Narrative games for dummies! (Help wanted)

[KnightFire]

53 minutes ago, wayniac said:

100% agree.  I also, despite liking narrative, find it very difficult to just ad-hoc things midway into a game without one or both players feeling like their choices are being taken from them (similar to "railroading" in RPGs where you feel the GM is making your character's choices for them).  I don't know many people who would accept, for example, an arbitrary decision to let their opponent get reinforcements because they are handily winning, doubly so if there's a third party (i.e. a GM) making the decision.  Most people I have seen over some 20 years gaming want the narrative to remain in the background, not influence the game itself.  The narrative is the reason why you are fighting, not extra rules that get thrown in during the battle.

I guess it depends a lot on the maturity of the players, and what they want out of the game. If one player isn't happy with the concept that reinforcements may turn up if they are winning too hard, it sounds like their main objective (and enjoyment) is in winning the game, in which case an approach which is further down the spectrum towards matched play may be more appropriate (e.g. agree points levels before the game to ensure its vaguely in the right direction). 

I have never had any problems adding reinforcements to games that were one sided because the people I play narrative games with tend to be looking for a fairly even game that fits within the narrative we have created, but many of the players I am playing with were playing Warhammer before points arrived (I don't mean AoS 18 months ago, I mean early warhammer fantasy battle in the 80s).

[Old Stonebeard]

Now, this here's an interesting topic I've quite enjoyed reading through. My two cents, for what they're worth:

   Narrative Play is a stumbling block by its very nature, because it is what you make of it. Right now, I'm running a ladder league at my FLGS. I've intentionally kept a strong narrative out of it: the purpose of the league is to attract new players and grow the local scene by demonstrating AoS at a small, accessible level. Because we don't have access to very much terrain, I haven't even set the league in Shadespire proper; we're just playing random encounter skirmishes where-ever in the Mortal Realms.

   When one of my mates saw I brought a Grundstok Thunderer with my Fyreslayer warband, he says to me, "I'm all about keeping a theme in my armies." So I tell him, while I'm measuring movement and rolling for run distance, that I took a Runeson instead of a Grimwrath Berserker because it makes more sense for a Runeson to be out seeking glory than a Grimwrath- even though, by renown values, the Grimwrath is far and away a stronger choice. I go on to elaborate that I've brought two Hearthguard, which represent the Runefather sending a small detail to protect his offspring, as well as a number of Vulkite Berserkers, which are from this Runeson's fyrd, and probably extended family- cousins, perhaps, or maybe even his own sons.

   Then I point out, the Grundstok bears the red and white of Barak-Thryng, the most conservative of the Skyports, who keep the old gods Grungni and Grimnir. Of all the major Skyports, they're the most likely to offer their Grundstok mercenaries to a Fyreslayer lodge at a very competitive rate. So, even though the league itself isn't narrative-heavy at all, I've chosen to field a themed warband for myself in lieu of a stronger WAAC composition. 

Again, Narrative Play is really what you make of it, no more, no less.

- Alex

[vesuvias]

I am sorry. Maybe I am a power gamer or maybe I am too much engineer. I totally get playing for fun,  and completely agree when designing rules and systems for fun always.. ALWAYS trumps mechanics. But it is hard, real hard for me not to look at narrative play and think the designers were just too lazy to design a balanced system. Points are great but even they seem to be a bit lacking when it comes to real balance. 

So narrative is supposed to be more "roleplay" and less "powergame", sure I get it. I totally understand this draw but this is a fuzzy line that is drawn arbitrarily.  Why declare minor or major victories at all in these cases. If its all about the story its doesn't really matter who wins or loses so why not decide at the start of the game who plays the winner and the who plays the loser. Because honestly if someone is bringing 1000 more points to the table you've already done that. Why are some rules/dice roles/procedures gospel and others are acceptable to be sacrificed to the story element gods because the winds of story blew in a different direction? This just seems a bizarre and overly positive kid-like outlook "lets just play, everything will work out :)!!!". Great sentiment in theory but horrible plan in practice.

