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.

 auticus wrote:
Competitive play as written is also broken lol.

Less so than narrative/open.

 Peregrine wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.

I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?

My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.

Matched Play:
>War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments: What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)

Narrative Play:
>Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.

Open Play:
>Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.

This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.

A note on 'No Balance With Power Level' I am going to miss quote Syndrome: "When Everyone it Playing a Over Powered Unit, then No one is Playing an Over Power Unit"

 Anpu42 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.

I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?

My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.

Matched Play:
>War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments: What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)

Narrative Play:
>Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.

Open Play:
>Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.

This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.

I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).

Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?

 auticus wrote:
Competitive play as written is also broken lol.

Narratve play is not about min/maxing. So if someone wants to show up to min/max, you have them adjust their roster. And if they won't... you show them the tournament room instead.

What you I think are trying to argue, based on reading your past arguments, is that there shoudl only be one way to play and that narrative and competitive should be one and the same.

That however does not remove my previous comment which was based on how in my experience TFG doesn't go to narrative events because TFG can't min/max. But those are my narrative events, where we prevent them from doing so. I don't have any experience with other narrative events because I can count them all on one hand beyond what I do since the default is tournament min/max play events.

Actually banning things is more of a competative mindset.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Peregrine wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Narrative play we have special narrative scenarios and we have hybrid versions of matched play with GM'd events and lists have to be approved to be appropriate for narrative play.

IOW, you concede that narrative play as-written is broken and does nothing to stop "TFG"s. Your narrative games work because you don't play with GW's rules, you create your own house rules that restrict army construction, require approval from the event organizer, and ban the people you don't like. These things would not be necessary if narrative play as published by GW wasn't a broken mess and a failure at its supposed goals.

I take it you never just play for fun (or get to)?

My example of I mean is a RL one involving my time doing Medieval Reenactment. We had three modes of play there and I will use the 8th Edition terms.

Matched Play:
>War: We used War to determine who would be the King of a local Area or Emperor the whole for the next year. The wars were always a serious affair with lots of politics mucking up a lot of us having just fun.
>Tournaments: What you think of when when you see a Knight's Tale (Though we did not have jousting do to the expense of horses...you think WH40k is expensive, imagine having to pay for the insurance in a jousting horse)

Narrative Play:
>Wars: We would usually have what we would call a 'Holy War' or 'Water War' once or twice a year. Whoever organized the war would set up a set of scenarios and lots of time whoever won one battle would have some sort of advantage in the next one. The stakes were always low, like bragging rights or an ice chest fill with ale.

Open Play:
>Just that, we would all armor up and head out on the field and pick a side. The fight continued till one side was all eliminated and then we would line up on each side and do it till we all got tired. The idea was to just have fun Wacking each other for a few hours.

This is how I see the 'Three Types of Play' and I think other do to.

I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).

Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?

Exactly, I love playing with Other Players (And get your mind out of the gutter). It is just much more fun. I have had two experiences with FTG. The worst was when the Dark Angels 3rd or 4th Codex dropped (It has been a while though I am sure it was 3rd) and I found myself at the LFGS and had not got a chance to try the Deep Strike Rules and an Eldar Player said he was willing to have a what I thought was a Practice game. He went 2nd and after the First turn I had 2 models left on the table out of the 25+ and two Terminator Quads sill in reserve and never even got to make a save.
Then when I asked for a re-play practice game he said, and I quote "No you are not good enough and I don't play Practice Games, come back maybe when you are good."
Nether one of us Enjoyed the game (Well I know I did not and I am sure he did not unless he got his kicks by spending more time placing figures on the table rather than actually playing the game.)

Actually banning things is more of a competative mindset.

Less so than narrative/open.

What you are introducing is an impossible argument. Where every answer is wrong.

If the point of narrative is to play a story driven scenario where winning is second to the story and where armies are drafted based on the story, the entire concept of narrative therefore is that armies need to conform to the story/scenario.

Which is what narrative is.

But if restricting armies is 'competitive' you've introduced the argument that by banning min/max armies in narrative to fit the scenario, you've suddenly become "more competitive", which woudl make narrative "more competitive" than competitive, which as we know is false.

Also if the idea of narrative is story driven scenarios with story drafted forces, can it be more broken than matched play, which is about breaking the game and winning?

I don't think it is.

From the perspective of a perpetual power gamer, I can see where it may seem that way, for if the perpetual power gamer that was always striving to break the game suddenly played a narrative game where he didn't have the matched play rules, he'd suddenly be breaking the game exponentially more. But that assumes the narrative event he's playing in is matched play and bring whatever you want. Which I find is not the case. The perpetual power gamer would play in the narrative event with the narrative constraints based on the scenario, and likely be enraged that he cannot powergame. Which is why I find that most TFG perpetual power gamers avoid (my) narrative events. Because they cannot powergame.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I was in Amtgard boffer combat/LARP for about a year and a half, and it had an almost identical set up. Tournaments to show off skill and earn rewards (consisted of bragging rights and bling for your garb), story-based scenarios as an excuse to do something different (sometimes players would plays as "monsters" and have a ridiculous number of hit points and armor), and the "ditch line" (sparring with one another for practice and excercise).

