What is "narrative gaming"

[BluesPixie]

5 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

If it was anything like RAW or RoE there’d be different list for each game or indeed no list at all, for the final game of RoE18 my opponent and I just put everything we’d brought on the table, including two scratch builds that didn’t have Warscrolls. I think you’re struggling for a structure and definition which doesn’t necessarily exist in narrative gaming 

These were the models I took to RoE17

These are what went to RAW17

These (plus 10 Savage Orruks and 2 Big Stabbas) are what I took to RoE18

Oh my, I'd be so happy if you slapped those down across from me, a joy to play against!! ? Do you have an IG account I could stalk your hobby on? ?

[Ollie Grimwood]

40 minutes ago, BluesPixie said:

Oh my, I'd be so happy if you slapped those down across from me, a joy to play against!! ? Do you have an IG account I could stalk your hobby on? ?

That’s very kind of you to say so. I do most of my posting on Twitter as @gr1mmas stalk away ?

[gjnoronh]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I have to ask, if a narrative event is going on, and the players are showing up with highly optimized lists, are they not playing the game at a competitive level?

Why would you assume a narrative event isn't competitive?
It may not be designed for 'fair' competition.  But people try to win their games.  But they also may be trying to achieve other objectives beyond winning the tabletop game, or the game may not be designed to give both people an even chance at a win.   

Narrative doesn't assume lists are or aren't well designed, and certainly doesn't assume players aren't trying to win their games.

 

[Nin Win]

They just might have idiosyncratic definitions of "winning their game."

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

Why would you assume a narrative event isn't competitive?

Because a lot of people say things like you should take the things you normally wouldn't, or that you should make lists less optimized for winning.

Quote

you maybe don't really understand the mindset behind narrative gaming and that maybe the whole concept of playing a game and not focus on winning might seem odd to you.

Like the above.  If winning isn't the focus, I wouldn't consider it competitive.  But if winning isn't the focus I wouldn't expect optimized lists either.

[BluesPixie]

18 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Because a lot of people say things like you should take the things you normally wouldn't, or that you should make lists less optimized for winning.

Like the above.  If winning isn't the focus, I wouldn't consider it competitive.  But if winning isn't the focus I wouldn't expect optimized lists either.

You can TRY TO WIN without controlling all the environmental factors prior to the dice rolling starting. A real general rarely deploys his ideal force under ideal ground conditions. You may have two units of freeguild guard Vs 1500 points of Skaven with the narrative background of holding a vital pass... Just because the chance of victory is vanishingly small doesn't mean the player doesn't give it their best darn shot. 

[Backbreaker]

46 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Like the above.  If winning isn't the focus, I wouldn't consider it competitive.  But if winning isn't the focus I wouldn't expect optimized lists either.

AoS is competitive game by nature but aiming for victory doesn't mean it's the purpose of the game.

For example, I'm playing a desperate siege battle where I'm outnumbered. I will do everything I can to hold the ennemy hordes so that civilians can flee. I will loose the game but the result doesn't matter, it's how I will loose

I think that may be the key for you : Narrative gaming is not about winning a game but the game it self, taking pleasure in every actions your miniatures do under your command and by engaging with your "opponent/partner" to build a ... narrative !

[Dead Scribe]

You can build a narrative by aiming to win as well though.  

And this still seems very roundabout.

If we acknowledge narrative events are populated with players still bringing their tournament lists in, we can say that narrative events are also competitive in nature.  If players weren't interested in winning first and foremost, why would they bring tournament lists?

[BluesPixie]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

You can build a narrative by aiming to win as well though.  

And this still seems very roundabout.

If we acknowledge narrative events are populated with players still bringing their tournament lists in, we can say that narrative events are also competitive in nature.  If players weren't interested in winning first and foremost, why would they bring tournament lists?

I suspect this is because people who struggle to conceive of alternative ethos than playing the game by bringing a cheesy netlist and trying to table their opponent turn up without much care to the aim of the event and organisers opt to encourage participation in the right spirit without baking in restrictions to force people to tow the line. Again, listening to the Heelanhammer podcast this is exactly how I understand a large narrative event organisers post event analysis. 

[Somnicide]

I am doing a narrative campaign with my friend, and it has been a blast. We don't worry about points, the story evolves out of the game, and we are growing path to glory as we paint up our armies.

Game 1: He had to stop my Spirit Torment that had captured the soul of a Lord Celestant. I had to get off the table - lists were designed basically for that. SCE win the match, and recover the lock with his soul.