I know this sounds power-gamerish but its not that the competitive aspect of the game trumps everything, its that this game is at its core a tabletop wargame, not a tabletop RPG. If it was an RPG then one player would need to be the GM and they could control balance directly. Besides which most of the narrative of this game revolves around competition (one general versus another). The game is better served if we balance the sides in terms of victory conditions. Note I am not suggesting that sides can't be asymmetric, quite the opposite. I am stating that victory conditions need to be balanced in terms of player expectations. If one player out numbers/out points/has an easier path to victory than the other player, expectations so be set to understand that. If you're out-numbered 10 to 1 then surviving to round 3 should be a major victory, etc.

Narrative scenarios need to reflect a balance in terms of victory expectation just as much as pitched battles do, otherwise you're both just rolling dice together. Min Maxxing is a destructive practice that destroys games precisely because it exploits the holes in unbalanced game mechanics. It violates the "spirit" of a competitive narrative but it is as much a problem of the rules as it is the mentality of the gamer. Saying that the rules balance doesn't really matter anyway just doesn't seem like a correct approach to the problem. 

 

[chord]

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

 Why declare minor or major victories at all in these cases. If its all about the story its doesn't really matter who wins or loses so why not decide at the start of the game who plays the winner and the who plays the loser. Because honestly if someone is bringing 1000 more points to the table you've already done that. 

I've found the best narrative battleplans are the ones that redefine victory .  This mirrors the real world pretty well.

If the battleplan is hold out for as long as possible to allow your forces to retreat, then you are probably outnumbered and gonna get your face smashed but in the grand scheme of the story those forces ended up losing the battle but helped win the war.

 

[BunkhouseBuster]

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

I am sorry. Maybe I am a power gamer or maybe I am too much engineer. I totally get playing for fun,  and completely agree when designing rules and systems for fun always.. ALWAYS trumps mechanics. But it is hard, real hard for me not to look at narrative play and think the designers were just too lazy to design a balanced system. Points are great but even they seem to be a bit lacking when it comes to real balance.

Bear in mind that when Age of Sigmar was released, there were no points values assigned to any of the units.  While a novel concept for players of Warhammer (and its competitors), it is nothing new for classic historical wargames.  Back in the day, you would bring a force equivalent to what the historical forces had, and see if you could recreate it or see what could have been done differently.  Points are not necessary to play the game.

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

So narrative is supposed to be more "roleplay" and less "powergame", sure I get it. I totally understand this draw but this is a fuzzy line that is drawn arbitrarily.  Why declare minor or major victories at all in these cases. If its all about the story its doesn't really matter who wins or loses so why not decide at the start of the game who plays the winner and the who plays the loser.

Sometimes the story is ongoing, and who the victor is in the battle can change the scenarios in later games depending on the scope of the narrative, such as if it is being played in a campaign over a long time span.

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

Why are some rules/dice roles/procedures gospel and others are acceptable to be sacrificed to the story element gods because the winds of story blew in a different direction? This just seems a bizarre and overly positive kid-like outlook "lets just play, everything will work out :)!!!". Great sentiment in theory but horrible plan in practice.

First off, I really hope you aren't dismissing children involved in wargaming and complaining about "kid friendly" games, because if you are, it is tiring to hear as my step-daughter does enjoy wargaming, both painting and playing.  I really wish people wouldn't take "kid-friendly" to mean dumb and worthless.

Second, it is to come up with a new experience.  Ever played a survival game mode on a zombie shooter game before?  Or a multi-player deathmatch or capture the flag in an online FPS?  Those modes do not always use the same rules and options as the standard version of the game, do they?  Sometimes it is for a change to the game for something new and different, or purposefully handicapping yourself for a challenge, or writing up a scenario just to see what happens.  Or to put another way, we are tired of the same 6 missions from Matched Play and want to try something else.

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

I know this sounds power-gamerish but its not that the competitive aspect of the game trumps everything, its that this game is at its core a tabletop wargame, not a tabletop RPG. If it was an RPG then one player would need to be the GM and they could control balance directly. Besides which most of the narrative of this game revolves around competition (one general versus another).

You are mostly correct, but both RPGs and wargames have something in common: they are GAMES.  One is playing a general leading an army, the other is playing a character on an adventure, but each are games played for fun.

I and others have mentioned in other places that having a GM would be a good idea for a Narrative event, in particular a campaign.  If nothing else, having one person being in charge of planning events and the story makes it easier for others to participate if they don't have to worry about that aspect themselves.  In every Narratvie campaign I have been involved in, one player was the GM, and either played as a player and used the same (or somtimes harsher) limitations on himself, or played the "NPC" faction in a manner similar to a traditional RPG.