Really, to me, the difference comes down in player attitude: are you here to play WITH the other players, or are you here to play AGAINST them?

Exactly, I love playing with Other Players (And get your mind out of the gutter). It is just much more fun. I have had two experiences with FTG. The worst was when the Dark Angels 3rd or 4th Codex dropped (It has been a while though I am sure it was 3rd) and I found myself at the LFGS and had not got a chance to try the Deep Strike Rules and an Eldar Player said he was willing to have a what I thought was a Practice game. He went 2nd and after the First turn I had 2 models left on the table out of the 25+ and two Terminator Quads sill in reserve and never even got to make a save.
Then when I asked for a re-play practice game he said, and I quote "No you are not good enough and I don't play Practice Games, come back maybe when you are good."
Nether one of us Enjoyed the game (Well I know I did not and I am sure he did not unless he got his kicks by spending more time placing figures on the table rather than actually playing the game.)

Indeed. The issue isn't with game balance, but player attitudes. I can look back on every negative game of any system, any sport, any activity, throughout my life, and see that in each and every one of those instances, my issues were with certain people, not the rules or system or whatever.

I have made the argument before, and I feel it is perfectly valid now, that it is a matter of personal responsibility and accountability that you are playing a game that your opponent will enjoy. Whether this is in discussing ahead of time what kind of game you want, or taking units that aren't going to blow them away, or however you do it. But just because the rules allow for certain things to be done does not mean its is okay to do them; just because you CAN, does not mean you SHOULD. That's why I am selective on who I spend my hobby time on, focusing on players with similar goals and desired outcomes as me and not wasting my time with others. The issue isn't that people can take overpowered lists, the issue is that they do.

I could go off on anecdotal rants all day long about my and others's negative experiences about a select group of players in our local area, but that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to determine and understand the various ways to play the games we play. Not everyone is going to like the different styles of play, and that is OKAY.

You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.

If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.

Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.

Where did I claim narrative is "more balanced?" lol

I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.

Trying to say narrative is wrong because it enforces builds players don't enjoy using has nothing to do with what I said.

You are establishing a secondary argument for a different thread... that its wrong to enforce builds and that people should be free to bust the game however they want.

 auticus wrote:

Trying to say narrative is wrong because it enforces builds players don't enjoy using has nothing to do with what I said.

You would figure some one that wants to play narrative would also not mind enforced builds otherwise why would they be playing narrative?

 auticus wrote:
I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.

What constraints of the narrative scenarios? The scenarios we've seen so far have had plenty of room for powergaming. In fact, with the weaker restrictions on army choices compared to matched play, there's more room for powergaming.

And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.

Everyone I have ever played with that does our narrative events understands why the enforced builds exist. They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present. As such yeah they are all totally fine with enforced builds.

And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.

Your snide comment is noted. It would also be noted that the LVO, Adepticon, and the SCGT would be irrelevant versions of tournaments because they are all house-ruled versions of "matched play". In fact, in your world, none of GW rules prevent overpowered lists.

[Avatar]

The points have always been garbage. All the way from the beginning the points have been garbage. That the points will continue to be garbage is not surprising, or to be honest, something that I care much about.

We'll continue to spreadsheet the game and find the optimal load outs and just stick with that as has been done since the long ago.
Node based campaign for my public 2017 campaign.

From the other thread the quotes messed up but it's clear you think your narrative game is superior to competative play at least to me.

You don't rate organized play thats fine but to declare points garbage while using your own system to balance is a tad hypocritical as both do the exact same thing, either narrative play is inherintly better on it's own merrits or it's not.

The fact you have to ban stuff shows the exact problem i talked about does exist.

 auticus wrote:
Your snide comment is noted. It would also be noted that the LVO, Adepticon, and the SCGT would be irrelevant versions of tournaments because they are all house-ruled versions of "matched play".

The difference is that the people running those tournaments aren't pretending that matched play is perfect, they're openly acknowledging that balance problems exist and need to be fixed. Nobody is saying "it's ok that 40k is not balanced, the LVO rules fix it", tournament players want GW to fix the rules and make the house rules unnecessary.

But sure, let's consider matched play as-printed and ignore the house rules created by tournaments. It's still a better game than "narrative" or open play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present.

Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction? There are plenty of powerful tournament lists that are also very fluffy. Banning those lists isn't about improving the narrative, it's about trying to maintain competitive balance and ensure that everyone has an equal chance of winning. If it's truly all about the narrative then you would allow the powerful-but-fluffy lists and accept that having one-sided games against them is just part of the narrative. After all, it's not like winning matters, right?

Story > winning for narrative play. If you don't understand this you won't understand narrative. Trying to get you to understand this is like describing color to a blind man.

For instance, comments like "Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction?" really miss the mark.

The question should be "What makes sense for the story," then, from there, you adjust balanced based on power if necessary.

hobojebus wrote:
You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.

If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.

Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.

Narrative isn't in any shape or form "casual". A good narrative event need 200% more work that a competitive event. And no, for a good narrative experience you can't let players do what they want. Haven't you played some pen and papper RPG? Theres restrictions because the Narrative comes before than anything.

To say that "restrictions" and "bans" are something that only exist in "competitive" style of experiences is just wrong. Objetively wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I said that in my experience TFG perpetual power gamers avoid narrative events because they can't freely powergame due to the constraints of the narrative scenarios.

What constraints of the narrative scenarios? The scenarios we've seen so far have had plenty of room for powergaming. In fact, with the weaker restrictions on army choices compared to matched play, there's more room for powergaming.

And no, your personal house-ruled version of "narrative" play is not relevant here. It's just a concession that the "narrative" rules published by GW are a broken mess and do not prevent overpowered lists.

The title of the threat is "Narrative" vs "Competitive" vs "Casual"; not "Narrative play" vs "Matched play" vs "Open play". So his personal house ruled version of a narrative event is totally relevant here. Stop being the thread police out there and come to a discussion with the posibility that maybe what you write with your fingers isn't always an unquestionable truth.
People is here arguing about Narrative as a form of gaming but you live obssesed with Narrative play and Games Workshop for your personal campaing against them. Thats good, everyone has his hobbys. But go down from your high horse, please sir.

 Galas wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
You can't claim narative is more balanced if you have to ban lists and units to make it that way, it makes no sense giving everything you've argued before.

If it's about having fun then you have to let players take armies they enjoy using.

Forcing people into set builds is not a casual mindset at all, after all i thought the result was irelevent.

Narrative isn't in any shape or form "casual". A good narrative event need 200% more work that a competitive event. And no, for a good narrative experience you can't let players do what they want. Haven't you played some pen and papper RPG? Theres restrictions because the Narrative comes before than anything.

To say that "restrictions" and "bans" are something that only exist in "competitive" style of experiences is just wrong. Objetively wrong.

And, again, please remember that restrictions / bans are fluid based on what makes logical sense.

If you're invading a craftworld, maybe a few Wraithknights show up.

Does it make sense, for instance, to have Roboute Guilliman in every fight? There'd have to be something very large at stake for him to be present. And this is why some people get narrative and others don't. If you have to be told not to bring Roboute Guilliman to a specific part of the story arc, you're missing the point entirely.

Basically, yes. Trying to arguee about what is a narrative game with 100% competitive players is like talking with a wall
I understand it. Is just against all of what they want for the game. And thats cool for them. But to don't even have the capability to open the mind fo understand what other people want only shows a boxed-shaped mind.

And before someone say anything: Warhammer has NEVER been a narrative pure experience. The "Narrative play" GW has done is Competitive with a Story and special rules behind, but Competitive noneteless.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
They play the narrative events to do story-driven scenarios where min/max tournament lists aren't present.

Why do you keep assuming that "narrative" and "powerful" are opposing concepts in list construction? There are plenty of powerful tournament lists that are also very fluffy. Banning those lists isn't about improving the narrative, it's about trying to maintain competitive balance and ensure that everyone has an equal chance of winning. If it's truly all about the narrative then you would allow the powerful-but-fluffy lists and accept that having one-sided games against them is just part of the narrative. After all, it's not like winning matters, right?

This just demostrates that you simple, don't understand what a pure narrative game/experience is. And, no. The Narrative Play mode of Warhammer 40k 8th edition isn't a pure narrative experience.

And no. This is not a "Not-True-Scotman".

He raises an interesting point. How many narrative players here are playing games like: the eldar are racing to seal their webway portal before the ork army can gain access, meanwhile the orks have found traces of their rival waagh and are looking for signs of their secret camp. How does it turn out?
vs
This game we're about to play will tell the story of how the eldar sealed their webway portal before the orks were able to gain access, and the orks found traces of their rivals and located their secret camp.

I would be genuinely interested to know if people are playing the latter.

Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.

You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.

What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.

Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.

hobojebus wrote:
Okay guys do you realise "you don't get narrative games" is a fallacious argument that holds no water, endlessly repeating it won't make it true.

You can tell a story just as easily with points as without.

What you can't do is create a balanced game without a balancing mechanic.

