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.

Title sums it up really. I've heard many times from people that "competitive play/tournament" rules systems are opposed to narrative rules systems within wargames.

It's a statement or similar statement that I've heard often enough, but very few times has anyone ever really gone into what that statement actually means functionally. What are the narrative elements being lost/not included within competitive rules systems. What is the actual difference in functionality, structure and approach.

I would say that options to customise your units to make them "your dudes" and rules which support armies that look like armies do in whatever fiction you are trying to model is what is needed for narrative rules.

Some people also like a way to have progression for their units, a campaign system for example. Rules for random events and so on, rules for third parties involvement during battles (like a monster hunting battle where there's the two sides and then a rules controlled monster they're both trying to kill while killing each other).

Scenarios are also a huge part of narrative play.

'Competitive' and 'Narrative' are very vague terms that tend to be used as sticks in arguments. I think it's a fair claim to say that the vast majority of wargaming as understood on Dakka involves:

* Scenarios that have opposing victory conditions (i.e. one side wins and the other loses)
* An attempt to have evenly balanced or 'fair' forces.
* An assumption that the rules are fixed and unalterable during the game.
* Have a sense of (hopefully) friendly competition that is decided over the course of one session.

Narrative and Competitive games both fit within those (very loose) confines – but they're both implicitly a 'gamified' version of wargaming.

But is there anything else?

There are forms of wargaming that make more emphasis on the scenario, and are more freeform. A lot of historical wargaming revolves around re-playing scenarios that are 'unfair', in the sense that there's no attempt to balance the scenario. These are often tied into asymmetrical objectives – so the side that is fated to lose might have to (say) survive amount of time – but not always. Sometimes the pleasure comes from a collaborative sense of shared spectacle – playing the game for the visuals and letting the story tell itself; perhaps surprising both sides. Even the rules can become flexible to better serve the story.

You might term that 'hyper-narrative' or something; but the point I'm making is that the idea of 'Competitive' and 'Narrative' are really both on the same side of the coin.

If you think these sorts of games are so rare as to be irrelevant, I'd just point you to any game where you've talked a new player through a game. Did you make exceptions to the rules? Did you draft up some simple things for the new player to do on the table, while your objective was to ensure the other person had a chance to enjoy themselves playing?

Nor is it restricted to informal introductory gaming – right at the other end of the scale you've got simulationist wargaming, where the game's almost a documentary for spectators to enjoy; with the people involved primarily concerned with putting on a good show.

I find that rules that emphasize the gamey aspects of the game interfere with narrative enjoyment. When there are layers of list building, planning stages, etc., all built around contemplating the rules instead of the lore, characters or setting, they detract from the fun. Crunchy rules and rule interactions all make games feel more like Chess, MtG or Warmahordes than any kind of story—the answer for why things work in counterintuitive, often counter-lore ways, is usually “so the game can be balanced” which sacrifices narrative enjoyment for (often illusory) serious gamer enjoyment. When I see a rule set that advertises as “easy to learn, difficult to master” it tells me that I’ll either have to houserule it or relearn the rules minutia every time a new unit shows up or special rules interact. Perhaps the closest analogy is watching a movie that constantly reminds you it’s a movie by making you think about the editing, the directing, the lighting and trying to tease out what the story is actually supposed to be behind all that “craft”.


In terms of RPGs, my friends and I always played WEG Star Wars because the rules were intuitive and minimal, staying out of the way of the story. We grew fed up with DND and the Palladium games because they felt like an opaque layer of crunch over blander stories.

 Apologist wrote:
'Competitive' and 'Narrative' are very vague terms that tend to be used as sticks in arguments. I think it's a fair claim to say that the vast majority of wargaming as understood on Dakka involves:

* Scenarios that have opposing victory conditions (i.e. one side wins and the other loses)
* An attempt to have evenly balanced or 'fair' forces.
* An assumption that the rules are fixed and unalterable during the game.
* Have a sense of (hopefully) friendly competition that is decided over the course of one session.

Narrative and Competitive games both fit within those (very loose) confines – but they're both implicitly a 'gamified' version of wargaming.

But is there anything else?
.

Yeah, if those points are true than people on Dakka need to get out of their game bubble a bit more. You see, none of those things are true of "wargames" universally.