Think of Narrative games as the in-between of RPGs and wargames.

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

The game is better served if we balance the sides in terms of victory conditions. Note I am not suggesting that sides can't be asymmetric, quite the opposite. I am stating that victory conditions need to be balanced in terms of player expectations. If one player out numbers/out points/has an easier path to victory than the other player, expectations so be set to understand that. If you're out-numbered 10 to 1 then surviving to round 3 should be a major victory, etc.

And that is a perfectly valid option, one out of many potential fun to play scenarios.

11 hours ago, vesuvias said:

Narrative scenarios need to reflect a balance in terms of victory expectation just as much as pitched battles do, otherwise you're both just rolling dice together. Min Maxxing is a destructive practice that destroys games precisely because it exploits the holes in unbalanced game mechanics. It violates the "spirit" of a competitive narrative but it is as much a problem of the rules as it is the mentality of the gamer. Saying that the rules balance doesn't really matter anyway just doesn't seem like a correct approach to the problem.

Just rolling dice?  That sounds just like the time I heard someone say that the game is "an exercise in removing models from the table" as an excuse not to play larger scale, non-competitive games.  Narrative games are games played with a different expectation of player experience, not necessarily a different victory condition - why else would (sensible) people play as German forces in World War 2 games?

I agree, min-maxing is not good for the game.  In that same vein, I also am not worried about "points efficiency" or "optimization" in my armies, because that leaves a bad taste in my mouth based on previous experiences.  But as @Auticus mentioned, min-maxing occurs in D&D and RPGs on a regular basis.  Because some players are stuck in the "gamer" attitude that victory is all that matters, when it is not the point of the game.  Back in old school D&D, a Wizard got 1d4 Hit Points at first level to represent their frail nature, and negative hit points were not a thing either (you hit zero, your character is dead).  Games were much more challenging back then, and that challenge is not there when you min-max your character or army to have the maximum advantage all the time (at least, until the GM or campaign organizer brings in a challenge).

Narrative games take effort to construct and play and figure out, while competitive games are pre-made and ready to pick up and play.  Matched Play and competitive games are ordering food off of a menu, while a Narrative game is a home-cooked meal made by a family member.  One requires effort and love to prepare and clean up, the other is handled by other people for a quicker, consistent experience.

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

The problem is that that concept is alien and in some cases downright hostile to others of today's gaming culture.

Part of the problem is that "game theory" is a lot of times "winning theory" and not "playing theory".  People take things way too seriously and don't think about other the other players in their games.

[BunkhouseBuster]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

Correct sir.  But that is also part of the culture.  The expectation is I'm coming to the table to pwn you and I expect you to be doing the same.

And that is the exact reason I quit playing Warmahordes.

[vesuvias]

4 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Bear in mind that when Age of Sigmar was released, there were no points values assigned to any of the units.  While a novel concept for players of Warhammer (and its competitors), it is nothing new for classic historical wargames.  Back in the day, you would bring a force equivalent to what the historical forces had, and see if you could recreate it or see what could have been done differently.  Points are not necessary to play the game.

While I understand this AoS is a different game than those traditional games. Those games were often played while in the confines of a scenario that recreated a historical battle of some sort. Both players went in with an expectation of what their outcome might be (ie I am playing the south in this battle, they are outnumbered and outflanked, historically they lost, I know I have an uphill battle). While a Narrative may emulate a similar one side is greater than the other battle, both players should know what they are getting into and what to expect in terms of the other armies power. This is much harder to do in AoS especially if you're playing with new players or against units you haven't seen before. This is why balance rules are so important, they codify the language you would need upfront to set proper expectation on both sides.

 

4 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

First off, I really hope you aren't dismissing children involved in wargaming and complaining about "kid friendly" games, because if you are, it is tiring to hear as my step-daughter does enjoy wargaming, both painting and playing.  I really wish people wouldn't take "kid-friendly" to mean dumb and worthless.

Second, it is to come up with a new experience.  Ever played a survival game mode on a zombie shooter game before?  Or a multi-player deathmatch or capture the flag in an online FPS?  Those modes do not always use the same rules and options as the standard version of the game, do they?  Sometimes it is for a change to the game for something new and different, or purposefully handicapping yourself for a challenge, or writing up a scenario just to see what happens.  Or to put another way, we are tired of the same 6 missions from Matched Play and want to try something else.

