Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I keep hearing the terms 'narrative' and 'cinematic' thrown around to describe the direction that 6th Edition 40k has moved. It also seems that in a few threads an argument is being played out over how the perceived competitive play flaws in 6th edition are okay because the game designers wanted a more 'narrative' or 'cinematic' game.

When I think of the terms narrative and cinematic applied to a game the first thing that pops into my head is D&D (or insert any RPG). An RPG is most certainly a narrative and cinematic game as the world is described to the players by a third party non-player (DM/GM/etc.). 40k can be narrative as well but only to a point. I might imagine what is happening on the table-top in a cinematic style after a daring move is executed or something outrageous happens, but there certainly isn't the same quality to it that one gets from having that third party describe in detail what is happening around you as play progresses.

I tend to think that narrative/cinematic elements and competitive elements to a game are not mutually exclusive. Both games require a solid, well-written rule-set. And even casual games can get bogged down when players have to search and discuss what a poorly written rule means and how to handle it.

The whole idea of a narative game is that it tells a story rather than just being 'I throw my guys at your guys'. The 6th edition rule set has been designed to make what you are seeing on the table more cinematic. For example, when a squad takes fire, it is the guy at the front who is hit (6th ed) not the guy with the least valuable equipment (5th ed). Another would be grenades, which you can now throw.

D&D is a very good example of a narrative game where everything is driven by the story as are things like forum RPG's. And, yes, it is always going to be better to have a GM telling you what is happening in your game, but that isn't really possible in 40k.

I agree with you that they aren't mutualy exclusive factors, and you do indeed need solid rules in a casual game and story elements in a competetive game. It just makes it overall more interesting to play.

Perhaps competetive play has taken a hit, or maybe it is just old competetive play. Players just need to adapt their stratagies to the new rules. Once everyone has done that, it will be competetive again.

Narrative is literally telling a story. This is pretty much how wargaming began and is how historic wargaming primarily runs games. Points based battles was a later development.

So a native game will be (usually) re fighting an historic battle like Sevastipole, Uta Beach, The little Big Horn etc. or refitting a made up historical battle in the contex of WH40k,
Macragge, the HH etc.

Where this really differs from a points based game is that force maybe uneven usually based upon the historic dispositions. The last stand of a few heroes vs a horde seems to be a WH40k standard example. The closest a points game usually gets to this is a siege game where the defender has half the points of the attacker.

A narrative sometimes needs a GM but his isn't important if the players are both invested in the game ie not just winning.

It's still a game based in competition, it just has more cinematic elements at the core to prevent it from being a numbers and priorities beatdown. It's more than Rock Paper Scissors and should feel that way. Players just need to adapt to the new system.

A competitive game is usually played at a tournament or something similar with little or no backstory, focus being on winning.
A narrative game is a continuation of an on-going story in which the narrative is continued through the events of the game.
An example from one of our WHFB games:
Orcs under warboss Neil-One-Eye had looted several Nehekarran tombs, and made their escape back to the badlands to divide the loot.
Meanwhile TK Prince Ramersis was enraged to discover that the orcs had been using the mummies of his royal family as toilet paper and was hell-bent on revenge at all costs.
The game begins as the vanguard of the prince's army arrives at the edege of the orc's encampment.

Honestly, I think using 'narrative' and 'competitive' as labels for distinct categories of wargames is utterly useless. Why?

Because every wargame is both narrative and competitive.

You cannot honestly tell me that you, as a player, have ever played a game to lost (outside of a demo game). If 2 or more players (or sides) are playing against each other to win, then it's a competition. And 'winning' doesn't simply mean wiping the other side out. If casualties aren't a concern, then I can 'win' by completing my objectives, even I don't have a single model on the table by the end of the game (pertaining, of course, to certain rulesets).

On the same point, a wargame can easily be narritive. As wargamers, we're generally a creative lot. I have no doubt that a pair of wargamers could work out exactly why their two forces are fighting - their objectives and motivations - in a few minutes. It may be a bit cheesy and cliched, but it's still a backstory.

So, if 'narrative' and 'competitive' are useless, then what can we use instead? I'd put forth 'point based' and 'scenario based'.