- What is a side in a solo or co-op game? If you are playing Co-op do you have opposing victory conditions?
- Laughably not true. Most historical games obviously dispense with this fiction. Cannae is not balanced Waterloo is not balanced, Antietam is not balanced.
- This is the closest to be true, but many games have Fog-of-War elements that add new dimensions and rules on the fly as the game progresses. Especially if it is run by a Gamemaster/host.
- I would argue many games start with a place of cooperation to see "what happens" rather than a competition. The idea that wargames are competitive is one of my favorite fictions.
- Then, the idea that everything is resolved in 1-session? Ever hear about campaigns?

So, what gives a game Narrative Freedom is a great question. It is not easy to answer at all. The easiest version to consider is one where the game rules give you explicit permission to "do what you want".

You might say, "No game says that?" For example, Osprey's Wars of the Republic on Page 5 explicitly tells game players that they have bought the game, so they can make any changes or alterations they see fit to give the game experience they want. Many games say that explicitly in their rules systems, that is just an example off the top of my head.

Another common example is the "Toolbox" approach to wargaming. The best example I can think of right now is Force-on-Force. There, a set of core resolution mechanics are provide for the 4Ms; Moving, Missiles, Melee, and Morale. After that, the rest of the book is add-on features and rules that you can choose to use based on the scenario. You can layer on as many or as few of these as the scenario needs. In addition, there are no "Army Lists" per se or even "core" scenarios. There is no default to versus, co-op, or solo play in the rules. Instead it is up to the player to decide on these choices prior to play. The intention is for the players to control the game and "do what they want" with the tools provided by the game.



Edit: WEG Star Wars rules!

Yeah, that is a bizarre take.

If my friends and I feel competitive we play Chess or Hearts or something like that. Generally we prefer cooperative play as it is more relaxing and less damaging to the furniture. We play tabletop games not as a fair match or a competition to determine a winner, but more like “we have these toys and a framework to make some exciting stuff happen”. That whole Narrative gamers are competitive actually yarn has real “seagulls can’t imagine any interaction not about French fries” energy.

Yeah, if those points are true than people on Dakka need to get out of their game bubble a bit more. You see, none of those things are true of "wargames" universally.

That's... exactly what I go on to say..?

 Overread wrote:
Title sums it up really. I've heard many times from people that "competitive play/tournament" rules systems are opposed to narrative rules systems within wargames.

It's a statement or similar statement that I've heard often enough, but very few times has anyone ever really gone into what that statement actually means functionally. What are the narrative elements being lost/not included within competitive rules systems. What is the actual difference in functionality, structure and approach.

What I've determined after many years of seeing and participating in quite lively debates about this very topic is that a ruleset has narrative freedom when you like the ruleset, and it lacks narrative freedom when you don't like the ruleset. For whatever reasons.

Warhammer 40k 10th edition seems to be a particularly contentious version. Many (most?) will say it has restricted narrative freedoms massively. For me, I've found the most narrative freedom in a long while. On the flip-side, I've been playing a lot of Conquest: Last Argument of Kings lately, which doesn't feel like it has a lot of narrative freedom to me.

A more useful, but personal, definition of narrative freedom is vagueness, I guess. When a rule says "this model has a Spear", that's less narrative freedom than a rule that says "this model has a Reach Weapon". When a rule says "this unit is lead by this character" that has less narrative freedom than just giving me a unit, a character, and the ability for characters to lead units. The more vague the rules, the more options I as the player have for modeling and/or storytelling through gameplay.

Sad day when a esteemed hobbyist like Apologist gets laid into.

 Apologist wrote:

Yeah, if those points are true than people on Dakka need to get out of their game bubble a bit more. You see, none of those things are true of "wargames" universally.

That's... exactly what I go on to say..?

Huh, well I guess my reading comprehension was a bit off. My apologies for the misunderstanding.


Edit: I imagine that the definition is a bit like Pornography. You know it when you see it. LOL!

I think another way of looking at it is not really that the rules directly support narrative play but rather looking at the culture of play that they do promote.

Because obviously, you can use almost any set of rules to do narrative play. But some games almost never get used that way and others do. Like Warmachine was rarely played in a narrative way, although you could. It was all tournament style games. Whereas LOTR SBG had very tight and competitive rules too, but was often used for narrative games.