No I certainly wasn't disparaging or discouraging play by children I simply meant to communicate naivety. On the contrary I applaud you for exposing younger children to the complexity of wargaming (darker aspects of the world beside) I hate the common assumption that a kid is not able to grasp a complex set of rules.  

I fully understand the desire for lots and lots different scenario types and the idea that some or even most of those will unbalance sides. But if sides are unbalanced to fit the "game" aspect that needs to be successful communicated to the players of the scenario. This is really my biggest point, points provide a very simply way to successfully communicate game expectation in terms of outcome. If I am out-pointed its easy to understand that going into this fight I am likely going to lose. Its an uphill battle. That is still fun, I can accept the challenge. But it makes all the difference in the world for both players to know this upfront, than for one of the players to realize half-way through that they were out played by army-choice because the DEFAULT expectation (unless otherwise stated)  that our battle is balanced.

4 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Just rolling dice?  That sounds just like the time I heard someone say that the game is "an exercise in removing models from the table" as an excuse not to play larger scale, non-competitive games.  Narrative games are games played with a different expectation of player experience, not necessarily a different victory condition - why else would (sensible) people play as German forces in World War 2 games?

I agree, min-maxing is not good for the game.  In that same vein, I also am not worried about "points efficiency" or "optimization" in my armies, because that leaves a bad taste in my mouth based on previous experiences.  But as @Auticus mentioned, min-maxing occurs in D&D and RPGs on a regular basis.  Because some players are stuck in the "gamer" attitude that victory is all that matters, when it is not the point of the game.  Back in old school D&D, a Wizard got 1d4 Hit Points at first level to represent their frail nature, and negative hit points were not a thing either (you hit zero, your character is dead).  Games were much more challenging back then, and that challenge is not there when you min-max your character or army to have the maximum advantage all the time (at least, until the GM or campaign organizer brings in a challenge).

Narrative games take effort to construct and play and figure out, while competitive games are pre-made and ready to pick up and play.  Matched Play and competitive games are ordering food off of a menu, while a Narrative game is a home-cooked meal made by a family member.  One requires effort and love to prepare and clean up, the other is handled by other people for a quicker, consistent experience.

I totally agree with and think your concept of "themed" armies should be encouraged (even in comptetive play). The fact that you must sacrifice efficiency for theme is an indication that the point system has holes in it or is at least flawed in some way. Points are the fast, easy "approximation" of balance. We know some armies are weaker than other armies despite being the same points. Some players think these "holes" in the point system are part of the game, exploiting them is part of your job and an indication of your skill level as a general. I disagree with this mentality. I have and always will view them as unintended balance holes in the rules.

AoS is a huge game world with 1000's of unit types and configurations. It is probably impossible to get it fully balanced without it losing the vast amount of unit types we have. But I think there is a danger and giving up entirely on any attempt a balance. I Just think all they effort put in for constructing a narrative, some effort should be allocated for attempting to communicate what the outcome expectations are for most players. Are you fighting an uphill battle, or are you on the side that 9 times out of 10 you're going to wipe the other side out. Having both players know this at the outset is crucial, points (despite its flaws or holes) or some equivalent method is probably the easiest method to "communicate" this.

4 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

Part of the problem is that "game theory" is a lot of times "winning theory" and not "playing theory".  People take things way too seriously and don't think about other the other players in their games.

I think competitive games are easiest to understand so given no other information this is the default modus operandi. If you are going to play an unbalanced narrative scenario make it clear that it is unbalanced so that expectations will be properly set. Some players will invariably not want to play this way. But communicating effectively that "hey your playing custer, you're likely to lose badely. If you make it to round 6 with even one model left you've won a major victory.", makes the game fun even if you lose. I just think all of this communication is better when codified in rule form than handshake form.

 

 

[BunkhouseBuster]

3 hours ago, vesuvias said:

...

This is why balance rules are so important, they codify the language you would need upfront to set proper expectation on both sides.

...

I fully understand the desire for lots and lots different scenario types and the idea that some or even most of those will unbalance sides. But if sides are unbalanced to fit the "game" aspect that needs to be successful communicated to the players of the scenario. This is really my biggest point, points provide a very simply way to successfully communicate game expectation in terms of outcome.