Game 2: The SCE all lightninged out (I know technically they don't, but it was narrative, so go with it), except for the lord arcanum on steed. He discovered this is why the nighthaunts didn't just vanish with the soul so he was left there alone. My ghosts came up from under the ground, but were leaderless. Narrative rules: he had "plot armor" where he couldn't be dropped below 1 wound, everything that did more just subtracted an attack before turn 3. On Turn 2 his dudes started lightning striking in. After that I could kill him and he just had to survive until turn 5. Nighthaunts won thanks to some lucky mortal wounds. The soul prize was recovered.

Game 3: His lord arcanum knew now that I had to leave through a realmgate, so we set up the table with the realmgate, his guys were in garrison of it. Our armies both grew, and additionally he had a free ballista. It was a tough fight, and hung on a single dice roll - the initiative on the last turn. The Nighthaunts won, and went through the gate.

Game 4: Different terrain set and table, now we are in the realm of death and heading toward nagashizzar to deliver the soul of a hero. The SCE get a free comet eternal spell on turn 1. His task is to recover the lock, and now we are both using the entire contents of the Soul War box and he has the bonus spell. The Nighthaunt objective is to wipe out 2/3 of his force. 

Game 5: hasn't been played yet, and the game will be determined by the results of game 4. But we are both already looking at our reinforcements for the next one.

It has been incredible fun for us both to play fully painted as we grow our new forces and play on fully painted and interesting tables. This has been narrative play and has been so awesome, that our group is looking into other narrative paths we can play.

[Backbreaker]

14 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

You can build a narrative by aiming to win as well though.  

And this still seems very roundabout.

If we acknowledge narrative events are populated with players still bringing their tournament lists in, we can say that narrative events are also competitive in nature.  If players weren't interested in winning first and foremost, why would they bring tournament lists?

Of course you can build a narrative during every kind of game, but its not the focus of the game itself outside of narrative game.

For example, if your ultimate goal is to win, playing a last stand mission where you have no chances of winning is pointless.  But narrative players will enjoy this because the end result doesn't matter.

An other thing you seem to don't really get :  list doesn't matter (I think, I let other narrtive players correct me). At least the optimization side of it. You are more going to pick units because you like them, because of a theme or because of the narrative already established for the game/event.

For example, an event could be about the siege of Hammerhall. Two factions, Order Vs Chaos and Death/Destruction can pick their side to keep a balance of players (it's a real example of an upcoming event). Because it's a siege battle, you will see war machine, less cavalry units, ...

You can find players who play units under their minimum size, or just play without points in an Open Play style. There is an event in France where participants show their lists to everyone, and they advise each other so games are  linked to the narrative of the said event.

[pseudonyme]

10 minutes ago, Backbreaker said:

Of course you can build a narrative during every kind of game, but its not the focus of the game itself outside of narrative game.

For example, if your ultimate goal is to win, playing a last stand mission where you have no chances of winning is pointless.  But narrative players will enjoy this because the end result doesn't matter.

An other thing you seem to don't really get :  list doesn't matter (I think, I let other narrtive players correct me). At least the optimization side of it. You are more going to pick units because you like them, because of a theme or because of the narrative already established for the game/event.

For example, an event could be about the siege of Hammerhall. Two factions, Order Vs Chaos and Death/Destruction can pick their side to keep a balance of players (it's a real example of an upcoming event). Because it's a siege battle, you will see war machine, less cavalry units, ...

You can find players who play units under their minimum size, or just play without points in an Open Play style. There is an event in France where participants show their lists to everyone, and they advise each other so games are  linked to the narrative of the said event.

Which event in France? Kind of interested ?

[BluesPixie]

1 hour ago, Backbreaker said:

An other thing you seem to don't really get :  list doesn't matter (I think, I let other narrtive players correct me). At least the optimization side of it. You are more going to pick units because you like them, because of a theme or because of the narrative already established for the game/event.

Agree here again, very much so. The background for the battle is the main determinant for me in which forces will take part. If the setting is atop a craggy and inaccessible mountaintop then I wouldn't take that Celestial Hurricanum. If it was in the middle of a swamp, then I likely wouldn't be taking cannon or a steamtank. 