It's hard to say if that's always because of the rules, or how the games are marketed, or some other factor. But I think rules do promote a certain culture of play. Kings of War with it's chess clocks and focus on balance obviously attracts players who want to have that kind of experience whereas maybe Warlords of Erehwon with it's weird scenarios attracts a different crowd.

 Da Boss wrote:

Because obviously, you can use almost any set of rules to do narrative play. But some games almost never get used that way and others do. Like Warmachine was rarely played in a narrative way, although you could. It was all tournament style games. Whereas LOTR SBG had very tight and competitive rules too, but was often used for narrative games.

Warmachine is an interesting example because I think its a great example of marketing leading players

Warmachine came out and grew big at a time when GW's rules writing was pretty rubbish (by even GW standards) with armies missing whole editions and more. Warmachine was marketed heavily as this tight, competitive, balanced rules set. It was then flocked too by the community of wargamers who wanted a more "serious" wargame than what GW offers in terms of not just writing rules but also how they approach them.

Fundamentally its still the same; you build armies; roll dice; follow rules; and aim to win the game.

Neither game really had much if any narrative/rpg/openended rules or such - the difference was Warmachine was better built.


The thing is Warmachine then became a huge hotbed of competitive play and players. Which attracted more of the same to join the game; built upon it and all the time everyone (firm to customers) marketed it as the competitive game of choice.
Coupled to the fact that PP didn't really put out any where near the volume of crafting tutorials that GW does*. GW has always maintained a strong "conversion" aspect to their marketing that PP never picked up on.


From my view there was nothing in Warmachine rules that stopped it being used for narrative games. Nothing that prevented the community taking that approach.
However it was marketed and encouraged to be one thing which attracted a playerbase that reinforced that aspect to the extreme. As the game then dwindled that extreme group was more and more dominant because they were the last ones being left in the system. Which further compounded itself.


*although I honestly feel some gamers over-play the whole "GW told us to make our own tanks from spraycans" level of crafting which was in 1 very old book - old even by the time of Warmachine.

every game has narrative freedom, you just need to work with the other player.

for example list building, you may have a game with a very well balanced, but very rigid force building structure.

but what about when you want the follow up battle, neither side has really recovered yet, many units are below strength. not all rules "allow" such - but nothing stops players trying it if they want

likewise the rules say "you may only have one of this powerful unit". Well the only thing stopping players experimenting to find out why is blind adherence to ink

maybe that one unit gets a modifier to dice, or that commander a re-roll in games that otherwise don't allow it, just because that particular unit is "lucky"

you can also get rules that allow creativity, abstract "size" and line of sight rules that encourage weird conversions and "counts as" armies without "thats modelling for advantage!" being even a thing

basically if players want more open narratives they can do them, it helps to have a solid set of rules to start with and not expect "forging a narrative" to cover up rubbish rules writing

'All games support narrative play if you do all the work to make them support narrative play' is both true and a complete useless statement. You can rewrite any system to make it do what you want with enough time and effort.

DaBoss and BobTheInquisitor got the broad strokes. 'Narrative freedom' describes a game that comes with mechanics and options that allow players to construct a scenario with a narrative basis, assemble forces that fit a narrative, and resolve through mechanics that fit the narrative and don't violate suspension of disbelief. In order to accomplish that, a game may provide options, scenarios, and mechanics that detract from the tight balance and predictability that competitive games expect, or it may simply not be designed in a way that works for competitive play. Conversely, a game designed for competitive play may not provide the tools that narrative players expect, or simply be not particularly suited to that approach at a core level.

Warmachine is a good comparison because it didn't provide any of the tools for narrative play that 40K did at the time. Scenarios were simple and competitive-focused, there was no scope to create your own characters, there were no campaigns, minimal lore to draw from, and the game at a core level was designed around rules-based synergies to a much stronger degree than 40K. You didn't take a unit because it fit either a FOC or some lore-appropriate army composition (there basically wasn't any in 1st Ed), you took it because on a mechanical level it worked with other units to punch above its weight. And you could make up your own scenarios and stories, but that isn't what the system was designed for. The infamous 'page 5' was a mission statement about how the game was meant to be played, and it was the exact opposite of the cooperative 'forge the narrative' style that 40K embodied.