Point based means games that use a system of points to buy and build armies. This is the game that, if players are bringing an arbitrary amount of 'points', usually for pickup games or tournaments, and are bringing the same amount of points, then their games should be relatively 'balanced' - barring, of course, terrain placement, general skill, and luck. And, while not necessarily non-narrative in nature, these are the type of games that will swing more towards the 'competitive' end of the spectrum.

Scenario based means games that involve sitting down, deciding the composition of forces, deciding what terrain will be involved, deciding the deployment of the forces, and deciding other events that will occur during the game. This also usually, but not always, eschews the use of a 'points' system. And these games are generally 'unbalanced' - and they're expected to be. As such, it could be seen that scenario based games are more 'narrative', but still competitive.

snurl wrote:A competitive game is usually played at a tournament or something similar with little or no backstory, focus being on winning.

Fair enough.

A narrative game is a continuation of an on-going story in which the narrative is continued through the events of the game.

How many pick-up games at the FLGS start with both players spending time to create a backstory before the game. Campaign-style games work when they are set up in advance or when played between a couple people over a period of time, but it just isn't possible when getting a pick-up game. It doesn't mean every pick-up game is a hard-core tournament style game by any means.

An example from one of our WHFB games:
Orcs under warboss Neil-One-Eye had looted several Nehekarran tombs, and made their escape back to the badlands to divide the loot.
Meanwhile TK Prince Ramersis was enraged to discover that the orcs had been using the mummies of his royal family as toilet paper and was hell-bent on revenge at all costs.
The game begins as the vanguard of the prince's army arrives at the edege of the orc's encampment.

I certainly enjoy playing games like this, and do play some like this from time to time with a couple regular people I play with, but it just isn't possible during my FLGS's 40k night where the group meets and we randomly pair up with each other.

I've watched a lot of 6th edition video battle reports (I've yet to actually play a game), and the thing I've noticed is that it seems like the new rules are driving the competitive players to come up with ever more crazy-broken lists. So if the designer's idea was to take the game away from competitive play by making it more hard-core competitive, making tournament players seek out the most deadly combo ala MTG or WMH then they have succeeded. 6th is still young, but some of the lists I've seen people bring out are just outrageous, and you can't blame somebody getting in practice for a tournament and find what works best to not exploit these things. But tell me how the game gets more 'narrative' or 'cinematic' if every competitive eldar army is based around an alliance between Eldrad, Vect, and Harlequins, or Tau and Orks buddying up? To me these combinations take away from any cinematic feel because they distract from the fluff that I know and love. The new loose allied rules make the game seem more just a game of numbers to me because I believe I'll be seeing a lot of unlikely alliances across the table that don't make much sense fluff-wise and thus distract from any cinematic elements.

They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

RaptorsTallon wrote:D&D is a very good example of a narrative game where everything is driven by the story as are things like forum RPG's. And, yes, it is always going to be better to have a GM telling you what is happening in your game, but that isn't really possible in 40k.

Without wishing to muddy the waters, it's worth pointing out that from a roleplaying perspective, D&D is about as far as one can get from a 'narrativist' game; it's the classic example of 'gameist' design. Obviously there's nothing to prevent you from roleplaying your socks off while you slaughter goblins to gain gold and experience, but there's nothing in the rules themselves to generate 'story', whereas there is the very obvious mechanic of levels to denote 'success', and 'character development' is defined in terms of a better THAC0 and more hit points. D&D (along with all its various derivatives) is about a close as one can get to a wargame without strictly being one.

A narrativist game is one which relies heavily on developing motives and behaviours for the characters, and then putting them into situations where those are challenged, and in which the game's rules are focussed primarily around this. There are very few examples of primarily narrativist roleplaying games (Ron Edwards' Sorceror and Robin Laws' Over the Edge are two oft-quoted examples), but a fair number of others (Ars Magica and the various Storyteller games) incorporate narrativist elements to 'simulationist' games (i.e. most roleplaying games that aren't dungeoncrawls), by imposing rules-based consequences for out-of-character (and indeed in-character but only situationally so) roleplaying, and allowing (or even obliging) players buy extra cool stuff for their characters at the cost of story-based consequences later (enemies to thwart [or be thwarted by], dependants to protect, a destiny to fulfil [or avoid], etc.).