...

I Just think all they effort put in for constructing a narrative, some effort should be allocated for attempting to communicate what the outcome expectations are for most players. Are you fighting an uphill battle, or are you on the side that 9 times out of 10 you're going to wipe the other side out. Having both players know this at the outset is crucial, points (despite its flaws or holes) or some equivalent method is probably the easiest method to "communicate" this.

I think competitive games are easiest to understand so given no other information this is the default modus operandi. If you are going to play an unbalanced narrative scenario make it clear that it is unbalanced so that expectations will be properly set. Some players will invariably not want to play this way. But communicating effectively that "hey your playing custer, you're likely to lose badely. If you make it to round 6 with even one model left you've won a major victory.", makes the game fun even if you lose. I just think all of this communication is better when codified in rule form than handshake form.

You hit the nail on the head there!  It's all about communication in setting up a Narrative game.  Many players, particularly aren't interested in the effort of organizing something before hand, because the Matched Play rules contain everything needed to play the game: army construction methods, points values, and mission types.  It works for pickup games when you just meet any player at the local shop or club, and that is perfectly valid to play without any or minimal communication ahead of time.

For some of us, the armies do not need to be balanced, as that is almost impossible to determine given the sheer amount of variety in units and the combinations they can be taken.  As such, we try to make the games FAIR, or some kind of fun in an unconventional way, like having a, as you put it, Custer's Last Stand style battle.  The tricky bit is in trying to figure something out that the players will all be happy with, and encouraging other players to try out non-competitive games, to put in the effort to use their creativity and imagination to think up new scenarios and Battleplans to enjoy their gaming experience.  I'm tired of eating out, I want a home-cooked meal

You seem to have this figured out, @vesuvias.  Just don't be afraid of the effort in coming up with cool new stuff.  Does it have to be balanced?  Nah.  Does it have to be fair?  Maybe.  Does it need to be fun?  Absolutely!

[wayniac]

As said before, part of the issue is that a competitive game has a defined structure and defined language.  A narrative game has more onus on people's viewpoints, that's a big reason why I think the competitive aspect tends to come out more; it's much easier to set expectations even without devolving into pure WAAC.  You can show up and play anyone, virtually anywhere, with a common language (e.g. 2000 points, Matched Play) which is harder to do with narrative because you need to make sure others have the same expectations.

[Old Stonebeard]

   I think Vesuvias, Bunkhouse, and wayniac have all made very valid points. WAAC tournament play is a simple principle: figure out how to exploit the math and RAW better than the person you're playing against, removing as much chance from the equation as possible. When taken in this vacuum, the concerns @Auticus raises are extremely valid. Speaking for myself, what drove me away from 40K was the Matt Ward era. I would deploy my army, my power-flavor-of-the-month opponent would deploy his, I would lose the roll for the first turn, and my army would be crippled by the end of Turn 1, and obliterated by the end of Turn 3, if not Turn 2.

   That said, what I'm struggling to understand is, why it's perceived that narrative play and competitive play must always be mutually exclusive. Sure, there's lots of ways to play narrative, and among them is to actually make the game that much more competitive. Narrative play can make you think on your feet- maybe your ol' reliable netlists are comp'd out, or- my personal favorite- you can't take named characters.

   Speaking for my old stomping grounds Animosity Campaigns, our narrative events were stupidly competitive. We fought hard because we knew the fights wouldn't always be fair, and every faction was always looking to get a statistical advantage. Then, we fought all the harder because these were characters and locations we cared about, we were invested in.

   My namesake? Nothing tore apart Barak Varr privateer Unbrok Stonebeard more than when his (see: my) hubris led to the ruin of the Estalian kingdom of Muros, and his childhood friend, King Reyes. In retribution, I decided to attack a Black Ark, by myself, with a single Dwarf ironclad, in an attempt to rescue the royal family. The only thing missing was a slayer vow, but I figured he had more important things on his mind than pulling off a glorious mohawk.

The difference between a tournament game and a narrative game is that, when you lose the narrative game, you still have a glorious tale to tell.

- Alex

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

 

 

They don't have to be but what "narrative play" is is often subjective.