That said, narrative and competition aren't always axiomatically opposed goals. Consistency, learnability, elegant design, ease of resolution, and minimizing cognitive load are characteristics of a well-designed game, not of one gameplay style over the other. There are simply many cases where providing options or variability for narrative flavor detract from competitive suitability, while rigid structuring or 'gamey' mechanics suitable for competitive play detract from narrative freedom or verisimilitude.

Honestly, just pull out 40K 3rd Ed and Warmachine 1st Ed, and compare them both to 40K 10th Ed. You might be surprised at how many aspects of 40K's contemporary design share more in common with Warmachine than with 3rd.

A chunk of this for me can be achieved with Missions/Quests/Objectives or whatever a given system calls the framework of an individual game and how you win it.

Narrative would include, but isn’t limited to, asymmetric victory conditions. For instance, trying to break through lines, have a certain unit or amount of units survive.

That could be in the face of theoretically overwhelming enemy forces, or just both players trying to achieve different goals. Essentially, anything beyond “the one who hits the hardest, wins”.

Whilst not especially well suited, but still adaptable, to standard Ranking Tournaments, you can still have an organised event over a similar weekend with that.

For instance, the point of the weekend campaign/narrative event is to have one faction or other come out on top, with all factions having some kind of narrative skin in the game.

You could pre-publish the missions, giving folk a chance to work up a suitably flexible list, or have the missions being played adaptive depending on previous round outcomes. Perhaps the “Supreme Command” can then assign missions to specific players, with the reckoning their list is well suited to say, line breaking, bunker busting, assassination etc.

And that can be achieved with pretty much any rules set underpinning it all.

On the Warmachine front, its worth noting that particularly in 2nd edition there were quite a few narrative leagues and campaigns created. The issue was just that they weren't actually any fun. Part of this is definitely a result of the game itself. Like there was an escort mission, but the sheer nature of the game meant that there wasn't almost certainly a way you could build an army capable of taking out the target almost immediately.

This was always kind of the big problem with narrative Warmachine. Terrain was punishing, so it was hard to play on narratively interesting maps. Armies did wildly different things so it was hard to make a scenario that wasn't easily abused by a ranged powerhouse like Caine or a Control nightmare like Denegrha. Those things were fun to put against one another, but not very fun to put into contests of who can run to different points on the map fastest or something. The terrain issue though has always been a huge issue for the game and one of the things that I find most improved in MK4.

So, this seems like something worth getting back to. I have a lot of thoughts about it, most just pure opinion, but lets see if I can get things organized into something slightly shorter than a thesis.

First off, I'm going to focus on the games in the 40k sphere where the conflict normally exists. There are absolutely games that are narrative to the point where they are probably closer to RPGs or reenactments than a wargame, but if you enjoy that, the line is pretty clear and there's not a lot of discussion to be had.

Second, competitive games often tell a story and narrative wargames are often still framed as a competition. I'm someone who really wants a story out of my wargames, but that last part will always be a primary constraint on the ways a game can inject narrative elements for me.

I generally just don't care for what is often considered narrative because while they sound cool in theory, they don't actually make the time spent in the game more fun. RPG mechanics that make your characters stronger are interesting off the table, but when you get to the table and steamroll another player or when a randomized event decides the winner its just not satisfying in practice. I think its so common for narrative events to burn out because for the most part, the actual games get less interesting as things progress for most players.

There are a lot of great ways to make narrative games, IMO. One of the big ones is just making better terrain. Creating a battlefield that looks like a place can really enhance the story on the table and specifically, having good objective tokens can make all the difference. The more unique locations you can create with game mats and terrain sets, the more the same mechanical game can feel like a different story.

One of the big limitations of a lot of game systems is simply that their rules only really cover combat. Very few games allow even basic terrain interaction and to a degree that greatly limits their ability to build story into games. When games add things as simple as the ability to interact with an objective, the potential for narrative gameplay expands dramatically.

All that said, I think there's a lot of ways wargames can be more narrative. Shatterpoint recently released some very well tuned asymmetrical scenarios that are greatly enhanced by being played on terrain that looks like the story. I also think there's just a ton of untapped potential in map campaigns with either teams of players or larger rosters used give a sense of progress to what are effectively "standard" games.

