Switch Theme:

What does a "narrative event" mean to you?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Wayniac wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
Fewer mouth-breathing "pro Warhammer athletes," more people with a more balanced view of the hobby.


OR

More patchouli reeking hugbox hippies, less people who understand and can deal with the concept of a winner and a loser.

See? It rolls both ways.

No, not really. You only see one type of person railing against the idea of a narrative event, and it's not the narrative players.


I meant one side belittling the other side rolls both ways. Just because I don't choose to place fluff over strateging list building/army comp does NOT make me a WAAC D bag, and lumping me in with them while also comparing me to both a caveman level intellect and the overcompetitive mindset of pro athletes is patronizing at best, and flaming at worst. The comment basically comes down on anyone not playing exclusively fluff as unwilling to do so, which is also flat out wrong. My comment was using the opposite side of the fence to illustrate that.

gorgon wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
Fewer mouth-breathing "pro Warhammer athletes," more people with a more balanced view of the hobby.


OR

More patchouli reeking hugbox hippies, less people who understand and can deal with the concept of a winner and a loser.

See? It rolls both ways.


Obviously, mine LANDED.


No, what yours did was group anyone without your mindset in a VERY contemptible group of people while insulting their intelligence in equal measure. It didn't land, unless your intent was to come off as an elitist jerk.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
Fewer mouth-breathing "pro Warhammer athletes," more people with a more balanced view of the hobby.


OR

More patchouli reeking hugbox hippies, less people who understand and can deal with the concept of a winner and a loser.

See? It rolls both ways.

No, not really. You only see one type of person railing against the idea of a narrative event, and it's not the narrative players.
Yeah, you only have them calling other people mouth breathers, that's so much better, isn't it?

I think this is partly why I have always just avoided 40k events in general, be they competitive or not, too many people not adaptable to just play to their opponent and enjoy the game regardless.


I think the group of people who ARE adaptable is much wider than the two ends of the spectrum, just that for some reason the two ends can't coexist in the same space at the same time without massive conflict, and not always coming from the side that it is claimed to come from.

gorgon wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
Fewer mouth-breathing "pro Warhammer athletes," more people with a more balanced view of the hobby.


OR

More patchouli reeking hugbox hippies, less people who understand and can deal with the concept of a winner and a loser.

See? It rolls both ways.

No, not really. You only see one type of person railing against the idea of a narrative event, and it's not the narrative players.
Yeah, you only have them calling other people mouth breathers, that's so much better, isn't it?

I think this is partly why I have always just avoided 40k events in general, be they competitive or not, too many people not adaptable to just play to their opponent and enjoy the game regardless.


The thing is, I didn't actually paint all tournament players with the same brush. I simply said there are fewer of the most annoying ones at more relaxed events.

People play in tournaments for *many* different reasons. Included among those players are those who tend to avoid narrative gaming, because it usually requires that you have friends and/or are capable of having a relaxed, social game with someone. These conditions are real issues for some people, and I think most of us have met examples at one time or another.


Yeah, you kind of did. Saying something insulting and then saying "Well, not EVERYBODY, of course..." isn't the same as being misinterpreted, which is what you're trying to say here.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






nou wrote:
How would Peregrine organize a narrative WH40K event? What would be the main point of focus, what incentives/restrictions/guidelines/principles would you personally prepare for such event?


Honestly, I wouldn't. A "narrative" event that is open to anyone who wants to play is doomed to be a badly-run competitive tournament. Success in narrative gaming requires like-minded people working together to create the scenarios, including all forces involved, and the story behind them. You just can't do that work and still have the kind of open-ended event that allows a random person to show up right before the game starts.

Because it is trivially easy to complain while this tread is clearly meant for constructive brainstorming...


Criticism of bad ideas is constructive.

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. 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Ifurita wrote:
The exchange above highlights why a narrative event often doesn't work when extended to an open crowd. To many different ways of playing that often don't mesh well with each other. I play with a small group of people who share a desire to play more fluffy, more narrative events. It works for us because we are pretty aligned on what we want out of the event. What works for us, may be of zero interest to someone else, and may not work for someone else.


That assumes either that the organizer writes about the event horribly badly or readers are unable to read a simple sentence though...

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:
How would Peregrine organize a narrative WH40K event? What would be the main point of focus, what incentives/restrictions/guidelines/principles would you personally prepare for such event?


Honestly, I wouldn't. A "narrative" event that is open to anyone who wants to play is doomed to be a badly-run competitive tournament. Success in narrative gaming requires like-minded people working together to create the scenarios, including all forces involved, and the story behind them. You just can't do that work and still have the kind of open-ended event that allows a random person to show up right before the game starts.

Because it is trivially easy to complain while this tread is clearly meant for constructive brainstorming...


Criticism of bad ideas is constructive.