Both, obviously, require strong rulessets, but those strengths have to be very different ones. Character-focussed games tend to be light on combat rules (though there are exceptions such as The Riddle of Steel), whereas D&D lumps all social interaction under one statistic and a few skills (or non-weapon proficiencies as I still prefer to call them).

snurl wrote:A competitive game is usually played at a tournament or something similar with little or no backstory, focus being on winning.

This is rather misleadingly reductionist. The focus of a competitive game is on trying to win on an otherwise level playing field; there's a vast difference between enjoying - win or lose - the meaningful intellectual challenge of a tactical contest and rolling up to the table with Long Fang/Purifier spam.

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

No they're not (or at least they shouldn't be), but I wouldn't accuse helium of trying artificially to create a division; we can blame Games Workshop for that, for churning out a set of rules which reduce meaningful tactical input by players and which further destabilise the (already badly sloping, thanks to poor inter- and intra-list balance) 'level playing field' I mentioned above, in the name of making it more 'narrative' and 'cinematic'.

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

I'm not trying to create any division. In my first post I posted this:

helium42 wrote:I tend to think that narrative/cinematic elements and competitive elements to a game are not mutually exclusive. Both games require a solid, well-written rule-set. And even casual games can get bogged down when players have to search and discuss what a poorly written rule means and how to handle it.

To the contrary, I started this thread to find out what people thought about the idea that these elements were mutually exclusive after reading many posts that professed that idea in other threads.

They certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

My group plays narrative campaigns. We split into even sides and use the Badab War campaign rules (IA9). At the beginning of the campaign, we create a story for why each army is there, what is their objective, and so on. At the beginning of each round, we use the previous round's results to continue the storyline. Then, we try to pound the hell out of each other with challenging lists.

helium42 wrote:

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

I'm not trying to create any division. In my first post I posted this:

helium42 wrote:I tend to think that narrative/cinematic elements and competitive elements to a game are not mutually exclusive. Both games require a solid, well-written rule-set. And even casual games can get bogged down when players have to search and discuss what a poorly written rule means and how to handle it.

To the contrary, I started this thread to find out what people thought about the idea that these elements were mutually exclusive after reading many posts that professed that idea in other threads.

Odd that you highlighted that phrase in your post, as it was largely why I think you are trying to create artificial divisions.

You pick up on the language and memes of various internet debates which broadly link to various sterile debates about competitive play vs fluff, and mix it into a rhetorical question relating to narrative gaming - implicitly inviting people to reignite those debates. Also by raising the issue of rules, a complaint often raised by the 'competitive faction' it reveals which side you support, and brings into question your reason for raising the issue - particularly your pretense at ignorance as to what narrative means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

No they're not (or at least they shouldn't be), but I wouldn't accuse helium of trying artificially to create a division; we can blame Games Workshop for that, for churning out a set of rules which reduce meaningful tactical input by players and which further destabilise the (already badly sloping, thanks to poor inter- and intra-list balance) 'level playing field' I mentioned above, in the name of making it more 'narrative' and 'cinematic'.

All that has changed in 40k is that attempt has been made to give the game a proper ground scale, and elements of command and control have been included.

As for blaming Games Workshop, they have said for as long as I can remember that the rules are not competitive - in the sense of balance, inter this, intra that and a level playing field - and are not intended to be used as such. So it is a bit rich for you to complain that they have not written rules that existed in your head due to your not listening to what they were telling you.

marielle wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

No they're not (or at least they shouldn't be), but I wouldn't accuse helium of trying artificially to create a division; we can blame Games Workshop for that, for churning out a set of rules which reduce meaningful tactical input by players and which further destabilise the (already badly sloping, thanks to poor inter- and intra-list balance) 'level playing field' I mentioned above, in the name of making it more 'narrative' and 'cinematic'.

All that has changed in 40k is that attempt has been made to give the game a proper ground scale, and elements of command and control have been included.