Competitive play is usually always about picking the most mathematically effective units.  That by itself goes against any narrative other than "King Leonidas always has his army of super navy seals" and for many drives the wedge between expectation of a narrative style game where the armies are reflecting the background, and competitive style games where armies are reflective of the optimized math.  The two are usually  never the same.

It's also because "narrative" often implies unbalanced forces (e.g. hold the line with your 300 spartans against a large army of persians) and/or uneven scenarios (e.g. your force has been ambushed; you start with half your force on the field and the rest come as reinforcements), neither of which tends to appeal to the competitive players because there is something which is uneven (read: "not fair") and it's not simply we both line up all our forces.  I've noticed a lot of competitive players don't want any choice to be removed from them, even if something like splitting your forces, unless THEY decide to do it (e.g. by choosing to put something in reserve).  Anything else is "not fair" to competitive play.

[BunkhouseBuster]

6 hours ago, Old Stonebeard said:

   That said, what I'm struggling to understand is, why it's perceived that narrative play and competitive play must always be mutually exclusive. Sure, there's lots of ways to play narrative, and among them is to actually make the game that much more competitive. Narrative play can make you think on your feet- maybe your ol' reliable netlists are comp'd out, or- my personal favorite- you can't take named characters.

It's not that they are mutually exclusive, but they are perceived that way due to the actions of WAAC players.  In my local area, we have a clear division between the WAAC tournament players who play strictly for the sake of competition and seeing who is the best tabletop general.  These WAAC players have absolutely no interest in Narrative games or playing for any reason other than to practice for the next grand tournament (and luckily they are stick with 40K and not Age of Sigmar).  It is these types of players whom have the term "competitive" applied, they are the ones who are not interested in anything other than what they have been doing for so long.

It's not that you can't play hard or try to go for the game victory while playing the game, but rather the intention of the outcome of the game.  You can be both competitive and Narrative in your games, but these terms have become synonymous with distinguishing two playstyles.  I mean, for the models, you think they aren't going to fight for their life as hard as they can to survive?  It's one thing to stack some buffs on your units to help them win the game, but it's another to spam the most powerful units in every game.  Are you playing for yourself, or the full gaming experience?

In any game, any system, any playstyle, think about these:  The Point of the game is to play it.  The Goal of the game is to have fun.  The Objective of the game is to achieve scenario victory through the actions of the models on the table.  This holds true for any competitive or Narrative player around.  WAAC players consider the Objective to also be the Point and Goal of the game.

Yes, you can be competitive in your Narrative games, and you should be, to a point.  It's one thing to play hard and try to get your models a win so they can protect their homeland or achieve greatness, but it is another to bring a cheesy army full of shenanigans and "optimized" or "points efficient units".  It's like Major League Baseball, you can play hard when on the field and the ball starts moving, but you don't want to use corked bats or steroids to improve your performance, do you?  The key here is SPORTSMANSHIP in your games as well.  WAAC players want to take the in-game equivalents of corked bats and steroids because the rules allow them in their games.  When there restrictions on army composition or structure, or a narrative reason why a unit may not be present, then they complain of the game being unbalanced or unfair and won't play (because they don't have as easy of a win now).

Are you playing WITH the other players, or AGAINST them?

6 hours ago, Old Stonebeard said:

   Speaking for my old stomping grounds Animosity Campaigns, our narrative events were stupidly competitive. We fought hard because we knew the fights wouldn't always be fair, and every faction was always looking to get a statistical advantage. Then, we fought all the harder because these were characters and locations we cared about, we were invested in.

   My namesake? Nothing tore apart Barak Varr privateer Unbrok Stonebeard more than when his (see: my) hubris led to the ruin of the Estalian kingdom of Muros, and his childhood friend, King Reyes. In retribution, I decided to attack a Black Ark, by myself, with a single Dwarf ironclad, in an attempt to rescue the royal family. The only thing missing was a slayer vow, but I figured he had more important things on his mind than pulling off a glorious mohawk.

The difference between a tournament game and a narrative game is that, when you lose the narrative game, you still have a glorious tale to tell.

Cool story, bro   That is exactly the kind of situation Narrative players are looking for, where a tale comes that can be spun from the imagination of players and events on the tabletop.