No, criticizm of bad ideas is not constructive - it might be spot on and undefiably true (IMHO in this case it isn't), but it does not help to solve a problem. Basically your imput in this thread can be sumarised to "you cannot succesfully run a narrative event, get over it and play competetive tournaments as they are the only ones that can be organized". Your answers are realy not constructive by any means. If anything, they can be just a test ground for "how to deal with people who would try to destroy such event" and bulletproof the concept. But the easiest answer is "just ignore them up front and point them at the next competetive event".

And who exactly told you, that narrative events should allow "a random person to show up right before the game starts"? Why would that be an important feature of such event? Or any serious tournament for that matter? Does LVO allow to just pop up an hour before and say "I wan't to participate, you have to include me with whatever list I bring?" Why narrative event organizer should be stripped of ability to write rules for the event, provide restrictions and enforce playing by the rules of such event? ITC does it, ETC does it, every TO does it, how narrative events should be any different and allow gamers with any attitude to take part?

But nevertheless thank you for stating exactly what is your point of view on this matter - but you should know that it is hard not to just label you "grumpy, competetive-only player" at this point.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




I've run a fantasy and 40k public narrative event annually since 1998 that have largely been very successful (we average 24-30 players for fantasy and 50-60 players for 40k), so I know that narrative events can be run and run well.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 auticus wrote:
I've run a fantasy and 40k public narrative event annually since 1998 that have largely been very successful (we average 24-30 players for fantasy and 50-60 players for 40k), so I know that narrative events can be run and run well.



Very cool! Do you run Badab War style campaigns, or split up the sides into Loyalist, Xenos, and Chaos or other split?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Why narrative event organizer should be stripped of ability to write rules for the event, provide restrictions and enforce playing by the rules of such event? ITC does it, ETC does it, every TO does it, how narrative events should be any different and allow gamers with any attitude to take part?


Now you've gone and brought up Comp. I hope you wore your asbestos pants!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 12:06:08


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 kronk wrote:


Now you've gone and brought up Comp. I hope you wore your asbestos pants!


Actually I wrote it while sipping my morning coffe, without any pants on yet But "comp flame war" doesn't really worry me, this is interwebz, I can always just ignore anything that proves me wrong

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 13:10:17


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 kronk wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I've run a fantasy and 40k public narrative event annually since 1998 that have largely been very successful (we average 24-30 players for fantasy and 50-60 players for 40k), so I know that narrative events can be run and run well.



Very cool! Do you run Badab War style campaigns, or split up the sides into Loyalist, Xenos, and Chaos or other split?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:
Why narrative event organizer should be stripped of ability to write rules for the event, provide restrictions and enforce playing by the rules of such event? ITC does it, ETC does it, every TO does it, how narrative events should be any different and allow gamers with any attitude to take part?


Now you've gone and brought up Comp. I hope you wore your asbestos pants!


Yes we did Badab last year. It was an epic map campaign with interstellar maps. I'll have to dig out the ruleset.
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Archer ARC-5S

Badab War style campaign? Could someone shed some light on this for us in the dark?



Fatum Iustum Stultorum



Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:
How would Peregrine organize a narrative WH40K event? What would be the main point of focus, what incentives/restrictions/guidelines/principles would you personally prepare for such event?


Honestly, I wouldn't. A "narrative" event that is open to anyone who wants to play is doomed to be a badly-run competitive tournament. Success in narrative gaming requires like-minded people working together to create the scenarios, including all forces involved, and the story behind them. You just can't do that work and still have the kind of open-ended event that allows a random person to show up right before the game starts.

Because it is trivially easy to complain while this tread is clearly meant for constructive brainstorming...


Criticism of bad ideas is constructive.


I enjoy narrative events, and I agree with what Peregrine just said.

I think it works best with a group of like-minded individuals.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 14:12:59


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Easy E wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:
How would Peregrine organize a narrative WH40K event? What would be the main point of focus, what incentives/restrictions/guidelines/principles would you personally prepare for such event?


Honestly, I wouldn't. A "narrative" event that is open to anyone who wants to play is doomed to be a badly-run competitive tournament. Success in narrative gaming requires like-minded people working together to create the scenarios, including all forces involved, and the story behind them. You just can't do that work and still have the kind of open-ended event that allows a random person to show up right before the game starts.

Because it is trivially easy to complain while this tread is clearly meant for constructive brainstorming...


Criticism of bad ideas is constructive.


I enjoy narrative events, and I agree with what Peregrine just said.

I think it works best with a group of like-minded individuals.


Of course it works best with a group of like-minded people - it is the whole point of making such open events: to find and gather such minded people. I'm negating only the absolute nature of Peregrine's statements "it cannot be done succesfully in an open setting" and "it's just devolves into a poor tournament-in-disguise". If Peregrine would include such phrases as "usually", "it is often dificult to a point of not being worth the sweat", "it takes a lot of experience, effort and preparation time and still the succes hinges on particular group of attendees", I would agree with him 100%. Nobody claims that narrative 40K events are a piece of cake... But they are possible and they are done.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 BrookM wrote:
Badab War style campaign? Could someone shed some light on this for us in the dark?