These things can work, I've seen them work, but the work has to be put into them and I think that's often where narrative play doesn't live up to its potential. It's work to make interesting maps and terrain to play on. It takes work to create balanced scenarios whether or not their symmetrical. It takes a ton of work to balance out a multi game campaign. I think far too often these systems get pushed out as a concept, but never really get refined past the dream of what they could be.

I've never used the term "Narrative Freedom", but I see a fairly clear difference in emphasis between Narrative and Competitive gaming.

I think it's quite simple really.

In Competitive gaming, the focus is on Balance (at least hypothetically) and on winning.

In Narrative gaming, the focus is on the story being told and the ability of folks to be creative within that story. Winning and balance are secondary.

Now, it is technically possible to have a good narrative and competitive game, but you're essentially limited to scnearios whereby for some reason the forces are as close as possible to exactly equal. That only covers a small fraction of stories/narratives, so the two approaches tend to be quite different.

Neither is wrong, it's just that for both players to enjoy themselves they both have to generally be on the same page about the kind of game they want.

As to the topic of rules systems that encourage Narrative play....[u]

...they generally tend to be the ones that give players the maximum freedom in designing their character, warband or army and/or systems where the units are primarily a reflection of the background and fluff even if it is to the detriment of competitive playability. As any wargamer who has been around for a while knows, there is no game with a unit creation mechanic that cannot be broken by someone who takes even a small amount of time to figure out the most optimum loadout.

Therefore, players using these systems usually operate on a spoken or unspoken agreement that they build their forces around the best representation of their characters and miniatures or based on the requirements of the narrative and not for maximum game effectiveness.

As an example, we just wrapped up the first part of a Mordheim campaign. Though we were competing and keeping track of wins and losses, it really was more of a narrative campaign. No one pretends that all the factions in Mordheim are perfectly balanced, we all essentially just statted and equipped the figures we had based on how they looked, and in some cases simply what figures in our collections looked coolest. Further, there's a good deal of randomness built into the campaign mechanics such that nothing is ever really equal.

It was a ton of fun for most members, but it wasn't surprising when some gangs ended up way behind others. But Mordheim isn't about competive parity, it's about narrative, warband progression, fluff and minis.

I do think it's better to have a well-balanced game, even for a narrative system.

Balance is a lesser concern if your aim is story, but it's helpful to know that a 1,500 point force is the underdog against a 2,500 point force, or whatever force construction method is used. If the balance is considerably off, the "underdog" army might be as strong or stronger than the one that's supposed to have the advantage.

Also, as a related side note, I'd enjoy seeing some scenarios released from GW (or other wargame companies) of not just more narrative scenarios, but actively GMed scenarios.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I do think it's better to have a well-balanced game, even for a narrative system.

Balance is a lesser concern if your aim is story, but it's helpful to know that a 1,500 point force is the underdog against a 2,500 point force, or whatever force construction method is used. If the balance is considerably off, the "underdog" army might be as strong or stronger than the one that's supposed to have the advantage.

Also, as a related side note, I'd enjoy seeing some scenarios released from GW (or other wargame companies) of not just more narrative scenarios, but actively GMed scenarios.

See this is my viewpoint as well. A balanced competitive rules-system can be used for competitive games or narrative games; its up to the players to make that choice. The company behind the games can also encourage either or both by releasing packs that focus on story or competitive playing.


Personally I think the issue that rises up is that fantasy and scifi wargames are nearly ways competing between two or more players; who control distinct factions within the battle.
Historical games can get around this by recreating historical battles where balance is important in terms of how things perform; but where the actual armies might be wildly imbalanced. This works because you're using real history so you already go into it knowing which side is most likely to win anyway.

I think being based on actual history works, I don't think a fantasy or scifi creator could have you create two distinct specific armies with one being the underdog and have it work quite the same - though I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


The other aspect is the DM side. RPG mechanics certainly work better when the game filters through a DM. Where its less player vs player and more open with a DM to filter things. Even in PVP situations the DM might well filter during the game to ensure that everyone gets as fun a game as they can. Wargames these days don't run with a DM and there isn't the expectation to run with a DM.
Personally I think we are more likely (and already do) see RPG games being scaled up to war-like battles rather than seeing Wargames adopting an RPG mechanic and DM system.

All else being equal, better balance always makes for a better narrative experience than worse balance.