When we use the term "competitive" in reference to the players, they are the ones who aren't interested in those kinds of stories.  They refuse to focus on the war or purpose of why their models are fighting, instead they focus on the battle in front of them.  Each game is a practice match for future games, and that is how it is viewed.  Context for why the Orruks are attacking a Duardin line?  "Bah, who has time for that?  There are four more matches to play in this tournament, and I gotta place as high as I can because winning is the important thing!"  WAAC players have taken competitive play all to themselves.

I'm a pretty relaxed player myself, and love the Narrative side of the hobby.  But like you, @Old Stonebeard, I play "hard" as well, using the full capabilities of my army to go for the in-game victory.  However, I also know when to hold back and "forget" my army rules to give my opponent an advantage if they are getting disheartened or not playing as hard as me.  I don't mind losing, especially in a pickup game.  When we refer to "competitive" players, we are referring to those who will never hold back against any opponent and will go for the easy win if they can.

It's perfectly okay to be competitive and try to win your games in any playstyle.  It's not okay to use shenanigans to win every game and refuse to play other games or players because a potential scenario "imbalance".

[KnightFire]

1 hour ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

It's not that they are mutually exclusive, but they are perceived that way due to the actions of WAAC players.  In my local area, we have a clear division between the WAAC tournament players who play strictly for the sake of competition and seeing who is the best tabletop general.  These WAAC players have absolutely no interest in Narrative games or playing for any reason other than to practice for the next grand tournament (and luckily they are stick with 40K and not Age of Sigmar).  It is these types of players whom have the term "competitive" applied, they are the ones who are not interested in anything other than what they have been doing for so long.

 

I think your mis-using the term WAAC slightly, people who play hard within the established rules and accepted conduct of competitive play are not trying to "Win At All Costs" - they are trying to win within the boundaries of tournament play. WaaC refers specifically to players who go outside of those rules and norms (e.g. what would be considered cheating by most players, things like loaded dice, tape measures where each inch is 1.1", nudging models on the battlefield etc). 

 

Just wanting to win a game because winning is important to you doesn't make you a WaaC player.

[BunkhouseBuster]

3 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I think your mis-using the term WAAC slightly, people who play hard within the established rules and accepted conduct of competitive play are not trying to "Win At All Costs" - they are trying to win within the boundaries of tournament play.

...

Just wanting to win a game because winning is important to you doesn't make you a WaaC player.

Lol, good point.  But in my case, the (what I call) WAAC players aren't outright cheaters, but finaglers and shenaniganzers who criticize and deride sub-optimal lists, and have this smug superiority about themselves for being so "good" at the game

37 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Agreed.  It can be seen as insulting to be a competitive player and be called WAAC, when that player is adhering to all the rules.  WAAC players are rare, and will lie and cheat and deceive to win their games.  Competitive gamers that are min/maxing the game but playing within the confines of the rules are powergamers, but they are not WAAC.

It is also possible to play narrative and be a powergamer.  That would be the instance @Old Stonebeard appears to be describing.

...

Unfortunately a lot of people use "powergamer" as a derogatory term (part of my banning from warseer years ago was because I used the term powergamer to describe min/max players and it was reported as trolling) when it just simply describes a playstyle where the math is the most important aspect of the game.

We, as a community, really need to standardize our definitions and universal discourse.  Whom I call a "WAAC", you refer to as a "Powergamer", which is what I call the players who play hard but without shenanigans and spam, and I refer to your all's definition of "WAAC players" as "cheaters".  To me, a WAAC player will do everything but outright cheat; it's not a rules breaker, but a rules bender who questions or challenges everything that can be used against them.  It's an attitude more than a player type.

Lol, aren't semantics fun?  Or is this pedantics...

But yes, there are differing degrees of player mindsets.  On one extreme, you have outright cheaters who only care about getting their victory tally higher, and on the other, an equivalent to kids playing with little green plastic army men in the yard.  I tend to drift more towards the latter.

[wayniac]

For what it's worth I've never heard waac include cheating over some 18 years or so of seeing the term online. It's usually anything just short of outright cheating, and usually the difference between waac and a power gamer is that the waac player will use dubious interpretations of the rules to gain an advantage and try to rules lawyer situations even where the intent is clear because raw is not. The other usual difference is that a power gamer may still care about the background and fluff while a waac player could care less as long as it works on the table

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[BunkhouseBuster]

Lol, yeah, we need a standardized dictionary of terms.