Sure. The badab war is a historic conflict that took place in the 40k universe. Forgeworld did an entire campaign on it with IA 9 and IA 10.

The event ran a couple years ago and lasted about six months. It was a full fledged map campaign.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/CampaignPacket.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/Badab_Sector.jpg

Main rules
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/GrandCrusade_40k.pdf

Probably one of our most detailed and in depth campaigns we ever had done.

Another one that we did for AOS this year is Azyr Empires, based off of Azyr Comp and also a resource campaign:
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrEmpires.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_CityFight.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_SilverTower.pdf

Another AOS narrative event
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/BurningPeninsula.pdf

Working on a map based AOS for next summer, though the goal is to keep it under 20 pages.


As for working best with like-minded individuals - yes. I agree. Tournaments also work best with like-minded individuals. I think if you preface the event as a narrative event then people know what to expect coming in, so if one is not like-minded towards narrative events I would ask them not to show up since they wouldn't have fun, and likely their opponents would also not have fun. I also tell people that don't like competitive gaming to not go to tournaments for the same reason.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 17:18:18


 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I think it would take a particular type of jerk to go to what is advertised as a narrative event with a tournament style army. Which goes back to the idea from a previous thread about how competitive gamers have specific events for them (i.e. tournaments) but casual/narrative gamers often don't because while a non-competitive gamer is unlikely to go to a tournament because they can reasonably expect to come up against hard-hitting power lists (and likely not have fun as a result), it seems more likely that some unscrupulous competitive gamers would see a campaign or narrative event as "easy pickings" as it were, assuming that the lists would be middling and best and as a result see it as an easy way to steamroll people. Not saying all competitive gamers are like that, of course, but I have found that the narrative events run the risk of attracting the very type of player they do not want (i.e. highly competitive WAAC style players) seeking easy victories, while a tournament can reasonably expect the non-competitive gamer to not attend.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Archer ARC-5S

 auticus wrote:
 BrookM wrote:
Badab War style campaign? Could someone shed some light on this for us in the dark?


Spoiler:
Sure. The badab war is a historic conflict that took place in the 40k universe. Forgeworld did an entire campaign on it with IA 9 and IA 10.

The event ran a couple years ago and lasted about six months. It was a full fledged map campaign.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/CampaignPacket.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/Badab_Sector.jpg

Main rules
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/GrandCrusade_40k.pdf

Probably one of our most detailed and in depth campaigns we ever had done.

Another one that we did for AOS this year is Azyr Empires, based off of Azyr Comp and also a resource campaign:
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrEmpires.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_CityFight.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_SilverTower.pdf

Another AOS narrative event
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/BurningPeninsula.pdf

Working on a map based AOS for next summer, though the goal is to keep it under 20 pages.


As for working best with like-minded individuals - yes. I agree. Tournaments also work best with like-minded individuals. I think if you preface the event as a narrative event then people know what to expect coming in, so if one is not like-minded towards narrative events I would ask them not to show up since they wouldn't have fun, and likely their opponents would also not have fun. I also tell people that don't like competitive gaming to not go to tournaments for the same reason.
Ooh, many thanks for sharing!



Fatum Iustum Stultorum



Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 auticus wrote:
As the question states. If you saw a "narrative event", what would you insinuate about it? What should a narrative event entail?


As others have said, I would expect there to be a story. I would also...

-expect that the objectives in the game would fit that story
-expect the forces involved in the game would be selected based on the story rather than on listbuilding-for-advantage. This is HUGE and can be hard to do, but if narrative is about a story, then the forces involved in that store are a HUGE part of it and should logically be chosen (or greatly restricted/guided) by the game organizer.
-not be surprised if the game conditions and forces involved were asymmetrical, making one side more likely than another to be defeated. This might be offset by having objectives that do not revolve as much around being militarily victorious, but perhaps holding out for a given number of turns, or completing some other task.
-expect the game organizers to have done the appropriate legwork to make the above possible. Just asking for a "narrative" game is not enough.

Narrative often suggests that the the story or simulation is more important than winning the game and that the game -and forces involved in that game- is aligned with that story rather than with traditional pick-up game priorities of rewarding competitive listbuilding and the achievement of generic objectives.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 19:40:54


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 BrookM wrote:
 auticus wrote:
 BrookM wrote:
Badab War style campaign? Could someone shed some light on this for us in the dark?


Spoiler:
Sure. The badab war is a historic conflict that took place in the 40k universe. Forgeworld did an entire campaign on it with IA 9 and IA 10.

The event ran a couple years ago and lasted about six months. It was a full fledged map campaign.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/CampaignPacket.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/Badab_Sector.jpg

Main rules
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Badab2015/GrandCrusade_40k.pdf

Probably one of our most detailed and in depth campaigns we ever had done.