As for blaming Games Workshop, they have said for as long as I can remember that the rules are not competitive - in the sense of balance, inter this, intra that and a level playing field - and are not intended to be used as such. So it is a bit rich for you to complain that they have not written rules that existed in your head due to your not listening to what they were telling you.

Oh, so I'm not meant to enjoy trying to win a game? To think that I've been having the wrong sort of fun all this time! How lucky I am to have somebody as erudite as you to explain that to me.

Since it's so obvious, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty pointing me to an instance of GW stating that their rules were not suitable for competitive play made prior to the last few weeks?

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix

Something to contradict the above quotations from 40k rulebooks, perhaps?

marielle wrote:

helium42 wrote:

marielle wrote:They aren't mutually exclusive, so I don't know why the OP is trying to create the division.

I'm not trying to create any division. In my first post I posted this:

helium42 wrote:I tend to think that narrative/cinematic elements and competitive elements to a game are not mutually exclusive. Both games require a solid, well-written rule-set. And even casual games can get bogged down when players have to search and discuss what a poorly written rule means and how to handle it.

To the contrary, I started this thread to find out what people thought about the idea that these elements were mutually exclusive after reading many posts that professed that idea in other threads.

Odd that you highlighted that phrase in your post, as it was largely why I think you are trying to create artificial divisions.

You pick up on the language and memes of various internet debates which broadly link to various sterile debates about competitive play vs fluff, and mix it into a rhetorical question relating to narrative gaming - implicitly inviting people to reignite those debates. Also by raising the issue of rules, a complaint often raised by the 'competitive faction' it reveals which side you support, and brings into question your reason for raising the issue - particularly your pretense at ignorance as to what narrative means.

I'm not sure where I've picked up anything from memes. I didn't realize that there were memes dedicated to this subject. I have posted to a couple of other threads where people were debating 6th edition's merits and flaws and I wanted to start a thread to pick people's minds and find out why there is this perceived notion that competitive play must suffer for the sake of a more narrative game. You've made your opinion clear. There is no need to attack me personally or my motivation, which you clearly have mistaken.

No matter how mistaken you might be about thinking that a narrative game can not be a competitive game (read kronk's post for a great example of narrative/competitive play), are you telling me that you find the entire rulebook clearly and concisely written?

The "how it is mutually exclusive from a competitive game" is one of the topics concurrently being discussed here. In my opinion they are not mutually exclusive at all and a source of much vitriol at the moment. But you can't please everyone. If you try, the amount of effort you put in will also come into scrutiny, and there will be vitriol for that too.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but I think they are very usefull terms for defining what the primary goal of a game is.

A few people have explained elements of a "narrative" game better than I.

notprop wrote:
Where this really differs from a points based game is that force maybe uneven usually based upon the historic dispositions. The last stand of a few heroes vs a horde seems to be a WH40k standard example. The closest a points game usually gets to this is a siege game where the defender has half the points of the attacker.
.

This is one very important observation. In a "Competitive" game, the players typically show up with equally-pointed army designed for maximum in-game effectiveness regardless of how well that force matches the "fictional reality" of the setting.

On the other hand while the sides might not be uneven, in a "narrative" game, the forces will often be determined by the story (or "narrative"). Example: A narrative game might have small castle attacked by surprise by orcs and defended soley by a lieutenant, a few men at arms and some phesants. Even though the rules might suggest that it would be better to have crossbowmen than peasants, the narrative game might go with peasants because that's who would be around during a surprise attack. This might be thought of as The primacy of story over competitive advantage.

snurl wrote:A competitive game is usually played at a tournament or something similar with little or no backstory, focus being on winning.
A narrative game is a continuation of an on-going story in which the narrative is continued through the events of the game.
An example from one of our WHFB games: Orcs under warboss Neil-One-Eye had looted several Nehekarran tombs, and made their escape back to the badlands to divide the loot. Meanwhile ...

The continuing nature of a campaign of related games is often a focus of narrative gaming. Wheras in a tournament or one-off game, a bit of story may be concocted, in a campaign the story is the focus and continues through a series of games that form a story arc as decided by the players.

Sum up, they are not mutually exclusive but when forming a game, one will almost always take precedence over the other, and they are still very useful terms for loosely defining what kind of game you are getting yourself into.