[Kramer]

19 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

If it was anything like RAW or RoE there’d be different list for each game or indeed no list at all, for the final game of RoE18 my opponent and I just put everything we’d brought on the table, including two scratch builds that didn’t have Warscrolls. I think you’re struggling for a structure and definition which doesn’t necessarily exist in narrative gaming 

These were the models I took to RoE17

These are what went to RAW17

These (plus 10 Savage Orruks and 2 Big Stabbas) are what I took to RoE18

Very pratchett that turtle! Love it!

[Dead Scribe]

So you guys go to a narrative event with unoptimized lists knowing that you're going to be thrown up against optimized tournament lists?  

[BluesPixie]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

So you guys go to a narrative event with unoptimized lists knowing that you're going to be thrown up against optimized tournament lists?  

Of course I absolutely would. Why would I modify my behaviour for those who don't get it?

Although as I have said previously, the reason I don't attend narrative (or any) events is my strong suspicion that I couldn't avoid these people. 

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

So you guys go to a narrative event with unoptimized lists knowing that you're going to be thrown up against optimized tournament lists?  

You know what surprises me the most in this thread. You trow up the question 'what is narrative gaming'... If you don't get it or don't like it; perfectly fine and massive Kudo's in your interest just to see if your missing out on a part of the hobby.

But reading your responses it seems more and more that you are looking how you can turn the narrative part of the hobby into the 'all out, optimised list, competitive' part of the hobby. There is nothing wrong with liking the competitive aspects, but don't try to change the other parts into your preferred style. If you don't like it fine, but let it lie. This latest response is wholly from that perspective. People don't bring unoptimised lists knowing that they are thrown up against optimised tournament lists... They go to narrative events because they are looking for something else. A game where the story is more important, the fun comes from the game, the camaraderie and not the full blown competitive aspect. If you are looking for that hyper competitive game your are going to be disappointed, in the same manner @BluesPixie discribes in his response. 

One piece of advice and an anecdote to see if it helps you to understand my point.

1. Look for someone who wants to put the effort in to present you with a cool narrative set of games. Don't bring a list, let him/her decide for you. Follow their lead and after 3 games, see if it sticks. Don't like it, perfectly fine, but now you know. 
2. To take it out of this hobby and maybe give the discussion some perspective. I played hockey for about ten years at a competitive level. I practiced 6 times a week for the game on the 7th day. We had a team where we were very strict, always pushing it, always going for that competitive advantage, the optimised playstyle for the next opponent. In that team it was perfectly normal to get into arguments, call each other names, because it helped us be better, to improve. I hugely enjoyed it. We all did, we got our enjoyment from the competitive aspect of the game and of course still had a lot of fun off pitch as well. But there was a very distinct difference in behaviour on the field and off.
But in the off season, whenever possible, I played with the team my friends were in. A lower competitive level and a whole different way to enjoy the game. 

If I had brought my behaviour with me, not only would I have ruined my enjoyment of those games, worse still I would have ruined everyone else fun on the pitch as well.  There is no wrong or right. Just different ways to enjoy the same hobby. So make sure you have the same way of having fun as the rest of the people attending the event, or you and your opponent will both have a ****** game. And that's a waste for everybody. 

[Infeston]

Narrative gaming is very much a cooperative experience. You can bring the list you want, but your first thought for narrative gaming should always be "How do I make this game enjoyable and fun for my opponent". 

I think this might describe the mentality of narrative gaming the best. I think the difference between the mindset of a competitive player and a narrative player can be summarized like this:

Competitive: "How do I beat my opponent in the best way possible with minimal losses. The opponent player has to be defeated and my ultimate goal is to win"

Narrative: "How do I make this match or game the most enjoyable for my opponent and me. What interesting things could I do so that my opponent enjoys the match the most. My opponent is not my enemy, but instead he is my partner".

 

As I said before, if your mindset is already "I have to bring the best list to win this event" then you might have the wrong mindset for a narrative event. You can still bring your fully optimised list to an event if it is also fluffy or has fun mechanics. But I think you have to reflect about your intentions behind choosing this list. Do you bring this list for the sole purpose of beating your opponents? Or do you choose this list, because you think it will provide an interesting and fun experience for your opponent and because your opponent will have fun playing against you?

 

As many have said before, it has to do a lot with your own mindset. Especially if you are going to a narrative event with an extremely competitive mindset it could be that you will ruin everyone's experience you play against. 

[stato]

I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread now.  The OP asked about Narrative gaming but I think what he meant to ask about (based on further posts) was Narrative Tournaments, and how they work, and possibly how you win them?