Another one that we did for AOS this year is Azyr Empires, based off of Azyr Comp and also a resource campaign:
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrEmpires.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_CityFight.pdf
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Appendix_SilverTower.pdf

Another AOS narrative event
http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/BurningPeninsula.pdf

Working on a map based AOS for next summer, though the goal is to keep it under 20 pages.


As for working best with like-minded individuals - yes. I agree. Tournaments also work best with like-minded individuals. I think if you preface the event as a narrative event then people know what to expect coming in, so if one is not like-minded towards narrative events I would ask them not to show up since they wouldn't have fun, and likely their opponents would also not have fun. I also tell people that don't like competitive gaming to not go to tournaments for the same reason.
Ooh, many thanks for sharing!


I'll have to read your stuff this evening, Auticus. Work blocked, I'm afraid. Before i moved, my old gaming group ran through 2 different Badab War style campaigns. We really enjoyed them.

At BrookM, check out the Independent Character's Podcast review of IA 9 and IA 10 (The 2 Badab War review books). They do a very good run down of the campaign in IA9. (I feel like I've pimped them out before, but I like their IA reviews).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/01 19:30:56


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

One additional point is that it's often easier to run a narrative game with rules that are more streamlined than 40k and less familiar to folks. I'd rather teach participants an easy rules-lite ruleset like Mech Attack (I do this every year at Adepticon) and drop them into a narrative scenario than be responsible for both being a rules judge to a FAQ heavy rules-burdened system like 40k and trying to shoehorn these players/rules into a narrative scenario.

Teaching a new system also helps to bring them into your "turf" and seems to make them more amenable to narrative gaming when they're playing an unfamiliar game.

 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:
How would Peregrine organize a narrative WH40K event? What would be the main point of focus, what incentives/restrictions/guidelines/principles would you personally prepare for such event?


Honestly, I wouldn't. A "narrative" event that is open to anyone who wants to play is doomed to be a badly-run competitive tournament. Success in narrative gaming requires like-minded people working together to create the scenarios, including all forces involved, and the story behind them. You just can't do that work and still have the kind of open-ended event that allows a random person to show up right before the game starts.


I would partially agree. You can make the game open to everyone, the GM just has to be in control (or provide) the units used and must be very careful to structure the objectives in a way that rewards narrative play. As long as you can stifle any rules-lawyering (and this might take a firm hand), even a WAAC player can be a good addition to a narrative game if you provide them with an army and clear objectives.

EDIT And one more thing...
It think 40k and other players of "big name" scifi and fantasy games would do well to visit a historical game convention at least once. I've personally got almost zero interest in historical gaming but seeing the kind of games that are put on at conventions like Little Wars is inspiring. Individuals or clubs/groups carefully craft and present the scenarios and usually provide both sides/armies in the battle after teaching the rules to the participants. If done right the result is an immersive experience where the player learns what has led up to this battle, knows where his particular units figure in the greater scheme and has some idea of what he's trying to do to achieve in order to replicate -often to try to do better than- the historical result.

When I do a narrative Mech Attack game it's the same way. I tell the players the "history" leading up to the battle, a bit about the side they are on and the units they command, and then explain why they are trying to achieve their particular objectives.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/01 19:47:22


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






nou wrote:
No, criticizm of bad ideas is not constructive - it might be spot on and undefiably true (IMHO in this case it isn't), but it does not help to solve a problem.


Of course it helps solve the problem, it removes bad "solutions" that either don't solve the problem or make the problem worse. It just isn't what certain people want to hear.

Basically your imput in this thread can be sumarised to "you cannot succesfully run a narrative event, get over it and play competetive tournaments as they are the only ones that can be organized".


That is a rather laughably wrong summary of my position. My actual position is "successful open-invitation narrative events are almost impossible to run, if you want to play narrative games organize them with specific players that you know share your desires".

And who exactly told you, that narrative events should allow "a random person to show up right before the game starts"? Why would that be an important feature of such event? Or any serious tournament for that matter? Does LVO allow to just pop up an hour before and say "I wan't to participate, you have to include me with whatever list I bring?"


The logistics issues of having sufficient table space to accommodate all of the players who sign up have nothing to do with the topic here. Events like the LVO require advance signups because they have limited space and more interested players than tables to play on. But if you can refrain from being excessively literal about "right before the game" and look at the general concept of "anyone who wants to play can do so" then the LVO does exactly that: anyone who wants to can sign up, and then show up on the day of the tournament without participating at all in planning the games. You don't participate in designing the missions, the fluff of your army is not considered by the organizers, etc. A successful narrative game, on the other hand, involves a significant amount of cooperative effort to create the scenario/forces/etc between "I'm interested in playing" and actually playing the game.

Why narrative event organizer should be stripped of ability to write rules for the event, provide restrictions and enforce playing by the rules of such event? ITC does it, ETC does it, every TO does it, how narrative events should be any different and allow gamers with any attitude to take part?


