Losing narrative identity

[mmimzie]

I think the main problem that narrative open play has. Is that it doesn't draw crowds. I'm not saying i'ts not popular as i have no metric to back this up. What i'm saying is when i look at comments on the AOS Facebook page they are all match play, and when stuff like this karios change there is no out cry from this prospective. 

I think what is needed is 1 for a big narrative event or 2 for people to rally behind, and for people to be more active to show how your game play is being effected by matched play. Also for the request to be made to add "narrative or Matched play" taggs to some abilities so they could keep some of that cool fluffy stuff and not have it force your change in game play.  Though (joke in coming) i think the Change to karios' rules is quite fluffy. <.<.
 

I think one problem i have, and maybe GW folks have i dont know??? Is that i don't see the problem. Narrative/Open play are freer ways to play the game. So if you want to be able to change whatever on karios. Than, just do it??? I feel like narrative/open play isn't really the place where the rules will be nit picked or too closely gazed upon. So i guess thats where i fail to see this issue. I think it not being anywhere digital is kind of weird now though right??? Maybe GW should have a version slider for warscrolls??? To make it so you can use older versions for Narrative/open play purposes. 

[rokapoke]

11 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Maybe GW should have a version slider for warscrolls??? To make it so you can use older versions for Narrative/open play purposes. 

Regardless of open/narrative/matched play, I think this is a great idea! However, at this point we can't even get notifications when a warscroll that has previously been downloaded is updated, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

[AGPO]

I ran into a fair few "That Guys" before I packed in actively playing 40k and WFB. I don't think using points is "less mature" by any means. It's as good a balancing mechanism as any and lots of people ive met on the competitve scene play the game in a great spirit. I do however think that there are some *ahem* less socially aware individuals who use points as an excuse for playing the game in an anti-social manner. Bringing a "filthy" army to a friendly points based game gains some sort of legitimacy from the idea that as long as you work within RAW, you're not being unreasonable. Open play puts the responsibility for a balanced game that's fun for all squarely on the players. 

[Siegfried VII]

8 hours ago, wayniac said:

The limitations imposed on Matched Play make sense from a tournament point of view, but not elsewhere...

I disagree. There are many people who want matched play style in their gameplay whether they play also in their casual games, narrative games and even in their campaigns. Matched play is not only for tournaments and players attending them.

Also narrative games are not only for players who play in open play mode gameplay-wise.

[Jamopower]

I think that the new Tzeentch book and the narrative games in Warhammer TV are good indications that at least for GW, it's not all matched. There are lots of rules in the new book that don't make too much sense in matched play (like the tzaangor casting two spells, or all the stuff that generates new small units).

For me the WH TV narrative games represent the exact play style that I enjoy.  The armies are clearly about the same in points, but the limitations are kept open for cool things (like splitting horrors, or necromancers summoning new units), which work if the players won't purposedly exploit them.

[Kramer]

21 hours ago, AGPO said:

I do however think that there are some *ahem* less socially aware individuals who use points as an excuse for playing the game in an anti-social manner. Bringing a "filthy" army to a friendly points based game gains some sort of legitimacy from the idea that as long as you work within RAW, you're not being unreasonable.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. For me it stems from two misconceptions:

1. It's about winning as much as possible.
2. The points mean it's fair and so the responsibility lies with GW. 

I've said it before and i'll say it again. I like points. They are a great indication. With the campaign we are playing, we consistently break some of the rules because we don't like them but they are still a great indication. And if we don't have fun because one player keeps winning (even if it's just because of skill) we give the other player slight advantages to keep it challenging for everyone. As long as everyone has fun. 

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. For me it stems from two misconceptions:

1. It's about winning as much as possible.
2. The points mean it's fair

And so the responsibility lies with GW.  

I disagree with this. I think the responsibility lies with the players as GW are just giving you a tool set to play games with but some players take it to the nth degree. I can see why people think that points are fair but the issue is down to testing and both Privateer Press and 9th Age guys have done open testing and there are still issues.

Back on topic - Narrative play and my thoughts.

I don't think GW are ignoring it at all. If you get chance to, go to one of the GW open days and chat with the guys who make the pretty toys we like. They love narrative games (as well as all sorts of games). We get to see a narrative game each week on Warhammer TV and a good portion of the Age of Sigmar books are around narrative play. They also run events at Warhammer World for Narrative events, so it's not going to disappear. I think part of the problem is that matched play makes it a lot easier for people to get together for games and a lot of the focus on the internet (forums, twitter, facebook, podcasts, youtube), tend to lean towards matched play because this is what those people want.