One last point, the "edition" has very little impact on the "narrative" or "competitive" aspects of a game. Force Charts, the allowance of allies, etc can make it more suitable for such play, but as alluded to above a real focus on a "narrative" game, often includes disregarding force charts, and rules regarding allies in favor of selecting whatever forces best fit the story of a given encounter/battle/etc. You can play 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 6th, etc... edition naratively or competitively, it depends far more on the players than the rules.

I agree with IA.
There are basicaly 2 types of game play, senario driven, and 'ballanced PV' driven.

If done well both types of game have reasonable levels of narrative, and competitiveness.

Games with well defined PV and provable levels of balance do not inhibit the narrative of the game.(Blood bowl is brilliant !!!)
And a strong inspiring senario does not detract from the level of competitivness of the players.

However,poor game development , can lead to horendous WTF moments,counter intuitive game chioces.That stop the narrative flow dead in its tracks.
And the same poor development can lead to over complication in the rule set .. making accurate costing very difficult.

40k is simpleysuffering from poor game development, that is excused by saying 'we are writing the rules for people who dont actualy play the games but just buy the cool looking minatures!'

Narrative is an excuse to not hire playtesters.

Negator80 wrote:Narrative is an excuse to not hire playtesters.

That's a silly statement that needs evidence if it's to be taken remotely seriously.

There are plenty of games that are designed or marketed to players who enjoy a narrative style game, that are heavily play-tested. Song of Blades and Heroes and Tomorrows War immediately spring to mind, but even as far back as Stargrunt 2 you can find games that are the result of much playtesting and tweaking that are not at all aimed at competitive players. Some don't even include points systems.

In MY experience i have found that 40k gamers fall primarily into two groups. THose that play to win exclusively and those that play for fun (ie. Less worried about winning and more concerned with fielding their grot militia).

The for fun gamers tend to be less concerned with winning than they are with having a good time. They approach the game with a totally different attitude. Take my freind Matt. HE only plays 1000 sons and followers of Tzneech. Going into a tourni he will suggest lists to me and i will fire back with changes that will make his list much tougher. His list usually only changes to be softer. He plays what he likes thematically (huge mobs of lesser demons). He is more likely to avoid conflict over a rule by saying "sure, lets just dice off for that" when clearly the interpretation of the rule is a bit of a stretch. He just wants the game to go well, winning is secondary to having fun and when he does win a tourni (which he often does) he has the air of someone who is a bit shocked.

THen i have a freind who named Chris. Chris trolls forums and blogs searching for lists and combos to give him an edge. He composes his lists with the sole intent of winning. When on the battlefield he watches every move closely and questions everything so he is constantly on top of your game. Every rule with the slightest bit of ambigutity gets trotted and he will spend as much time reading my codex during a game as i do holding it. His pleasure derives from controlling the game and winning.

I prefer to play more FUN based games with players like Matt than i do the tense stressful WIN motivated games with Chris. Matt plays because he likes the story, he likes the memory of his greater demon rampaging through my back line. He will remember grudgingly times when my units did the same. To him the pleasure of the game is evolved around the memories formes by the actions his units took on the battlefield while we interacted over the gameboard. Chris has fun crushing his opponent. I think he sees the game AS a game, where Matt sees it as a story.

My point being, both gamers are playing the game from different mental states. One plays the game almost entirely from the view point of trying to win and thinking constantly about winning. The other plays from the point of view that its just an unfolding of a story. The mental states in the game are different. I wouldnt say they are mutally exclusive but they have different goals in mind and they get very different things from the game.

sennacherib wrote:

In MY experience i have found that 40k gamers fall primarily into two groups. THose that play to win exclusively and those that play for fun (ie. Less worried about winning and more concerned with fielding their grot militia).

The for fun gamers tend to be less concerned with winning than they are with having a good time. They approach the game with a totally different attitude. Take my freind Matt. HE only plays 1000 sons and followers of Tzneech. Going into a tourni he will suggest lists to me and i will fire back with changes that will make his list much tougher. His list usually only changes to be softer. He plays what he likes thematically (huge mobs of lesser demons). He is more likely to avoid conflict over a rule by saying "sure, lets just dice off for that" when clearly the interpretation of the rule is a bit of a stretch. He just wants the game to go well, winning is secondary to having fun and when he does win a tourni (which he often does) he has the air of someone who is a bit shocked.