Now you can ban units and combos from your games but you are at that point no longer playing the game out of the box, and if your not playing GW's version it's disingenuous to advance it as a viable alternative.

It's not an argument, it's a statement.

You're talking about balance but that's not even the point.

That's like me saying my favorite drink is coca-cola, and you then go on to describe how pancakes are better than bacon.

Granular points accompany a specific mindset.
Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.

Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?

 Marmatag wrote:


Granular points accompany a specific mindset.
Narrative power accompanies a completely different mindset.

Please explain to me why balance should be the chief concern in a narrative campaign?

Because at some point in the narrative, you're going to play a game to see how the story progresses. And once that happens, the relative power levels of the units involved (whether it be points or power level or innate guestimation) will influence the outcomes of both the game and therefore the story. Unless you're just pushing models around declaring this unit killed that unit, or this unit is constantly getting shot at but not taking any casualties.

It also depends on the set up. I got a BattleTech one I am tying to work up for 40k. If done right Min/Max will mean little.

Long Table Set Up.
Basically you would have a Patrol Level Detachment on Side A. The Side a Battalion sized Detachment.
The victory conditions are based on how many units you get off Side-A's Table Edge.
Some of the Special Rules might be:
>No Flanking or Deep Strike Units. No units over Move of 10".
>Variable Game End.
>Side A getting a Fortification.
>Side A getting Bonus Command Points.
>Side A getting Orbital Bombardment.
>Side B starting off board and randomly coming in randomly.

Have not worked out all of the all the details yet, but the goal is to make Side B decide to engage Side A or get units off Side A's table edge.

For the matter, a good narrative system needs a good balance, but not everything has to be equal to be narratively balanced.

A good example are Warriors vs Mages in Dungeons and Dragons systems. Warriors are alongside the Barbarian the strongest class at the low levels, and the mages the Weakers, but that changes at the end of the campaing (If the mage survives)

A balanced narrative system means that every "narrative" you want to accomplish can be executed as you expect it with a system that support it in relation to how your "narrative" interacts with the "narratives" of the other player.

Explaining it better: Is not about everyone having a equal chance of "winning" or having the same "power"; is about everyone having their place.

If I want to do the "narrative" of a vagabund, is absurd to ask the system to be balanced so my vagabund can kill the other player Knight. If the system is balanced, my vagabund will be good in his own "narrative" way. And the system will let me behave as a vagabund should behave.

But this comes down to my previous statement: Warhammer isn't a narrative system. The best you can have is a Competitive play with some "fluffy" rules. Thats why many pages before I said that Power Level isn't better for narrative that complete points.
Power Level has is advantages. Ones that to me, someone that plays many times with little childres, really appreciates to introduce childres to a Point system step by step. But it is what it is. With all his limitations.

The problem here is how Peregrine just insistit that the mere existence of that option is detrimental.

Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.

You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.

 Galas wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.

You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.

No question about it. There's a heavy social component involved in d&d. But at most stages of the game, when the warrior fights the mage you can predict how it will turn out.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons isn't a good example here however, because it's one of the few games i can think of that is actually a co-operative game. The party is intended to work together, so the relative power levels of a warrior vs a mage are less meaningful as they're not meant to be fighting each other at every encounter.

You say that... and I can say all the Campaings that have ended abrutly because one player joined the bad guys or just infighting between the players.

No question about it. There's a heavy social component involved in d&d. But at most stages of the game, when the warrior fights the mage you can predict how it will turn out.

But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.

And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.

Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.

3.5? Mage wins.

5E? Fighter wins early on, unless the Wizard picked Sleep. At 5th level, Fighter probably wins no matter the spell selection. At higher levels, though, it tips in the Wizard's favor.

That's not because the classes aren't balanced in 5E, though-it's because the Wizard is capable of going nova, whereas the Fighter is not, for the most part.

 Galas wrote:


But thats exactly my point. At some point in the "late game" the Warrior just Can't win against the mage. Is that inbalanced? No, because both have made their own "narratives" throught the game/campaing.

And thats whats important in a Narrative system. Is not about everyone having equal chances of winning at every state. Is about having a balanced system about the narrative people want to roleplay/create. But those narratives don't need to be balanced ones against the others to be a good narrative system.

Like playing a Kobold in Pathfinder with -4 Strenght and -4 Dexterity without bonus while a Sun Elf has +2 Dexterity/Magic/Charisma. Is obviously imbalanced from a competitive standpoint, but it works for both narratives.

Yes, it is imbalanced. At most points of the game, one class will dominate the other. The game works because its not intended to pit one player vs another. When that sort of thing happens, you start losing players and/or the campaign ends entirely. The story stops, when it could otherwise continue.

Compare that to 40k, where you can have cadia be scoured of life and cease to exist as a planet, yet players who own cadian armies can still continue to play and advance their stories.