[BaldoBeardo]

I think the responsibility lies with the players as GW are just giving you a tool set to play games with but some players take it to the nth degree.

Aaaaaaabsolutely! (Clap hands emoji's, etc. Etc)
Read the first page of the FAQ.
It states plainly that the rules are there, but you and your opponent have to agree on what works for you and amend as you see fit.
I don't think GW have ever put that sentiment so explicitly in any of their games.

Douchebags are not being given license by the rules, they are interpreting the rules as 'permission'.

This is absolutely, definitely not the same thing as a rules issue that crops up mid game, or Dave turning up with a hard counter list to play Doug.

All players have a duty of care for the overall enjoyment of the game for all involved, and GW expect you to approach it with that in mind.

[DarkBlack]

I see no reason that a competent design team can't make warscrolls that simply work in all 3 ways to play. Rules can be worded in a way that make it clear how they work in matched play (like specifying if a model brought into play is a new unit or not; instead of using words that are not clearly defined, like "replace"). More often than not this will have to be aimed at matched play, because the other 2 ways to play don't need the clarity.

Matched play will get more attention, because it requires more attention; competitive players need more"supervision" while open or narrative players can be trusted to not try to break the game and/or fill "gaps" with what sounds fun anyway.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think they'll need a ground-up standardisation of language to make it all work. On the other hand, am I the only one who feels that house rules aren't that strenuous to maintain? We have a house rule that any rule that allows you to add models to a unit is okay, so long as you're replacing slain models. Going over the initial amount costs points, but building back up doesn't.

I think the other thing, and I say this as someone running a Hinterlands campaign who also has done a few RPG groups, is that narratives don't scale well. Tournaments are great in that they scale from 6 players up to 6000 easily, you just need more tables, terrain, and overstressed TOs to manage it, but ultimately that is manageable as large tournaments show.

Narrative events are trickier. If you're playing for Narrative, you have an investment in the story that you ideally want to see something from. In that regard, making sure each faction gets fair cop is a juggling act. Even if you reduce it to Good vs Evil a la Eye of Terror, it can still have problems making sure both sides are happy. EoT was basically a tournament in terms of how it was organised without a tournament-style pairing system that had no prize. There was no "quest" aspect to it, if you get what I mean. You just played a scenario and they weighed up how many won vs how many lost.

[BaldoBeardo]

I think they'll need a ground-up standardisation of language to make it all work. On the other hand, am I the only one who feels that house rules aren't that strenuous to maintain? We have a house rule that any rule that allows you to add models to a unit is okay, so long as you're replacing slain models. Going over the initial amount costs points, but building back up doesn't.

House rules no - if everyone plays the same way in a group, after a while it's just "how you play".
But they key thing here is that a house rule is a deviation from the RULES[emoji769].

Some people don't want to do that, especially if they rely on PUGs or they are fanatical tournament attendees.

I'm very much in favour of house rules, but it definitely needs to start from both players having an unambiguous understanding of what they're deviating from.

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I disagree with this. I think the responsibility lies with the players as GW are just giving you a tool set to play games with but some players take it to the nth degree. I can see why people think that points are fair but the issue is down to testing and both Privateer Press and 9th Age guys have done open testing and there are still issues.

 

Oops, formatting defeated me. Curse my fat thumbs. It should have read:

2. The points mean it's fair And so the responsibility lies with GW.  (as in that is how people seem to feel)

Hence the epilogue arguing that people should claim responsibility and play how they have the most fun.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I think they'll need a ground-up standardisation of language to make it all work. On the other hand, am I the only one who feels that house rules aren't that strenuous to maintain? We have a house rule that any rule that allows you to add models to a unit is okay, so long as you're replacing slain models. Going over the initial amount costs points, but building back up doesn't.

 

We do the same. Works perfectly fine.

 

37 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

House rules no - if everyone plays the same way in a group, after a while it's just "how you play".

Aren't those house rules?  Even if they are unintentionally. 

[Turragor]

17 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I think they'll need a ground-up standardisation of language to make it all work. On the other hand, am I the only one who feels that house rules aren't that strenuous to maintain? We have a house rule that any rule that allows you to add models to a unit is okay, so long as you're replacing slain models. Going over the initial amount costs points, but building back up doesn't.