But all else isn't equal. And when achieving better balance means excising options, rules, or possibilities that players find fun, you're making a trade-off in the hopes that it will be a net positive.

I bristle at the notion that balance doesn't matter for casual play- of course it does, getting steamrolled is not conducive to good narrative or any sort of fun- but the idea that the ideal competitive system is also an ideal narrative system is bogus too. They're different goals with different requirements that sometimes align and sometimes conflict.

LunarSol: This echoes some of my own thoughts. Terrain building often involves narratives - if I build a hill as a rocky bare hill, a green hill, a barrow with an open passage or a hobbit hole, I'm implying very different things about the narrative of the battlefield I'm fighting over. Whenever I build a battlefield, even for a very straightforward game, I'm always thinking "Oh, this is probably in the Ettenmoors, so I should have some crags and pine trees".

To an extent, playing at a shop with pre-made terrain or L shaped ruins because that's the tournament standard can cause clashes here. Making your own (printing it, or buying specific pieces if you prefer) terrain means you are injecting your narrative onto the board.

I really don't understand the more modern trend of having little interaction with terrain beyond it being LOS blocking. It seems like leaving out a third of the game rules to me. I suppose it's difficult to design "tight" rules for diverse terrain collections, but that's where the competitive/narrative conflict really does exist.

And the point about being able to interact with objectives is also a very good one - carrying a relic away but then dropping it because you were pierced with arrows is a lot more narratively engaging than standing in the magic arbitrary circle to win.

 Da Boss wrote:

I really don't understand the more modern trend of having little interaction with terrain beyond it being LOS blocking. It seems like leaving out a third of the game rules to me. I suppose it's difficult to design "tight" rules for diverse terrain collections, but that's where the competitive/narrative conflict really does exist.

A lot of this comes from the tradition of terrain rules trying to be more of a simulation than a truly thought out mechanic. Since developers have very rarely had control over the terrain players play on and much of it being fixed and rigid from the early days of insulation foam sculpting over modern playmats, terrain rules have generally been a guideline to work with what you've got rather than something developers push on players as part of the rules.

There's a big desire to make terrain "realistic" in a way the rest of the game is not, while at the same time, players play on what the terrain rules encourage. The prevalence of L-shaped ruins is a direct result of them being one of the only terrain types in 40k that play with abstracted LOS, making for much easier to understand gameplay. They're popular simply because the rules for the rest of the terrain types don't really work reliably.

On a similar topic, this is effectively why Warmachine tables were so barren. Half movement in difficult terrain is an old standby, but if your models move 5ish" a turn for 5-6 turns, it doesn't take a very large patch of rough ground to make crossing it take the entire game. Stuff like that is effectively impassable. Similarly, games often like to make vertical movement costly, but if it takes 2 turns to climb something and move foward an inch, its not a game where you have usable rules for climbing. Perhaps the only system I've played that can have these kinds of rules and still have interesting terrain is Infinity, and that's specifically because you can take so many "turns" with a single model to get the kind of movement needed.

Honestly, one of the hands down best games for terrain right now is Marvel Crisis Protocol. The terrain rules are almost offensively simple, but that results in the ability to play and interact with wildly different terrain layouts. There's very little "no" in its terrain rules, but it still has a meaningful impact on the game. When I think of games telling a story, I think of this:



Oddly, I find Shatterpoint's terrain rules a lot more restrictive by comparison. The one thing it does very well is verticality, but its cover mechanics just don't really work and make any kinds of terrain other than elevation changes kind of meaningless.

 Da Boss wrote:
LunarSol: This echoes some of my own thoughts. Terrain building often involves narratives - if I build a hill as a rocky bare hill, a green hill, a barrow with an open passage or a hobbit hole, I'm implying very different things about the narrative of the battlefield I'm fighting over. Whenever I build a battlefield, even for a very straightforward game, I'm always thinking "Oh, this is probably in the Ettenmoors, so I should have some crags and pine trees".

Very much this!

Part of narrative gaming (and the inherent imbalances thereof) is that terrain is setup per the story and scenario, not for any sort of player equity. Again, our Mordheim campaign is a very clear example of terrain setup for theme and scenario. Players generally don't even know where they will be deploying from until rolls are made.

https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/?s=mordheim