed to work because.. Jewel like objects of magic and wonder reasons. Shut off your brain, open your wallet and make yourself believe it was good. The real hobby is purchasing GW's wonderful miniatures and then relying on the sunk cost fallacy to cause people to enjoy it because actually seeing the weak gameplay and total narrative disconnect with the fluff might mean having to face the idea of having wasted both money and years of your life on derivative corporate pablum.

So just keep your eyes on the jewel like objects of magic and wonder and buy every new release because now with unbound you can use it all in the same army.

If that doesn't sound good to you, you are not the droids GW is looking for.

@Azrael - since you're the one who gets sidetracked easily. I'll keep it really short.

1. Premium models ideal for campaign play like the God of the Undead, Nagash
2. Campaigns like Shield of Baal
3. Campaign box sets like Deathstorm
4. Almost all printed material for a game system being campaign related
5. Campaign related terrain, like balefule realmgates
6. A game system that purposely shuns competitive play

All of these things are actions of a company that loves campaigns and goes out of their way to keep away the competitive types. True or false?

Some of these things are designed for campaign play that no other company does, at least not to the degree of GW. True or false?

Personally, I don't care how you play or don't play. I will hapilly play my games, be content with the rules and our modifications where we see fit, and nlbe content that products to my liking will continue to be manufactured for a long time to come.

As I said,there are enough people like me that my gaming pool is larger than I can play with anyhow, and to keep GW in business, which is really all that impacts me.

Ok, so nothing inherent to GW rules?

Cool.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, so nothing inherent to GW rules?

Cool.

You don't consider model rules, formations, scenarios, and special rules for campaign terrain.... Rules?

@MWHistorian - I certain agree that more balanced rules and changes that would make more efficient gameplay would make a better game. I even agree that elements of other game systems are superior to 40k/AoS.

The day a company offers all that GW does PLUS better rules, I'll switch. But for my priorities, Models rank 10/10, fluff ranks 7, and game rules rank 4 or lower. We largely write our own scenarios, but I really enjoy reading them, more so than fiction.

I don't consider them things inherent to GW, no.

You seem confused between things GW do and things only GW could do.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't consider them things inherent to GW, no.

You seem confused between things GW do and things only GW could do.

I'll keep it to two simple questions.

What company makes campaign specific terrain pieces other than GW?

What miniatures war games company writes as much campaign specific material and builds as many campaign specific models as GW?


Edit: sorry, let me add a third ---

What miniatures war game company releases as much campaign related stuff as a ratio of its total releases as GW?


What I'm trying to get at is what I said right from the top: GW loves its campaigns and GW loves its collectors and modellers. GW doesn't love its competitive players, at least not in the same way. So if your priorities are collecting, modelling, and/or campaigns, you'll love GW a lot more than if you're into competitive play.

Let me boil it down even more simply?

What wargaming company couldn't do any of that?

Are you fuzzy on the meaning of inherent?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Let me boil it down even more simply?

What wargaming company couldn't do any of that?

Are you fuzzy on the meaning of inherent?

Who cares what wargaming company COULD do that? What wargaming company DOES do that?

Any wargaming company can do anything at all. It's what they DO that matters, not what thy are able to do.

PP COULD make a large scale multipart plastic game and make me happy. But they don't...
GW COULD give things point values, but they don't...

But the question was "what is inherent to GW's rules that makes them better at narrative wargaming?"

The answer appears "not a lot, but they make some stuff, most of which doesn't really qualify as anything narrative in the way most of us consider it - ie tells a story from game to game where the outcome and events of one game affect the next."

Imperial Assault is a better narrative game than anything GW has on the market right now.

It's inherent to GW's games, including rules, and way of doing business. Truth.

inherent: existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

GW's game works like this. "Our story needs the God of Death. Sculptors, go ye forth and make an awesome, giant God of Death model! Writers! Create a storyline for the God of Death! Create a storyline for the Rat-King becoming a God! Rules Writers.... do whatever you want... just make the guy awesome!"

Everyone else's game more or less works like this: "WTF do you mean the God of Death? That would totally wreck game balance. You gotta be kidding!"

It is an essential and characteristic attribute of Games Workshop's games that Cool > Balanced, and Models & Story > Game; it's permanent insofar as it's reigned for 3 decades, longer than the lifespan of almost any other relevant miniature wargaming company. Feel free to be critical of it, or debate its relevancy in today's market, but it doesn't change the facts.

In 6 months, we'll see if going all the way and appealing to campaign players TO THE EXCLUSION of competitive play is good for GW's bottom line or not.

Personally, I don't much care, as AiS is nit my thing, but I think a lot of people are actually afraid of GW being successful at a game so blatantly noncompetitive.

What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

 heartserenade wrote:
What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

Warhammer 40k isn't specifically for narrative gameplay.

But narrative gameplay is inherent to GW's games, and the way Games Workshop intends for its games to be best enjoyed. Don't believe me? It even says so in the BRB. In lots of places! It talks about forging the narrative, being reasonable with other players, collections of miniatures, like minded hobbyists, and all that stuff that people who just want to be hardcore gamers think is "blah blah blah in grey boxes".

It doesn't make it the ONLY way it can be played. It's just Games Workshop's vision for it, and an explanation of why they do what they do, and why they prioritize what they do (although of course, profits drive this too).

I would argue that Age of Sigmar is pretty much specifically made for narrative gameplay -- though of course, it can be played in other ways. If you don't believe me, flip through the 360 pages of rulebook that have been written so far. It's 4 pages of rules versus 360 pages of narrative, scenarios, background, models, inspirational artwork, and photography.

 Talys wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
What "facts"? So far you haven't demonstrated why it's inherent to GW's games. I can't say why they're specifically made for narrative gameplay.

GW's games aren't made specifically for narrative gameplay.

But narrative gameplay is inherent to GW's games, and the way Games Workshop intends for its games to be best enjoyed. Don't believe me? It even says so in the BRB. In lots of places! It talks about forging the narrative and like minded hobbyists, and all that stuff that people who just want to be hardcore gamers think is "blah blah blah in grey boxes".

It doesn't make it the ONLY way it can be played. It's just Games Workshop's vision for it, and an explanation of why they do what they do, and why they prioritize what they do (although of course, profits drive this too).

Narrative gameplay is not inherent to GWs games. If it were then units would perform on the tabletop as they do in the fluff and GW would have provided guidelines to forming your own narrative campaigns beyond "here are some missions, if you want to make a campaign then play them in order"