Matched, Narrative and Open play

[yukishiro1]

Does anybody actually play narrative or open games? Honest question, the impression I get from the internet and my local scene is that it's basically 100% matched play, and at most people will relax the list-building restrictions a bit to accommodate something fluffy, but no more than that. When people run narrative-style games, even then it's still within the matched play rules. 

Again these are just my impressions so I'd be interested to see if they're correct or not. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Does anybody actually play narrative or open games? Honest question, the impression I get from the internet and my local scene is that it's basically 100% matched play, and at most people will relax the list-building restrictions a bit to accommodate something fluffy, but no more than that. When people run narrative-style games, even then it's still within the matched play rules. 

Again these are just my impressions so I'd be interested to see if they're correct or not. 

While we will use match points to help get the balance we were looking for pre-COVID our gaming group was mainly narrative style matches.  Outside of a few weeks in the fall where we’d practice lists for a local tournament we’d have some ongoing narrative.  COVID disrupted our Khorne narrative where Khorne Mortals and Khorne Daemons were competing to see who could secure  the most skulls for the skull throne that would’ve culminated in an 8k total points match at the end.

A highlight of one narrative was a unit of Swordmasters (pre-squat) that just kept surviving and thus earned a “regiment of renown” style buff as a result.  One opponent got so flustered by them that they committed the bulk of their Nurgle forces to just killing that unit in one game.

[Maddpainting]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Does anybody actually play narrative or open games? Honest question, the impression I get from the internet and my local scene is that it's basically 100% matched play, and at most people will relax the list-building restrictions a bit to accommodate something fluffy, but no more than that. When people run narrative-style games, even then it's still within the matched play rules. 

Again these are just my impressions so I'd be interested to see if they're correct or not. 

To teach players I use open game all the time. That way they can focus only on their units/army until they at least understand the basics before adding in everything else.

[yukishiro1]

29 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

While we will use match points to help get the balance we were looking for pre-COVID our gaming group was mainly narrative style matches.  

Yeah, that's what I mean. Even narrative games are just matched point games with some fluff stuck on top. 

I'm not sure I really buy the "three ways to play" thing. Everybody I know uses points and the matched play rules for everything, they just tack stuff on top of that for narrative purposes. 

I can see playing without points or objectives to teach people, though I'm not sure that's really an example of real open play either; what you do as a teaching exercise doesn't strike me as a real game mode, it's just a way to teach. 

Again I'm not trying to be confrontational here at all towards people who really play according to the actual narrative and open play rules, I just don't personally know any and they don't seem to have much representation on the internet either. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, that's what I mean. Even narrative games are just matched point games with some fluff stuck on top. 

I'm not sure I really buy the "three ways to play" thing. Everybody I know uses points and the matched play rules for everything, they just tack stuff on top of that for narrative purposes. 

I can see playing without points or objectives to teach people, though I'm not sure that's really an example of real open play either; what you do as a teaching exercise doesn't strike me as a real game mode, it's just a way to teach. 

Again I'm not trying to be confrontational here at all towards people who really play according to the actual narrative and open play rules, I just don't personally know any and they don't seem to have much representation on the internet either. 

I guess to help clarify using the points to balance doesn’t mean always two evenly pointed armies with some fluff stuck on top.  For example we had one narrative match which took place at the field hospital the Swifthawk Agents had set up after taking so many casualties in the prior battle.  A new infection at the hospital attracted Nurgle’s attention and a Great Unclean One and his minions were sent to collect it.  

The intent was for it to be unbalanced with Nurgle having a stronger force but the Aelves having the benefit of being entrenched (giving them +1 Saves) and a chance each turn to potentially heal a unit and bring it in as a kind of reinforcement.  The obvious question then was by how much Nurgle should out weigh the Aelves?  We ball parked it at ~300 pts above expected reserves entering game.

Another example was a personal favorite “Sky Cutter Down” where a Sky Cutter had crashed in a Sylvan Grove.  The crash had attracted the attention of the Spiderfang Tribe and its bevy of Arachnarok Spiders and Spider Riders who now assaulted the Grove.  At the start of game there was ~1k of Sylvaneth on table and 1.5K of Spiderfang.  Each side also had a table of six units.  At the end of each turn the player ( through the first three rounds) would roll to see which unit was going to come on and which of the three board edges it would come from.  We reversed the ratios of points for these reserve tables BUT  across the six options points were very un equal so maybe the Spiderfang would get a Rogue Idol or maybe they’d get a small block of Stabbas... for Swifthawk the balance was generally between a unit likely to be able to get to the grove faster such as another Sky Cutter or a slower but potentially more powerful unit?

Again, in both cases points were helpful but not definitive.

[EMMachine]

I think you guys aren't even searching. You find so much stuff when you search on youtube for "path to glory age of Sigmar"

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=path+to+glory+age+of+sigmar

And this is a narrative campaign mode that doesn't use points (and instead tables with predetermined unitsizes where you either roll randomly or choose your units).

