Competitive vs. Narrative

[naviedzony]

I will be participating in the first narrative event in my community in January. Designed by one of our younger players it will follow the rules listed here:

-We will play three games.

-First game will be played with 1000pts limit, second 1250 pts and third and final battle will be played with 1500 pts limit.

-Before event, each player creates his army roster with 2150 points limit. Next players pick their warlord for the time of the campagin and pick warlord trait for him (once picked it cannot be changed).

-From this army roster, players will create their army lists which will take part in games.

-The twist is, that models removed as casulties during game will stay "dead" for the rest of campagin.

-Army roster cannot include Lord of War datasheets.

-Named characters and chapter master ( or its equivalent ie. Watch Master) cannot be included in an army roster.

-Only one of listed units can be included in army roster: Patriarch, Space Marine Captain (or its equivalent), Hive Tyrant, Shield Captain, Warboss, Chaos Lord, Deamon Prince, Archon, Lord Commissar or Tau Commander.

-When creating lists for games, armies do not gain bonus Command Points for including detachments. Instead they gain number of command points assigned for each game, plus their battle forged bonus. First game 5CP, second 6 CP, third 8CP. (which means that battleforged army will have 8 CPs in first game and so on).

-Army roster must be drawn from a single codex, all faction keywords must be the same.

-Codex supplements are allowed.

-Command re-roll strategem cannot be used during campagin.

-Matched play rules are in effect.

-Warlords have plot armour for the first two games. If a warlord was removed as a casualty, next game he begins battle with D3 wounds remaining.

-It would be great if players include dramatis personae with their army roster, names for their characters, where they are from, etc.

I think the concept is great and I offered my help with tweaking the rules to make the overall event more balanced for all sides. As you see, it will be like a mini-tournament, but dead models (especially dead named HQ) staying dead will hopefully bring some narrative "flow" to the games. This event has only 6 participating players and there will be created some fluffy reason for all of these armies to meet on the battlefields and clash in a series of match-ups.

So you see, that we try to make some hybrid (as Tyranids like to do ) of competitive matched-play balance and fluffy narrative environment. I will let you know how this worked out and what my conclusions are after the event.

[kociamafia]

Dec 16, 2019 21:14:33 GMT mattblowers said:

This thread is not a rant nor is it a Team A vs. Team B. It's just my thoughts on the matter.

As most of you know I'm not the most competitive player but I do play in them. They turn out to be the best way to get a group of games in on a day. Narrative events tend to have too much down time whilst your opponent regales with all their stories of the heroic deeds their characters have performed in games of yore. The opponent might or might not know the rules well and games can drag on forever. But they often look fantastic. The problem with narrative gaming is that it can be really hard to know what one person considers "cheese" and another person considers "fluffy". Player ability, experience, and army familiarity can turn a fun afternoon in a grueling ordeal. In competitive play you know what you are getting into. There is a set of expectations and everyone is on the same page. For this reason I play far more competitive games than I do narrative/fluff based games.

But still there is a large part of me drawn to more narrative gaming. My favorite game is not one where I trounce my opponent, but one where the game is back and forth and close and the win or loss comes down to a single moment or dice roll. I love those times. I prefer a good story over trouncing someone. I'm also pretty laid back and chill when it comes to gaming. I have enough stress in my life and don't want a hobby that brings stress. I prefer to play with nicely painted armies on a good looking board.

With that being said I have experienced more saltiness and griping in fluffy games than in tournaments. In tournaments the ones that are that way tend to be louder and more obnoxious and leads to the poor reputation of competitive events for people that are far more narrative.

That being said the current state of the game, at least in my area of Florida, has the largest gulf between narrative and competitive that I have ever scene. The competitive is ultra-competitive. Many of the lists are the same and very few factions were represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's a very different thing than it has been in the past. In this current ITC meta the game leaves very little room for variance. Gone are the days when I can show up with my semi-competitive list that includes some sub-optimal units that I enjoy playing and have a hope at a winning record. That was my expectation going in this past weekend. I like my 'nids so I took them. I wanted to give the heirodule a chance to stretch his legs so I took him. I wanted to play 'nidzilla, so I took that. I played hard and did my best to get as many points as possible and simply got wiped. Two marines drove down from South Carolina because they read about the event online. They got beat so badly the first 2 rounds (so of course they got paired with each other for round 3) that they packed up and went home. They weren't mad, they just weren't prepared for this level of play. They even said all their opponents were really nice. My only win was against Dark Eldar and it was played by a competent player and was a list that was winning major events only a year ago. So at least I know that it's not just me taking an ass list and getting it handed to me.

The game has really evolved and I'm not sure narrative leaning players belong in the competitive scene anymore, but there isn't a narrative alternative that is acceptable. If you want to see how far it has evolved take a look at the terrain from the Atlanta Open. The terrain from Tetonic games is exactly the same on every table. 2 Ls in the middle, 2 ruins, 2 hills, a few craters, and a few forests. The craters and forests are flattened out representations of those. It's played on a standardized mat from Frontline gaming that has the prints for the building placement on the mat with deployment lines and objective auras for every mission (though they have removed vanguard as a deployment option because they want each player on one edge for video purposes). This standardization is very good for the competitive game, but it is 100% about the competition and nothing else. Our event had about 3 of these tables but the store hasn't purchased many yet. I've ordered the mat and practice terrain so that I can get used to playing on it. It is the future. If I am going to keep playing in these events then my mindset needs to shift, my list building needs to get tighter, and I need tons of repetition to work any kinks out. I'm not sure I want that. I might, but it's something different from the way I have been playing for years. That might mean no more 'nids if I want to play in this environment. The verdict is still out on that one. What is the hive's thoughts? Are you experiencing similar things? Are you seeing the standardization? Do you like the way it's going? What's a narrative leaning player that enjoys tournaments to do?

