Competitive players vs Narrative players. Or is there more?

[sundancer 44676xp 1]

So on the recent XLBS the question was

What Is A Narrative Wargame?

and the discussion always seems to revolve around tournament players vs campaign players and I feel there is more to this. I’ll try to do a list.

• tournament players – always ears on the ground, chasing the meta and the latest way to cheese the game in order to win.
• campaign/narrative players – setting up a scenario or campaign with (relative) strict rules and setup in order to enjoy a long play
• historical players – recreate a battle from history with all limitations, events etc in order to re-enact the battle/war and maybe even change the course of history
• casual players – just some gamers who like the setting, the models, the fluff and like to battle it out. No big digging in old tomes and chasing meta and any advantage they can get but more “rule of cool” and a nice day with friends at the table

I think those are the main groups of people gaming companies try to address. Historical players are, well, the easiest. History is written only the rule system matters. And as long as everything stays within what history has said all is fine and good.

Campaign/narrative players, as long as the rules are mostly balanced and every faction has their ups and downs all is good and gaming is easy.

For tournament players rules should be (IMHO) play-tested to hell and back again. Every Army should have the same chances to win so that really only the brain behind creating the army list and implementing the tactics is the deciding factor on who wins. Like in racing games when everybody uses the same car and engine and only the driver makes a difference.

Now casual players. Rules shouldn’t be to much out of balance but a great backstory, fluff and flair makes all the difference. Fun first, rules second but everybody should be on the same side on how to resolve the outcome on the table.

Where do I see myself? Personally I think I’m mostly a casual player. Winning is nice but having fun is much more important. If a game (like Frostgrave) has an RPG element I also like campaigns but that is the exception to the rule. Tournaments tend to be too much stress and history… well, that just doesn’t tickle my fancy.

What about you?

[jeffersonpowers 668xp 2]

I would place myself as casual with a dash of narrative. The reasons I like to play games are having fun with my friends, and immersing myself in a world, idea, or even just the mechanisms and structures of a well-designed set of rules.

[limburger 22520xp 2]

every game is miniature agnostic.
every game is a narrative game
every game can be a tournament game
it’s all about perception and how the community responds.

Good rules aren’t things that are strictly for tournaments. Claiming that only tournaments need them is false and makes narrative games feel like a way for companies to cheap out on the critical aspect of any game : mechanics.

Everyone wins when rules are clear and factions are balanced.
The misconception is that ‘balanced factions’ = they can win all of the time in a straight fight.
There is nothing wrong with factions needing to play more sneaky or not having access to specific feats or weapons.

That’s where the use of objectives and defining how you ‘win’ is going to matter.
Remember : in historical games ‘winning’ can simply be ‘not getting wiped of the table in 2 turns’.
Why not have such options in other games ?

For all the things that GW does wrong they do sometimes have good ideas.
The concept of linking objectives in games to the type of army you’re fielding is one of those.
There may have been other games that had similar things.
There may be games that do it better.

The only difference between ‘narrative’ and ‘tournament’ is why you fight. And you can play narrative in a tournament.
There is nothing stopping you from doing so.

Narrative != I do silly things.
Narrative is more like roleplaying and pretending to be your army commander.

Narrative is bringing units because they’re interesting not because they are the perfect silver bullet.
It’s about making sense of the ‘why’ and not worry about the ‘how’.

Reminder : they made a movie out of Battleship … and there’s even a Chess musical.

[grantinvanman 10387xp 0]

@jeffersonpowers

“I would place myself as casual with a dash of narrative. The reasons I like to play games are having fun with my friends, and immersing myself in a world, idea, or even just the mechanisms and structures of a well-designed set of rules.”

 

This is where I stand/sit; I like non-competitive at all cost games and tournaments. I like to just “have fun”. Historical narrative, even 40K narrative is where I tend to land. I loathe the “meta-chasing-WAAC” gamers – and I know many. Most of the people I painted commissions for in the past year are those exact people. What I painted was the “meta”. Frankly, I am friendly with some of them, but could never game with them.

[sundancer 44676xp 1]

I’m completly on board with @grantinvanman and @jeffersonpowers here.

@limburger of course you can play any game any way you want but that wasn’t the point. the point is: what is your jam?

Side thought: if you buy a game that is designed competitive but you change rules so you can play more fluffy and casual (or vice versa): is it still the same game? my initial thought would be: no, it isn’t. If you play chess with nothing but queens it’s not chess any more but maybe chess adjacent?

[pagan8th 15302xp 1]

Never played competitive. Always play with (against?) friends. Winning is nice, but having fun is more important.

[limburger 22520xp 0]

// of course you can play any game any way you want but that wasn’t the point. the point is: what is your jam?
If I had to pick a jam ?
It’d be anti-competitive 😛
It’s not something I do for a living, so I’m not a professional gamer either.

// if you buy a game that is designed competitive but you change rules so you can play more fluffy and casual (or vice versa): is it still the same game?
It’s your game.
Only time it matters whether or not it is the ‘same game’ is when you need to invite people over to play it.
Games are only ever as competitive as you let them be.

Playing to win sucks the joy out of playing games.
I’d also argue that it makes people do horrible things to each other.
I do not want that in something that’s meant to be fun and relaxing.

[Author]

Posts