THen i have a freind who named Chris. Chris trolls forums and blogs searching for lists and combos to give him an edge. He composes his lists with the sole intent of winning. When on the battlefield he watches every move closely and questions everything so he is constantly on top of your game. Every rule with the slightest bit of ambigutity gets trotted and he will spend as much time reading my codex during a game as i do holding it. His pleasure derives from controlling the game and winning.

I prefer to play more FUN based games with players like Matt than i do the tense stressful WIN motivated games with Chris. Matt plays because he likes the story, he likes the memory of his greater demon rampaging through my back line. He will remember grudgingly times when my units did the same. To him the pleasure of the game is evolved around the memories formes by the actions his units took on the battlefield while we interacted over the gameboard. Chris has fun crushing his opponent. I think he sees the game AS a game, where Matt sees it as a story.

My point being, both gamers are playing the game from different mental states. One plays the game almost entirely from the view point of trying to win and thinking constantly about winning. The other plays from the point of view that its just an unfolding of a story. The mental states in the game are different. I wouldnt say they are mutally exclusive but they have different goals in mind and they get very different things from the game.

I actually find that most players fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes you present above.

I would agree as well, but it is easiest to illustrate the difference between to points, by choosing the best representatives of those two points that to try and illustrate the same difference without having some frame of reference to operate from.

I tend to fall somewhere in the middle, and i game with Matt, as well as Chris. Neither way of playing is wrong, but Matt and Chris derive pleasure from the game from two differing outlets. THey both like to win, but if Matt wins via the use of a tooled up list, he derives less pleasure than he would if his lesser demons arrived and somehow managed to overpower my assault terminator in melee to take a crucial objective. Chris derives pleasure from having the tools to control the game so that he can win. Neither way is the right or only way to play, they just have differing paths.

Now are you unable to have a narrative that is competitive. That depends. I think its possible, but the mindset is what creates an issue. The WIN mindset. The measure, calculate, weigh, watch, plan all with the goal of winning mindset often creates a atmosphere that can sometimes lead to a different tone within the game. When i game against Chris its usually a pretty tense affair. Can two competitive gamers have a really fun, narrative game. Sure i think that they can. Do competitve gamers set out to have a fun narrative is a better question.

sennacherib wrote: measure, calculate, weigh, watch, plan all with the goal of winning mindset often creates a atmosphere that can sometimes lead to a different tone within the game. When i game against Chris its usually a pretty tense affair..

I think those may be the magic words. When I game, it's generally to unwind. I enjoy the tense moments that occur when you don't know what's coming next, but I have exactly zero interest in gaming with someone who makes the game into a stress fest.

sennacherib wrote: Can two competitive gamers have a really fun, narrative game. Sure i think that they can. Do competitve gamers set out to have a fun narrative is a better question.

Two competetive gamers probably can, but it's probably not their priority and it's going to be hard for a gamer wanting a game where narrative is central to enjoy a game with someone for whom winning is central. When your opponent is constantly referring to codicies and rulebooks it can seem to go from being a game to being a legal business negotiation.

What it boils down to for me is this: I go to every game hoping that the player across from me has as much fun as I do. I have a hard time believing that such a player is as interested in making sure that I have a good time as they are at winning. Though I do admit it could just be a sever mismatch between their priorities and mine. It's possible they really believe that I derive as much enjoyment from the challenging of each others rules interpretations as I do from moving my figs and rolling for hits.

I don't usually post, but I keep seeing the same misconception and it's driving me crazy.
Competitive gamers do not care about winning. Winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.
Competitive gamers care about the competition, the challenge.

Competitive gamers want a game that is not decided from the beginning. They don't want an auto-win. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is decided by the players. They don't want the dice to do all the job. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is clear. They don't want to argue about rules. 'Cause that's boring.