Have you considered Kill Team ? It's a serious question btw. You can blend competitive & narrative/campaign elements however you like.

[mattblowers]

Dec 19, 2019 11:14:20 GMT kociamafia said:

Dec 16, 2019 21:14:33 GMT mattblowers said:

This thread is not a rant nor is it a Team A vs. Team B. It's just my thoughts on the matter.

As most of you know I'm not the most competitive player but I do play in them. They turn out to be the best way to get a group of games in on a day. Narrative events tend to have too much down time whilst your opponent regales with all their stories of the heroic deeds their characters have performed in games of yore. The opponent might or might not know the rules well and games can drag on forever. But they often look fantastic. The problem with narrative gaming is that it can be really hard to know what one person considers "cheese" and another person considers "fluffy". Player ability, experience, and army familiarity can turn a fun afternoon in a grueling ordeal. In competitive play you know what you are getting into. There is a set of expectations and everyone is on the same page. For this reason I play far more competitive games than I do narrative/fluff based games.

But still there is a large part of me drawn to more narrative gaming. My favorite game is not one where I trounce my opponent, but one where the game is back and forth and close and the win or loss comes down to a single moment or dice roll. I love those times. I prefer a good story over trouncing someone. I'm also pretty laid back and chill when it comes to gaming. I have enough stress in my life and don't want a hobby that brings stress. I prefer to play with nicely painted armies on a good looking board.

With that being said I have experienced more saltiness and griping in fluffy games than in tournaments. In tournaments the ones that are that way tend to be louder and more obnoxious and leads to the poor reputation of competitive events for people that are far more narrative.

That being said the current state of the game, at least in my area of Florida, has the largest gulf between narrative and competitive that I have ever scene. The competitive is ultra-competitive. Many of the lists are the same and very few factions were represented. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's a very different thing than it has been in the past. In this current ITC meta the game leaves very little room for variance. Gone are the days when I can show up with my semi-competitive list that includes some sub-optimal units that I enjoy playing and have a hope at a winning record. That was my expectation going in this past weekend. I like my 'nids so I took them. I wanted to give the heirodule a chance to stretch his legs so I took him. I wanted to play 'nidzilla, so I took that. I played hard and did my best to get as many points as possible and simply got wiped. Two marines drove down from South Carolina because they read about the event online. They got beat so badly the first 2 rounds (so of course they got paired with each other for round 3) that they packed up and went home. They weren't mad, they just weren't prepared for this level of play. They even said all their opponents were really nice. My only win was against Dark Eldar and it was played by a competent player and was a list that was winning major events only a year ago. So at least I know that it's not just me taking an ass list and getting it handed to me.

The game has really evolved and I'm not sure narrative leaning players belong in the competitive scene anymore, but there isn't a narrative alternative that is acceptable. If you want to see how far it has evolved take a look at the terrain from the Atlanta Open. The terrain from Tetonic games is exactly the same on every table. 2 Ls in the middle, 2 ruins, 2 hills, a few craters, and a few forests. The craters and forests are flattened out representations of those. It's played on a standardized mat from Frontline gaming that has the prints for the building placement on the mat with deployment lines and objective auras for every mission (though they have removed vanguard as a deployment option because they want each player on one edge for video purposes). This standardization is very good for the competitive game, but it is 100% about the competition and nothing else. Our event had about 3 of these tables but the store hasn't purchased many yet. I've ordered the mat and practice terrain so that I can get used to playing on it. It is the future. If I am going to keep playing in these events then my mindset needs to shift, my list building needs to get tighter, and I need tons of repetition to work any kinks out. I'm not sure I want that. I might, but it's something different from the way I have been playing for years. That might mean no more 'nids if I want to play in this environment. The verdict is still out on that one. What is the hive's thoughts? Are you experiencing similar things? Are you seeing the standardization? Do you like the way it's going? What's a narrative leaning player that enjoys tournaments to do?

Have you considered Kill Team ? It's a serious question btw. You can blend competitive & narrative/campaign elements however you like.

I have. Bought the killteam rulebook when it came out and the GSC box. Played a few games and then it was abandoned in my area. I like it, but after Warcry no one plays it at all.

[killercroc]

Kill team? I thought t hat was just a cheap way to get more terrain? Wait... people actually play that? Huh.

[garg]

In the city i live (Berlin Germany) there are many mixed tournaments. I like to go to them as much to get a few games in and learn a bit more. There is really only on guy in my regular playing group with a spare room full size table and scenery so we don't get together all to often. I would say that I've heard more complaining in my regular group than at tournaments.

Moarhammer / Wintersseo actually have a video on kind of this topic

youtu.be/51fMCSUhBz4

[mattblowers]

Dec 19, 2019 21:42:16 GMT garg said:

Moarhammer / Wintersseo actually have a video on kind of this topic

youtu.be/51fMCSUhBz4

Thanks. I'll check it out.