I think the other thing, and I say this as someone running a Hinterlands campaign who also has done a few RPG groups, is that narratives don't scale well. Tournaments are great in that they scale from 6 players up to 6000 easily, you just need more tables, terrain, and overstressed TOs to manage it, but ultimately that is manageable as large tournaments show.

Narrative events are trickier. If you're playing for Narrative, you have an investment in the story that you ideally want to see something from. In that regard, making sure each faction gets fair cop is a juggling act. Even if you reduce it to Good vs Evil a la Eye of Terror, it can still have problems making sure both sides are happy. EoT was basically a tournament in terms of how it was organised without a tournament-style pairing system that had no prize. There was no "quest" aspect to it, if you get what I mean. You just played a scenario and they weighed up how many won vs how many lost.

Good point about large event structure. I'd maybe run something that involves elimintations (end of your warband's story) and breaks to paint (reinforcements, brought base coated to alleviate any stress) and watch other games (stay up to date with the story) if that makes sense.

So the day begins with 10 tables 20 players, each striving to stay in the story to complete their quest. Losses are offset by the reinforcements (some performance metric for these maybe - like they have to look good enough I dunno, trying to tie painting in) but when your force is depleted, you're out and you can watch and ofc hobby (paint build) on the sides.

Maybe some lottery system for those out earliest that resurrects a part of their force as reinforcements in another table's game...

All in all, you're still right. Scaling that and managing it is much more work than a matched play event. The story (the point of being there) is usually better when it's under more control and more players equals more elements to tie together.

It would be so much cooler though from my pov.

[BaldoBeardo]

Aren't those house rules? [emoji4] Even if they are unintentionally. 

Sorry, got lost in my train of thought!! What I meant was that within a "closed" community - such as a specific group of friends or a gaming club - where interactions with 'outsiders' are extremely infrequent, they'll develop their own version of the game.
Whether this is by *conscious* houseruling - "Rather than rolling for mysterious terrain when it's set up, we roll when a model moves within 6 inches" - or by misinterpretation of the rules - " you can't pile-in if you didn't charge", over time these idiosyncrasies become the game, and the house rules (to you) are just the rules - whether you know they're a deviation or not.

[CoffeeGrunt]

47 minutes ago, Turragor said:

All in all, you're still right. Scaling that and managing it is much more work than a matched play event. The story (the point of being there) is usually better when it's under more control and more players equals more elements to tie together.

It would be so much cooler though from my pov.

Oh yeah, it'd be much cooler, but sadly more work as you noted. I've ran 12 man tournaments for 40K, and those are easy to run so long as you're dealing with functional adults. (Some grown-ups don't qualify for that and cause drama.) I ran a 12 person campaign and I ended up having to distill it down to effectively having no structured story because people wouldn't all be able to turn up for the events, and there was a risk in introducing a progression mechanic that those who lose early are then on the back foot from there-on.

Not to mention the awkwardness of justifying in fluff why the Black Legion, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Lamenters, Sisters of Battle and a few other factions are all fighting over a world, and fighting each other.

[Turragor]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Not to mention the awkwardness of justifying in fluff why the Black Legion, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Lamenters, Sisters of Battle and a few other factions are all fighting over a world, and fighting each other.

At the very least I feel like this is easier in AoS than 40k. I mean both are immense universes but AoS lore feels more malleable (perhaps due to its toddler-aged nature only).

[CoffeeGrunt]

Plus the fluff isn't as established as in 40K. For example, Black Templars and Sisters of Battle are totes bffs with mutual heretic burning parties. Gotta find a reason for them to fight, though. It's part of the reason I like playing Death. Death is always the antagonist.

I ended up expressing story by giving the players fluffy secret objectives to complete. The Dark Eldar had to beat three separate players to get a nice variety of slaves, the Chaos player had to kill Abaddon in a challenge with their Warlord, etc, etc. Made it quite fun. Especially when the Chaos player spent ages moving across the map to attack the Black Legion, lined up the game, was facing Abaddon with their Warlord, and then Abaddon charged some bikes and died to Bolter fire on Overwatch. As hilarious as it was, I ruled that the Chaos Gods would only be pleased by the warlord himself slaying Abaddon to elect him Warmaster, not if one of his cronies did it. 

