Narrative: Can One Go Too Far?

[Veillotron]

Hello,

 

Long-time lurker, only signed up last week… After a 25-year hiatus, I decided to get back into miniature painting, as a hobby to do with my kids. I had never played the game, but this time is different – my son was keen to play, and so we tried it and got into it. I have caught the ‘bug’, and I am currently building 2 armies at the same time (Stormcast and Tzeentch) - daunting and probably foolish, but this provides a little bit more diversity in my painting schedule, which I like.

So, still very much a NOOB game-wise.

The narrative games are the ones I enjoy the most – I thoroughly enjoyed watching Chris Peach’s Order army  take on Rob Crouchley’s Death army on Warhammer TV, the narrative element giving the game an added dimension and making a lot more interesting.

I probably have already invested too much time in coming up with the narrative for both armies, but the 4-5 pages of lore I have written suit me well, and I’ll love and enjoy my armies that much more – moreover, it support the specific look I am giving my armies. But that narrative gets closer to D&D in terms of personalisation than what Peach and Crouchley had going on (more light-hearted and fun; for example Rob painting the ghost of the beloved gryph-hound Archibal who got killed the week before).

Which leads me to my question: can one go too far when building the narrative for a team?

I would think that both players would need to know the back-story to fully enjoy a narrative game. But does the story becomes too long/detailed to share at one point? From an etiquette standpoint, does one risk being perceived as over-geeking / over-zealous / imposing himself when sharing his story?

Asking the question in another way: when I go to my local GW store to play games, am I better keeping the lore to myself, bring the 5-page print-out, or some other in-between approach?

 

Thank you in advance for the feedback...

 

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I find that you've gotta judge the player you're up against and what they're looking for. Some players just wanna play the game, others are more interested in the banter and social engagement, and others really want to weave a narrative.

Personally I have a very strong image of my army, what motivates it and the character of each unit. I imagine how they run, how they attack, but I know that a lot of people want to play it more like a more characterful game of chess, which is fine.

Personally I use Hinterlands as my narrative outlet as I'm running a nice, little campaign with that. 

[Haanz]

I think we're in a similar boat - I'm also building two armies, one Stormcast the other Chaos; I'm also very much a newbie from the game side of things (played about 4 games with a friend, all with my own miniatures); I'm also writing pages of background text and lore for each of my guys.

Take what I say here with a pinch of salt though, because like yourself, I too am new again to this after an extended hiatus (10 years on my part).

But I think, like most things in life, it depends.

Foremost, I would say that I think each player knowing each others armies' background is probably overkill. At least at the start. If you think about it from the perspective of your armies general, it's likely your army knows very little about your opponents army if this is their first clash. They might recognise some of the styles of troops and anticipate what to expect, but they don't know any of the specifics of their origins and exploits. That doesn't stop you from coming up with a reason for the battle, the where's and why's and stakes, particularly if you're both interested in narrative play. It's possible that if you play the same opponents more than once, and they too are interested in the fluff and narrative of it all, they might want to know more about your army - perhaps to write clashes with your army into their fluff and history, or maybe they're just curious, or excited about their own fluff and wanted to share and exchange thoughts and ideas. At this point, it can't hurt to have a printout of your fluff handy - and I think they'll be more interested in reading it and impressed by the depth of the material.

I think it's best to cover your bases, and while I full heartedly agree that it's a lot of fun figuring out themes and fleshing out characters - it gives weight to the modelling and conversions and can make fielding the army in narrative games a lot more fun - you should always write for yourself foremost. For others, keep it simple - maybe a five bullet points or a paragraph or two summarising what makes your army unique from a historical or motivational perspective - so that you can summarise if someone asks you without reciting 1000 years of history, but keeping your tomes of history handy is also fun. You never know who might be interested, but I guarantee they'll enjoy reading it a lot more as further reading than mandatory background to play a game or two. Start small and grow, there's undoubtedly a lot of information that's vital for you to play your army, but unnecessary to oppose it. Try and build a new narrative for your games together from cliff notes and recent history, rather than trying to fit it into a prefabricated timeline.

[Thornshield]

As with most things, moderation is key. Unfortunately, those who have the narrative bug tend to be overenthusiastic & will write tomes of backstory which not everyone would want to read unless it's digestible & well-written.

This hobby is also a hugely visual one. Conversions & paint schemes often convey the narrative quicker and better than a paragraph would.

My personal opinion would be to be able to give your army's flavour/story in a few sentences verbally, with a quick summary page which you can show to those inclined. And then let your modelled army plus your actions on the battlefield do the talking.