Where did you get this ridiculous straw man argument that I want event organizers to be stripped of the ability to write rules for their events? My actual point is that the typical rules of open-invitation "narrative" events are actually rules for having competitive tournaments with weird missions or list-building gimmicks. They almost never encourage any kind of story-based game, and in fact often discourage fluff-based lists because they are "too powerful". An event organizer can write whatever rules they want, but I have no obligation to pretend that they're good rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eilif wrote:
I would partially agree. You can make the game open to everyone, the GM just has to be in control (or provide) the units used and must be very careful to structure the objectives in a way that rewards narrative play. As long as you can stifle any rules-lawyering (and this might take a firm hand), even a WAAC player can be a good addition to a narrative game if you provide them with an army and clear objectives.


This is true, but non-historical events with the organizers providing the models are almost nonexistent and most fluff players want to bring their own armies.

It think 40k and other players of "big name" scifi and fantasy games would do well to visit a historical game convention at least once. I've personally got almost zero interest in historical gaming but seeing the kind of games that are put on at conventions like Little Wars is inspiring. Individuals or clubs/groups carefully craft and present the scenarios and usually provide both sides/armies in the battle after teaching the rules to the participants. If done right the result is an immersive experience where the player learns what has led up to this battle, knows where his particular units figure in the greater scheme and has some idea of what he's trying to do to achieve in order to replicate -often to try to do better than- the historical result.


The problem is that this only works for major conventions. The average local weekend tournament has nowhere near the resources to make this kind of thing work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/02 08:19:48


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. 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:


Basically your imput in this thread can be sumarised to "you cannot succesfully run a narrative event, get over it and play competetive tournaments as they are the only ones that can be organized".


That is a rather laughably wrong summary of my position. My actual position is "successful open-invitation narrative events are almost impossible to run, if you want to play narrative games organize them with specific players that you know share your desires".

...

My actual point is that the typical rules of open-invitation "narrative" events are actually rules for having competitive tournaments with weird missions or list-building gimmicks. They almost never encourage any kind of story-based game, and in fact often discourage fluff-based lists because they are "too powerful". An event organizer can write whatever rules they want, but I have no obligation to pretend that they're good rules.


I really fail to see how those two sentences differ from my summary except for adding "open-invitation". You basically upholded what I wrote... I'm either that bad at reading comperhension or you dwell on some very minor differences or we have fundamentally different view on what "narrative playing" is altogether. And I can only repeat what I wrote earlier (in my reply to Easy E): I'm negating only the absolute nature your statements "it cannot be done succesfully in an open setting" and "it's just devolves into a poor tournament-in-disguise". If you would include such phrases as "usually", "it is often dificult to a point of not being worth the sweat", "it takes a lot of experience, effort and preparation time and still the succes hinges on particular group of attendees", I would agree with you 100%. Which seems to be "non laughably wrong" assumption on what really is your position. Except that (correct me if that guess is wrong) you would like to attend a high-power narrative event (which noone orginizes) and you treat any form of restriction/comp as a "wrong approach to solve problems" (if I recall correctly you despise Community Comp?)?

And please, don't feel "attacked" by my posts, I just try to understand what exactly do you mean by "succesfull narrative game", as you throw your "constructive criticism of bad ideas" on any and every idea in this thread except from "do it in a close group of friends".

And since we have "source materials" from an actual narrative campaign provided by Auticus I must ask - what do you think about those materials and this particular open-invitation narrative, long term event which took place and was succesfull (despite your statements of being impossible)?

@Auticus: thank you for those links, some very interesting stuff. Especially the Grand Crusade - I think I might actually utilize some parts of it. It is exactly the part of BRB that is missing. I love Necromunda and Heralds of Ruins progress engines and it's a pity, that GW never adapted those properly for 40K (Planetary Empires/Planetary Strike are not exactly what I expect...).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/02 10:02:38


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






nou wrote:
I really fail to see how those two sentences differ from my summary except for adding "open-invitation".


The difference is that you're accusing me of saying "therefore play tournaments instead of narrative games", when my real point is something more like "therefore play private narrative games with friends". You're trying to present my position as dislike of narrative gaming in general instead of criticism of a bad way to try to play narrative games.

If you would include such phrases as "usually", "it is often dificult to a point of not being worth the sweat", "it takes a lot of experience, effort and preparation time and still the succes hinges on particular group of attendees", I would agree with you 100%.


Ok, fine, you can nitpick that. It "usually" works that way, and by "usually" I mean "every attempt at a narrative event that I have ever seen outside of a tiny handful of major convention-style events (like the NOVA side narrative event)". If you are running a narrative event at a local store it is almost certainly nothing more than a competitive tournament with some weird rules attached. If the best argument against this is "it's only 99.9%, not literally 100%" then you're just wasting time here.