Dead Scribe, i suggest you start a new topic, or just a clear post, about what you are asking. 

Are you wanting to play in a narrative event but only have your tournament army?

Are you asking how you win a narrative event?

Are you asking whats the best way to play in a narrative event?

Are you asking, whats the point of a narrative event if they use all the matched play rules and scoring is based on wins?

etc.

 

[Infeston]

11 minutes ago, stato said:

I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread now.  The OP asked about Narrative gaming but I think what he meant to ask about (based on further posts) was Narrative Tournaments, and how they work, and possibly how you win them?

Dead Scribe, i suggest you start a new topic, or just a clear post, about what you are asking. 

Are you wanting to play in a narrative event but only have your tournament army?

Are you asking how you win a narrative event?

Are you asking whats the best way to play in a narrative event?

Are you asking, whats the point of a narrative event if they use all the matched play rules and scoring is based on wins?

etc.

I don't know if he solely means narrative tournaments, if you look at his initial post. He asks about "narrative gaming" and "narrative events" in general:

On 8/29/2018 at 7:02 PM, Dead Scribe said:

I've seen this a bit and when I ask or get examples, it basically always comes down to competitive gaming but with a back story or something.  The NOVA has a narrative event going down, and it looks like its tournament style gaming with their back story behind it and some non official scenarios but with optimized army lists still.

What is "narrative gaming" exactly?  If all it is is adding some kind of back story to an army, why does narrative gaming need its own mode of play?  Can't you do the same thing with competitive/standard version of the game and just slap a back story on it?

As I understand his post he asks why does something like narrative gaming even exists if it is just competitive gaming with backstory. In short: "What is the purpose of narrative gaming?"

Also he mentioned someone from his group trying out narrative gaming. So I don't think it is solely about tournaments with a narrative focus, but more about narrative gaming in general. At least that is how I understood it. 

But maybe @Dead Scribe can clear things up. ? 

[Dead Scribe]

I suppose I am just thoroughly confused.  

I am asking specifically what to expect at narrative events.  Mainly because someone in our group wants to run one but does not want to have optimized lists in the event.  

But the narrative events I have researched all featured a lot of optimized lists in them.

Then I was told the point of the narrative event was the story, which is fine, but if that is the case why are there so many optimized lists in them based off of what I have researched and have been told about them.  

Which still leads me back to my base question that I asked above.  If a narrative event is not all about winning and is all about the story, then why are optimized lists seen still seemingly so much?  Otherwise they seem to be a tournament, or like a tournament, only with different scenarios you wouldn't normally see at tournaments.  

I'm asking that question because this is the round and round debate my group is having right now and no one has any good answers.

I've gotten so many different answers that the conclusion I am drawing is that ultimately the community does not really know what a narrative event entails and can be different things to different people, but the thing that the public narrative events have in common are that they use non traditional scenarios, and that optimized lists are still encouraged and allowed to be taken, and to me if I'm taking optimized lists, which I will always do, then there is a degree of competition also at narrative events, which is something that i like.  

Quote

Are you asking how you win a narrative event?

I'd say you'd win a narrative event the same as a touranment.  Bring your best list and play your best.

Quote

Are you asking, whats the point of a narrative event if they use all the matched play rules and scoring is based on wins?

I would say the point of a narrative event is to win your games using the best skills and army you can, but also be ok with non traditional scenarios that are telling a story.

Thats what I've drawn from this conversation

[Overread]

Here's the thing - building a good list is generally encouraged by most things in Warhammer.

1) It wins you games - or at least gives you the greatest chance to win games. Note that you can vary what the win is by objectives, killing, take and hold etc... But the key is that whatever the objective most people want to win it (or at least have a chance) so they bring a list which can win.

2) It's easier. Yes like it or not whilst there is some degree of skill in learning how to build a list; once you've learned it it is a lot easier to build a working list than just a "fluffy list" or a "bad list".

3) It's not a beginners game/against a known opponent. It's an event and thus you could be playing anyone. From Steve the beginner who started last week to Tom who is that guy who wins most games to Jill who just brings the same list every week because that is all she owns. 
Ergo the player has no idea what they are going to encounter and thus they build their list with the best possible chance to win against whatever might come around.