The full narrative is best kept on a blog/thread to link to, with battle reports etc and lots of pictures to keep it exciting and fresh.

[Veillotron]

Thank you for the responses and guidance, it is greatly appreciated.

Haanz, good luck in building your two armies!

 

 

[DinoTitanedition]

Why not go with a mixed approach? I do that most of the time and feel it to be working quite well. Your army can have smaller general story as a base, while charactermodels and units can each have an own story. Those you might bring up during the game verbally, to deepen the narrative feel of the army.

 

It`s multiple layers of story, which are touched upon, when the moment for it is right. The lowest layer is the general story of the army. A goal they follow, a purpose or "the motivation of their existence". The second layer is the units, which might have a specific name due to an occurence in their personal history. You might also want to try and play them according to their background. The third layer is the characters in the army, told when they live through keymoments of the game or for example facing off another character.

 

You might also leave the background of some units open and let it be told through the games you play. This way their story will evolve naturally.

[Veterannoob]

I think it's great you ask this question, shows you have the wherewithal our hobby needs  I love narrative and it's my clearly highest favorite form if play. That said, agree it depends on person. opponent or if for event the one ultimately you want to "grade" you,  I've GMed or various forms of this--DM/ST/etc.-- for 21 years & my players know I respect long fluff (over a page standard) but probably won't read it as I'm busy and my hobby isn't to read their novels. ?No problem, We all know. So they submit to the GM team/council but include a Kenny version of 1-2 paragraphs summary at the top. 

[Veillotron]

Thanks for confirming what is the hobby etiquette.

I will be taking the suggested approach - depending on who's my adversary, I can give a 30 second blurb on the lore, and play it by ear - if there is interest I can go further into details...

Cheers!

 

 

[Praecautus]

I have just started a narrative campaign with my son and his friends. I am taking on the gm type role with this and taking them through a story arc. To maintain suspense and to avoid overloading them i am drip feeding them the info a bit at a time. 

I suggest just taking part of the fluff, maybe the elevator pitch that can be fired off in a minute. If people are interested they will ask and you can provide. I found the denizens of my local gw to be interested, even the spectators, but they just wanted answers as opposed to a novel.

[HobbyHammer]

I agree with @Thornshield, narrative wise with someone who you haven't played before, I would let them know who the General is, his name, also pick one character or unit in your army and tell your opponent what their objective is for this game. 

Dont need to go into too much more of your lore until the beers after the game, let the game become the evolving narrative for the armies. 

[Criti]

Have you named each individual model and then no longer let them play anymore after they died (or, in the case of Stormcast, made them sit out a certain number of games while they are reforged)?

If the answer to that question is 'no,' you haven't gone too far.

If the answer is 'yes,' - shoot me a PM, I'll give you an address you can mail those dead models to.  I promise I'll give them a proper funeral.

[Wraith01]

At my local store we played the Path to Glory campaign from the Generals Handbook and we posted our narrative as it grew into a Facebook group. We first posted our starting warband with a simple backstory and fleshed out the story as the campaign took place. Sometimes both players would write the same event from their perspective and other times only one of us would write down how our battle went and what happened afterwards, leading into the next set of battles for next week. It was interesting and we all had written input into the story as it grew. 

[Veillotron]

@Criti not got to the stage of naming every model yet :-)

@Wraith01 makes sense, actually the best way to build the story (through actual gaming as opposed to all imagined)

 

 

[MacDuff]

When all your named characters name their weapons, you've perhaps gone too far. ;o)

[JontyGoesGaming]

Good discussion and some sensible suggestions. I did think about explaining my armies backstory (and asking for a synopsis of theirs) at the start of the game at Realmhoppers and decided against it. 

Personally, I have reams of background on my armies - it's just the way I like to add a bit of extra depth to the hobby, but I wouldn't go into a massive discussion about it with an opponent unless they asked. 

I think you need an 'elevator pitch' to borrow a marketing term - a sentence or two you can trot out easily that sum them up - if asked. Maybe treat your general as a special character. If I say I'm taking Teclis or Mannfred in a narrative game you instantly know who they are -  their motivations and reputation, and all from a paragraph or two in their army book. There's heaps more to dive into if you want but you don't need me to start on a detailed discussion of whether Mannfred hired Felix Mann to steal Vlad's ring during the seige of Altdorf. (He totally did)

Just be aware that narrative is as much fleshing the world out for your own benefit as much as sharing that worldbuilding with others.

Enjoy.