Except that (correct me if that guess is wrong) you would like to attend a high-power narrative event (which noone orginizes)


You are wrong. Power level has nothing to do with whether or not a game is narrative, and I have no interest in open-invitation narrative events. My (enjoyable) narrative games have been in the form of working cooperatively with specific people to plan each game in advance, including story-appropriate missions, which forces are involved, etc.

and you treat any form of restriction/comp as a "wrong approach to solve problems" (if I recall correctly you despise Community Comp?)?


You are wrong. Restrictions are fine, when done appropriately. My objection to comp is not that it changes the rules or reduces the power level of armies, it's that comp recognizes that specific balance problems exists but then, rather than fixing the rules so that the balance problem no longer exists, punishes you for taking the overpowered thing. Yes, this potentially hurts your final score, but that doesn't make the game any more enjoyable for the person you mercilessly slaughtered with your zero-score list. And I really have a problem with comp when it turns into childish "you can take this overpowered thing, but you're a bad person if you do" whining where anyone who doesn't have fun the "right way" is treated as the worst kind of TFG. The smug superiority of the "casual at all costs" crowd is incredibly toxic and ruins communities.

And please, don't feel "attacked" by my posts, I just try to understand what exactly do you mean by "succesfull narrative game", as you throw your "constructive criticism of bad ideas" on any and every idea in this thread except from "do it in a close group of friends".


You're right, that's exactly what I do, because "do it in a close group of friends" is how you have a successful narrative game. I'm not going to pretend that competitive tournaments with a weird list-building gimmick attached are "narrative" when they have no attempt at a story or fluff-based forces/missions or anything that could possibly be considered "narrative". And no, "we're playing with weaker lists" is not the same thing as playing a narrative game.

And since we have "source materials" from an actual narrative campaign provided by Auticus I must ask - what do you think about those materials and this particular open-invitation narrative, long term event which took place and was succesfull (despite your statements of being impossible)?


These campaigns are very difficult to run even with a close group of friends, and virtually impossible to run in any kind of open-invitation event. Getting the specific armies required is difficult at best, and every single attempt at a long-term campaign I've ever seen has failed because people drop out. So yes, those campaign supplements have value, but having a normal weekend tournament and saying "we're playing the Badab War missions" does not produce an enjoyable narrative event.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/02 10:23:00


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. 
   
Made in pl
Wicked Warp Spider





 Peregrine wrote:
nou wrote:
I really fail to see how those two sentences differ from my summary except for adding "open-invitation".


The difference is that you're accusing me of saying "therefore play tournaments instead of narrative games", when my real point is something more like "therefore play private narrative games with friends". You're trying to present my position as dislike of narrative gaming in general instead of criticism of a bad way to try to play narrative games.


No, I don't accuse you of anything, I just try to fully understand your POV, which is usually hard for me because of your "harsh absolute statements" form of writing. We may have our differences, but I have nothing against you personally. Interwebz forums have their limitations and every discussion we had to date would probably take no longer than an hour of realtime conversation. I know your views no better than what I can read in a couple of sentences. When I ask you a direct question it is the only way of getting to know those views better, it isn't in any way an "attack" or "accuse".


If you would include such phrases as "usually", "it is often dificult to a point of not being worth the sweat", "it takes a lot of experience, effort and preparation time and still the succes hinges on particular group of attendees", I would agree with you 100%.


Ok, fine, you can nitpick that. It "usually" works that way, and by "usually" I mean "every attempt at a narrative event that I have ever seen outside of a tiny handful of major convention-style events (like the NOVA side narrative event)". If you are running a narrative event at a local store it is almost certainly nothing more than a competitive tournament with some weird rules attached. If the best argument against this is "it's only 99.9%, not literally 100%" then you're just wasting time here.

Except that (correct me if that guess is wrong) you would like to attend a high-power narrative event (which noone orginizes)


You are wrong. Power level has nothing to do with whether or not a game is narrative, and I have no interest in open-invitation narrative events. My (enjoyable) narrative games have been in the form of working cooperatively with specific people to plan each game in advance, including story-appropriate missions, which forces are involved, etc.

and you treat any form of restriction/comp as a "wrong approach to solve problems" (if I recall correctly you despise Community Comp?)?


You are wrong. Restrictions are fine, when done appropriately. My objection to comp is not that it changes the rules or reduces the power level of armies, it's that comp recognizes that specific balance problems exists but then, rather than fixing the rules so that the balance problem no longer exists, punishes you for taking the overpowered thing. Yes, this potentially hurts your final score, but that doesn't make the game any more enjoyable for the person you mercilessly slaughtered with your zero-score list. And I really have a problem with comp when it turns into childish "you can take this overpowered thing, but you're a bad person if you do" whining where anyone who doesn't have fun the "right way" is treated as the worst kind of TFG. The smug superiority of the "casual at all costs" crowd is incredibly toxic and ruins communities.