4) It's understandable. You can learn and understand what makes a good vs a bad list. You can work out that taking an army of all archers is probably a bad idea; fun but bad for most armies. Trying to work out what is "fun" and "narrative" whilst also is going to have half a chance to win is a nightmare. Especially since the concept of what a narrative list would be is kind of iffy at best. I mean if you were living in the world of Sigmar and you were a top general you'd be 100% taking the best of what you have to win each fight. You'd take the best warriors; the best combination; the most likely chance to win. And you'd likely cheat like crazy! Raiding supplies, night attacks, deception, heck you't certainly not spend ages working out the equivalent in points and ensuring that you took a matched army; you'd take as many troops as you could! 

 

In the end I don't think you will ever be able to run a single oneday event that is Narrative driven which has people bringing "fluffy/narrative" lists unless you impose specific restrictions. And the way AoS is balanced that might have to be based on specific factions. In the end it could get all kinds of complicated and could still end up with some armies having a distinct disadvantage or a perceived one. Even though its all in good fun its no fun to lose whilst thinking "the only reason I'm losing is my army is magic based and the silly rules for the event banned mages/wizards!" 

 

 

I think if you want narrative then there are OTHER ways to think about it and approach the game; including

1) Scripted/themed battles. Sieges, wandering monsters, npc armies, three or four or more people per battle etc.... Ergo you can't change that people will bring decent armies, so instead vary up the game itself. Put wandering monsters on the battlefield that cause issues; put three people against each other; make it a siege battle etc... Ergo change the game so that whilst its the same core concpet running underneath; there's different things happening on top.

2) A series of events. The most common being a "Growth" campaign where each game/week/month/biweekly meeting you allow people more points. If you wanted you could attach it to provinces and a campaign map so that certain units can only be recruited if players secure (win) various battles (this is better than giving more points as it means a losing player still gets access to the same number of points). Plus if you are Commanding the organisation you can throw wild-cards on top - ergo Player A has been losing every match and thus by game 5 still has only the core troops open to them; so you give them a boon that a reinforcement group joined up with them and thus allowed them access to different units. 

This kind of event is often done to help st art up a game club with multiple people joining in and getting new armies or boosting their own through the campaign. It's also partly scripted because you're limiting what can and can't be taken as well as how things advance based on their own setup and on how the games pan out. 

 

 

With narrative you've got to think like a DM in DnD and be creative in how you impose limits on your opponents without them seeing them as limits. You've also got to be as fair as possible to all factions. Whilst doing it this way you are encouraging people to be creative with their lists because of the limitations and rules of the game; rather than a wishy-washy "just bring a narrative army" which ultimately means nothing because its interpreted with such a wide variety that each individual person in a club can understand it differently. 

 

[rokapoke]

16 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I'd say you'd win a narrative event the same as a touranment.  Bring your best list and play your best.

The best analogy I have for this statement is to point to The Office (US), where in one episode Michael is revealed to attend a lot of improv comedy classes. His solution to every single scenario is to reveal that his character has a gun, because he sees that as the ultimate storytelling tool. 

Your approach to narrative gaming seems to mirror Michael Scott's approach. In that episode of The Office, Michael enjoyed those improv scenarios because they satisfied his needs/wants from the experience. The rest of the improv group, however, hated that approach.

What many of us have been trying to convince you of is that there are an infinite number of possibilities for a narrative game. Sometimes, playing an optimized list in a narrative game/event may be an enjoyable experience for everybody (sometimes, an improv scene with a gun can be hilarious). However, more often than not, it's better to work to meet the needs/wants of the entire group (both players in a 1v1 game, or all players at the narrative event). Play a list that fits everybody's story rather than altering the story to work with only your list.

Bottom line: when the only tool you're willing to use is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. And you'll ruin a lot of threaded fasteners that way.

[Dead Scribe]

Thats true.  But in this instance, there is only one person in our own group that wants to not use the hammer, and it would seem that that is a common situation otherwise I'd expect to see more restrictions in place in other public events, but I do not.  

I think I have reached the conclusion of this thread and thank you to everyone who participated!

[Ollie Grimwood]

This is the scoring break down from RAW17.  Winning games is much less important than the manner and style of gaming. 

Narrative list = weak list is a fallacy. A Narrative list is one that has a driving story behind it that fits a wider concept than “I’m going to win this game”.  If fact if the word “game” appears in your narrative it isnt a Narrative list. The army needs to perform according to this narrative as well so if your army is crusading Hero’s who ever turn their back to the fiends of Chaos there’s no retreating from combat because you happen to know the rules for Wrathmongers.   There’s also an overarching narrative to the Mortal Realms so a Narrative army should also fit with that, generally.