That might not be what interest you in a game. Fair enough. But please don't confuse WAAC players and competitive players.
There's a difference, and WAACs are even further removed from competitive players than they are from non-competitive ones.

In fairness, I have tried to point this out several times, but it's just too convenient for the "You're playing the game wrongly! You're having the wrong kind of fun!" lobby to ignore it and proselytize their 'proper' way of enjoying games as the only alternative to being a Long Fang-spamming WAAC neckbeard.

mrondeau wrote:That might not be what interest you in a game. Fair enough. But please don't confuse WAAC players and competitive players.
There's a difference, and WAACs are even further removed from competitive players than they are from non-competitive ones.

Great post. I'm glad you made it.

I'm definitely a narrative gamer when it comes to 40k. But I feel the rules let me down in this regard. Probably because of model count. I like individual characters in terms of narrative and GW games just have too many models on the table for me that detract from the focus being on the characters I care about. So I stopped playing it and now get my narrative kicks out of using alternate rules sets like Blasters & Bulkheads which is all about big damn heroes. I also borrow from SuperSystem which is a super hero skirmish game which is even more focused on small groups of miniatures.

For army vs army, that's what my 6mm (epic scale) sci fi miniatures are for. And my 15mm (flames of war scale) sci-fi miniatures.

For competitive play, I play Warmachine/Hordes. It works well for it.

mrondeau wrote:I
Competitive gamers care about the competition, the challenge.

Competitive gamers want a game that is not decided from the beginning. They don't want an auto-win. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is decided by the players. They don't want the dice to do all the job. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is clear. They don't want to argue about rules. 'Cause that's boring.

I can agree with this. In my previous post I might have gone a bit far in associating competetive gamers with Rules Lawyers.
However...

mrondeau wrote:I don't usually post, but I keep seeing the same misconception and it's driving me crazy....
Competitive gamers do not care about winning. Winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.

I don't buy this for one second.

helium42 wrote:

How many pick-up games at the FLGS start with both players spending time to create a backstory before the game. Campaign-style games work when they are set up in advance or when played between a couple people over a period of time, but it just isn't possible when getting a pick-up game. It doesn't mean every pick-up game is a hard-core tournament style game by any means.

It does not always need to be time consuming. It can be as simple as choosing to only put forests or some other similarly themed terrain onto the table to create a "forest ambush" or "battle in the ice crystals".

Sometimes just doing this will lend itself to then using a certain scenario or deployment,etc. If a table has a river bisecting it and a giant bridge in the middle. The players could agree that all objectives must be placed on the bridge or the road on either bank representing a fight for the crossing aka "a bridge too far", etc.

Or if I have IG and my opponent tyranids we might say "hey look at this giant fort terrain piece. how about a Starship troopers style last stand? I'll get the fort and you get sustained attack", etc.

It is all about what two players want to do and what serves to crate a cinematic "what if" hat can then be played out. It is a shift in mindset from 40K having to be approached as a sport and a move towards expanding what the game can offer in terms of gameplay experiences...

Eilif wrote:

mrondeau wrote:I
Competitive gamers care about the competition, the challenge.

Competitive gamers want a game that is not decided from the beginning. They don't want an auto-win. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is decided by the players. They don't want the dice to do all the job. 'Cause that's boring.
Competitive gamers want a game that is clear. They don't want to argue about rules. 'Cause that's boring.

I can agree with this. In my previous post I might have gone a bit far in associating competetive gamers with Rules Lawyers.
However...

mrondeau wrote:I don't usually post, but I keep seeing the same misconception and it's driving me crazy....
Competitive gamers do not care about winning. Winning is irrelevant to competitive gamers.

I don't buy this for one second.

Why can it be so hard to believe that some competitive players prefer having a competitive game more than winning? The favorite game I have ever played was a game that I lost. It was very close and came down to a couple things happening that could either win it or lose it for me. I would rather lose every game like that than win a bunch of games that weren't very competitive, that were decided on turns two or three.

Close games are always the best. Losing sucks, but I always have fun when the end result of a game isn't predetermined and it could swing either way. I'll always play to win every game, but I don't have to win every game, I'm honestly content knowing that I have an equal chance at victory and that if I lose it's most likely because I was outplayed.