And now I think I'm finally begining to understand where exactly your views on the matter are - that you don't like "half measures" and either play "properly forged narrative based on fluff/official fiction" or "proper, game-the-game-to-win tournaments" - is that about right?. I may not agree with "casual at all costs" crowd blaming though (at least without equal blaming of TFG WAAC crowd at the same time). And I must ask - can you give some examples of "restrictions done appropriately" in context of 40K (either competetive or narrative)?



And please, don't feel "attacked" by my posts, I just try to understand what exactly do you mean by "succesfull narrative game", as you throw your "constructive criticism of bad ideas" on any and every idea in this thread except from "do it in a close group of friends".


You're right, that's exactly what I do, because "do it in a close group of friends" is how you have a successful narrative game. I'm not going to pretend that competitive tournaments with a weird list-building gimmick attached are "narrative" when they have no attempt at a story or fluff-based forces/missions or anything that could possibly be considered "narrative". And no, "we're playing with weaker lists" is not the same thing as playing a narrative game.

And since we have "source materials" from an actual narrative campaign provided by Auticus I must ask - what do you think about those materials and this particular open-invitation narrative, long term event which took place and was succesfull (despite your statements of being impossible)?


These campaigns are very difficult to run even with a close group of friends, and virtually impossible to run in any kind of open-invitation event. Getting the specific armies required is difficult at best, and every single attempt at a long-term campaign I've ever seen has failed because people drop out. So yes, those campaign supplements have value, but having a normal weekend tournament and saying "we're playing the Badab War missions" does not produce an enjoyable narrative event.


Have you actually read what Auticus linked? His campaign actually deals with "specific armies required" drop out problem. And according to him, this (and according to what he wrote earlier, many others as well) campaign actually took place IRL and was a success.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
I would partially agree. You can make the game open to everyone, the GM just has to be in control (or provide) the units used and must be very careful to structure the objectives in a way that rewards narrative play. As long as you can stifle any rules-lawyering (and this might take a firm hand), even a WAAC player can be a good addition to a narrative game if you provide them with an army and clear objectives.


This is true, but non-historical events with the organizers providing the models are almost nonexistent and most fluff players want to bring their own armies.


Not true. You can find quite a number of sci-fi and fantasy events and historical and non-historical gaming conventions where the event runner provides their own armies. These events someplace like Adepticon aren't nearly as plentiful as the vast number of Tournament slots, and they aren't usually using 40k rules but there's plenty of them and it's usually not hard to get a spot.

I will concede that hardcore fluff 40k players have an investment in time and emotion with their armies that may make it hard for them to leave their armies at home. It's up to the event organizer whether they want to allow them to bring their armies as-is, to exercise some control over their list or use the organizer's own armies. That's hardly a reason to not organize narrative gaming events though.

 Peregrine wrote:

It think 40k and other players of "big name" scifi and fantasy games would do well to visit a historical game convention at least once. I've personally got almost zero interest in historical gaming but seeing the kind of games that are put on at conventions like Little Wars is inspiring. Individuals or clubs/groups carefully craft and present the scenarios and usually provide both sides/armies in the battle after teaching the rules to the participants. If done right the result is an immersive experience where the player learns what has led up to this battle, knows where his particular units figure in the greater scheme and has some idea of what he's trying to do to achieve in order to replicate -often to try to do better than- the historical result.


The problem is that this only works for major conventions. The average local weekend tournament has nowhere near the resources to make this kind of thing work.


Yes and no. They do work best at major conventions, but it's entirely possible to run one off events at a local store with a narrative focus. My club is doing this at a local store this weekend. We're billing it as "Demos" but essentially what we're bringing is pre-set forces and scenarios to a FLGS. https://www.facebook.com/events/368805473462066/

I emphasized the word "Tournament" above because I think that we both probably agree that a Tournament is almost the worst possible place to try and shoehorn in a "Narrative" focus. Not that it can't be done -I my self was very interested in the KOW Narrative event/tournament at last year's Adepticon- but if you're talking about a multi-game, bring-your-own army event, you're inevitably going to have to make sacrifices in the narrative elements.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/02 15:35:45


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say




'Murica! (again)

I play narrative events even ones called. Tourney kinda because they're narrative in scenarios, evolving narratives be throughout the day/weekend and don't care for competitive 40k but I like Highlander & in those types of scenes it's a nice format to try at least sometimes

co-host weekly wargaming podcast Combat Phase
on iTunes or www.combatphase.com
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Thank you for the input. I am preparing a ruleset for a map campaign for AOS next summer and this feedback will be taken into account.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Wayniac wrote:
I think it would take a particular type of jerk to go to what is advertised as a narrative event with a tournament style army.


This is absolutely true.

Unfortunately, there are a fair whack of them out there that would do precisely just this. You set up whatever hoops you want, and someone will find a way to wriggle round it - Or in Peregrines parlance, "devolves into a poor tournament-in-disguise."