Edited February 4, 2021 by EMMachine

[NinthMusketeer]

Once in a while I'll have a random one-off game that is matched, but on a week-to-week gaming bases (pre-covid) we were only doing narrative. We started off alternating between matched play and path to glory which lasted for one cycle before everyone agreed we wanted to just do path to glory leagues instead*. Once Warcry came out we shifted to alternating between PtG and Warcry campaigns. There's another guy who sometimes runs traditional matched play leagues in addition to the normal game night but they have never had the same kind of participation the narrative ones do. Most matched play happens during the short break between leagues or to do tourney practice if there is a big one coming up (SoCal Open and LVO).

Transitioning away from matched was the best hobby decision I ever made since deciding to devote myself to Nurgle. So much less stress when I can look at all the imbalances, have a decent chuckle & shrug because they aren't something I have to deal with.

*Each league I'd be adding a few more house rules to smooth out rough edges of the system, and that eventually evolved into Road to Renown which we have been using for some time now.

[Greybeard86]

I think your initial message, OP, captures the feeling of a lot of people in the hobby very well.

• Competitiveness as in using armies that are functional in the "battlefield", and in playing to "win" the battle.
• Desire for balance to provide fun challenging battles for both sides.

Together  with an appreciation of the hobby and the fluff.

But not the current style of "tournament" winning competitiveness, involving constant meta switching, nor the policy of rapidly changing points and rules that completely change the way reasonable armies look. 

The hobby requires stability, the current approach is all but that.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

14 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, that's what I mean. Even narrative games are just matched point games with some fluff stuck on top. 

I'm not sure I really buy the "three ways to play" thing. Everybody I know uses points and the matched play rules for everything, they just tack stuff on top of that for narrative purposes. 

I can see playing without points or objectives to teach people, though I'm not sure that's really an example of real open play either; what you do as a teaching exercise doesn't strike me as a real game mode, it's just a way to teach. 

Again I'm not trying to be confrontational here at all towards people who really play according to the actual narrative and open play rules, I just don't personally know any and they don't seem to have much representation on the internet either. 

This is kind of what I was talking about in my opening post: I don't think we should view using points as the sole defining characteristic of matched play (and conversely should not view the absence of points as the definitive of narrative play, or even open play).

I think it's fair to say that if you don't use points, you are probably not playing matched play. But I also think there is more to matched play as a game mode. For example, using symmetrical battleplans. And, if we want to contrast the game mode with narrative play, the fact that each battle takes place in isolation.

I personally see myself as mostly playing narrative games. I very rarely roll for random battleplans for example. Usually, for people I regularly play with, we decide on a battleplan ahead of time, taking the outcome of the previous battle into consideration. Sometimes they are just the symmetrical matched play plans, but they can frequently be asymmetrical scenarios like sieges or ambushes as well. Usually, these games will still be at point parity, but often the two sides have different victory conditions.

Really, there is no reason that narrative and matched play should be though of as opposites. More likely, you are going to be using matched play mechanics to shape your narrative games. Matched play is probably the more restrictive format, where you generally come to the table with the expectation that both players should have the same points and goals throughout the battle. But of course, that's also just what we decided. Matched play could mainly consist of asymmetrical battleplans if that's what we/GW wanted.

But there is little reason to assume that narrative play should be restricted to not include those features characteristic of matched play. If anything, narrative seems like the more permissive format, where you get to do anything you are allowed in matched play and more. I think by default, we all usually want games where each side has an about equal chance of winning if they play smart, so I don't think it's surprising that most people play their narrative games at matched play point parity.

Finally, as for open play not really being it's own game mode, I think that's pretty fair. I see the "support" of open play as similar to the inclusion of "rule zero" in role playing games: An official endorsement that it's your game and you can play it however you like. Of course, nobody needs to give you that permission in the first place. But it's good to have it explicit, so that it is part of the shared expectations of what is the "right" way to play the game.

 

[yukishiro1]

Right, that's kind-of what I'm saying. I don't think there really are "three ways to play." There's basically matched play, plus whatever modifications people want to make to it to suit their group - which is totally fine and valid, I'm not for a minute saying that isn't an awesome way to play, just that it feels like a bit of an exaggeration to describe it as a fundamentally different ruleset.

I'm not sure it's a distinction that's hugely important for players, but I do think it is important for GW to realize when it's designing the game. It's presumably a lesson they've learned, however, given what a fiasco early AOS was. I think at this point the "three ways to play" thing is just kind-of a tagline they maintain for the sake of not admitting it was a bust, the same way that 40k has PL on paper but in fact you almost never see it (yes, now someone will show up to say they play 40k with PL and that's fine, but it's super in the minority for how most people play). 

[NinthMusketeer]

I have really liked the three-ways-to-play categories, they are great for sorting different 'content bundles' to give an idea of what they will be good for. Obviously players are free to adapt things and be flexible, but at the same time matched is more structured--when people play matched they are generally using all of those rules without inclusion of other elements, and the rules are designed with that in mind. Open and narrative are generally more flexible and presented in a 'here is the tool and you can decide how to use it' fashion like the Anvil of Apotheosis. By having the divisions GW is able to neatly inform up about the design intent behind a given piece of content.