[Kramer]

Ah, got it? @BaldoBeardo

[Menkeroth]

On 18.01.2017 at 3:32 PM, wayniac said:

3) Matched is the one people gravitate towards as it is "balanced" (or, rather, the illusion of balance) and as a result, is the assumed default because it removes the need to come up with a narrative that determines forces or simply decide what is or isn't fair.  As a result, for the majority of people Matched becomes the only way to play, because wanting to play Open or Narrative at best gets you a "Thanks but no thanks" from a prospective opponent, or at worst starts an argument over how Open is unbalanced and/or how a game can't be played without points.

The result is that Matched Play is bleeding into everything.  The FAQs are a perfect example, as I tried to point out in a threat specifically talking about tournaments before being told I was "off topic" for mentioning that Matched bleeding into everything is the entire problem, because it ends up affecting everything as a result of it being the playstyle the majority of people gravitate towards.  The limitations imposed on Matched Play make sense from a tournament point of view, but not elsewhere, and that is the entire issue: People are blindly applying restrictions to help corral tournament play into every game of AOS because Matched Play is always cropping up as the default, and it's Open and Narrative that is the outliers instead of it being the other way around, Open being the default, Narrative being encouraged and Matched being the exception when you want to reign things in a bit with a baseline set of guidelines.

1

This. Sadly it's an often situation and one of the major reasons FB died in the first place, and 40k is being reformed as the last years game wise it was in quite a horrible state. And now, when AoS moved away from what killed its predecessor, it's back and can easily lead to the same fate. Only that there are still 3 ways to play AoS retains its modularity and survives, but who knows how for long it will be, really. Not mentioning that this thread clearly shows that many people still don't understand that points are weak and ineffective way to balance things and in fact don't balance them at all, succeeding only in abusing the rules. There are many other methods, better as well, and many games utilize them, but thanks to GW from the past 90% people don't see anything but points and this "matched" play which is anything but matched. Glorious.

[Grimma]

...

[Menkeroth]

Not that great. It's one of the easiest ways to balance things, but one of the most ineffective as well, and it means players have to rely on somebody's judgment (GW in this case) how units perform on the battlefield, instead of balancing things themselves in order to be sure it is what they want and that the balance will be more or less obvious and fair. For example, how do we know that a unit of ogre bulls cost how they cost? maybe it's false. But when you want to play a game in which, say, 6 bulls will stand against a 10 or 20 or 30 goblins, you will know for sure what they do and how many enemies they will take with them. But this is harder and requires more efforts, so people rarely bother themselves with this.

[Killax]

Point costs are really just there to speed up army creation, it's a boundry but rarely dedicates how a local meta will shape up. Narrative and points are not conflicting with each other. What we however see is that both change constantly because the game will change constantly.

Changes that are made to game will both influence written narrative and written rules (of which points are a part). What we saw in the years of WFB and 40K is that narrative changes, which sometimes upsets people. We also see that WFB and 40K changed in their rules constantly, however, after a while (usually a year orso) nobody seems to care about the previous rulesset anymore (previous editions) and look forward to new changes.

So to form an opinion on this, narrative will not be lost, but it will change. Likewise rules will not be lost, but they will change. Even the moment a unit is depicted as a massive horde a minor cost change can mean that parts of that narrative will be lost. As an example, the Bloodreavers  in Bloodbound where initially depicted as massive hordes, there is still a horde aspect attached in the newer Blades of Khorne narrative but by comparison there is less focus put onto it.

In the same vein we see Bloodbound mentioning that every Khorne Axe is imbued with Daemonic Powers, due to the mix of Mortals and Daemons in Blades of Khorne this type of narrative largely changed. Now some Khorne Axes are imbued with Daemonic Powers and these are considered to be 'special' weapons instead of being the 'common' weapon. 

Be open to change, Age of Sigmar will not be a single edition game, much like WFB and 40K won't ever be. The prime reason for this is that Games Workshop grows and continues to be able to create more and larger models. This requires other rules for these types of models and as a result the rarity of a Titan by comparison to old 40K Narrative is changed/lost. Likewise we see the return of Primarchs to 40K, while previous editions of 40K narrative specifically mentioned that Daemonic Primarchs are an extreme rarity and loyalist Primarchs where either lost or death. All that will cease to apply soon.