Ultimately, the majority of my games being against a "particular type of jerk" at a Warhammer 40k campaign weekend was very much a major component in ultimately convinced me to quit 40k (lulz outflanking Battlewagons dethrolling all your dudez).

In saying that, maybe just accepting this and going, "ok, tournament with unusual mission objectives and a narrative linking the games" isn't a horrible thing to do. - After all, can you really screw it up more than GW does already? Or are you just going to end up screwing it up in a different way?


Stepping away from the morass of GW, Hawk Wargames and Dropfleet Commander suggests doing narrative campaigns using the games standard rules and scenarios as a basis.

EG there's 8 scenarios in the book, many of whom define an attacker and a defender. Each scenario uses a varied combination of 6 or so methods of gaining victory points. - EG Capturing territory, surveying territory, NUKING territory.

Each of those methods tend to favour some fleets over others.

Combine this with a Narrative Campaign format, eg each mission leads on to 1 of 2 different missions, depending on who won or lost and it's entirely possible to please both crowds, without actually changing the nature of the game.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

It's not going to satisfy the 40k folks, but for an example of sci-fi scenarios where the units are spelled out for you, check out the Battletech scenario packs. Now they are of course using map boards, but the scenarios Give you the background, terrain layout, objectives, major charachters, units involved, specific mechs involved, etc.

Of course many players will use mechs in their collection, but it's an excellent guideline for making an interesting narrative scenario.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I have helped run and/or have played in narrative gaming days, including several Star Trek megagames, Battle of Britain and Sengoku Jidai megagames, Battletech, ACW and Vietnam games.

The key elements to me of a narrative event are:

The battle(s) take place within an explained background or story whether it is historical, fictional, or semi-historical.
The player's principle job is to fill the role of Starship gunnery officer, Fighter Command ground controller, MG ammo humper, Cavalry division commander or other and handle his forces within that role.
The purpose of the event is to explore the unfolding of the story through the movements and battles.
Winning is secondary to taking part.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Huge Hierodule






North Bay, CA

To add to that, it needs to be clear and acceptable for the event organizer to reject players or lists at his discretion.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






I agree with Killkrazy.

At the end of the day, it is the participants that push the campaign, and that sort of WAAC player doesn't do well in narrative campaigns and usually get dimed out by court of the masses. They either tow the line at that point, or pack their stuff and go away, because they do not fit in the gameplay.

One example I remember was from the campaign packet for the Lustria campaign back in the day. Someone decided it would be fun to bring in a overpowered High elf or chaos contingent/ dragon, IIRC, and were quickly shut down. Butthurt, and grousing, but in the end they changed the list- because they wanted to get in on the game.

The ladder campaign is a perfect introduction to gaming. You start with a squad, either by buying in to a new army, or starting small with what you already have- Introductory games, combined with a major story arc/ map based campaign. Tis one is great because you include new and old players together and teach the game as the army progresses.

Using a map, you section it off and add in 2 or 3 objectives/ main events that forces have to attain. "Convoy", "Cursed objective", or "Ammo dump" were a couple of them off the top of my head.

The forces are balanced in such a way as to only include a specific force, so WAAC play is discouraged, and players and ref all are more concerned with the objective of the game then that of trying to be douche bags. The Written example given is exactly the style that was used. ( As a matter of fact, it might have even been a variation of a theme.)

First week was a 2 troop command, second week added a vehicle, or three, third week added 4 troops a heavy, and a command, or more vehicles etc... ( Point here being was that each player had a week to crank out/ add a squad. No grey plastic/ metals or primer donna's. When you have a committed time hack, you end up cranking them out, and moving the story forward. Whatever you decide, it has to fit in with developing the story arc. You can't just show up with a titan and call it a day.

The armies evolve as the weeks continue, and end up being full scale army events. I ended up leaving, but the games had weekly prizes in there added per the event organizer for different things. Players, army painting, sportsmanship, etc... They added in some of the tourney snacks, without the added pressure to be a jerkoff.

I've played these sorts of events throughout the country, and the game is not only easier, because of the army team composition, but the added events can and do come into play when you are side-tracked and can end up in two and three way combat, or outright wiped out by a misplaced orbial strike/ artillery barrage.

End of the day, the players, and event organizer hands out the campaign objectives, force composition, and event directives/ maps, and the game works by everyone's consent and participation. That example Auticus has there is a perfect example, and one that is very reminiscent of the Black Crusade world event that was played back in the day.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/05 17:22:57




At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority






A narrative event is a scenario or series of scenarios that convey a story, and in some way impact the campaign or setting in a lasting manner.

My old Mordheim campaign had regular games, where the warbands did battle as normal - but each week there was a battle that impacted the game. (One ended up burning a good deal of the city - and the fire lasted for several days, so that even in the regular games there was a chance that the area was in flames.)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I need to come up with a narrative for the GorkaMorka campaign that my good lady has drafted me into running. (Who knew that Fury Road counts as a chick flick?)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/08 01:22:49


Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.

The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: