Competition and narrative survey

[mesaknight]

Hello B&C!

 

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and found these forums to be some of the most helpful and friendly on the internet. I appreciate you immensely!

 

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

 

Thank you so much!

[Guiltysparc]

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

 

Casual - i think the best thing about warhammer is its ability to tell amazing stories and provide for really cinematic moments that are also fun for players on both sides of the moment.

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

 

Through limited use.  IMO, its fun to see the immense power that a poorly balanced unit can bring to the table when encountering it only occasionally.  Its different if the balance issue is army wide as those kinds of armies are typically not terribly fun to play against, but for just one unit i don't think its too bad.  We had a game with a warhound on one side once, and the other side had no real answer for it.  It was really cool and fun to see it just wrecking everything.  That's a significantly different experience than i had playing an seer council eldar army with my 30k world eaters where the whole army significantly out matched mine in a way that wasn't interactive.  I think thats the key, balance issues can still be fun so long as they remain interactive.

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

 

Honestly, i think WAAC (assuming we are not talking about cheating) is just a butthurt label given to people who simply play a harder style than what you prefer.  For some players, min/maxing their list and finding the killer synergies is just as fun as building a narrative around their army is for others.  If you dont like that style, then just don't play that person.  Thats not where i derive my enjoyment of the hobby from, but i can appreciate those that do and enjoy playig against that kind of army given my comments from #2.

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

 

Absolutely in a narrative game, definitely not in a competitive game.  Competition should be about making the playing feild as equal as possible.  Narrative games should be fun, if a crazy rule adds to the fun, then thats awesome.

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

 

Not really important to me.  I will say, i enjoy very much playing where the narrative fits (ie, traitors vs loyalists, IG vs Orks, UM vs Nids, etc) but it doesn't detract from my experience when it doesnt.  Sort of a thing where the narrative fit is always a plus, but if it doesn't then that's not a negative for me.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Guiltysparc

[Mileposter]

Awesome stuff! Love these sorts of thought exercises.

 

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

I find myself falling fairly firmly in the middle. I enjoy good competition, but I dislike going to the extremes that a tournament environment might require. So it's hard to take on the label of one or the other - I'm always too casual for an entirely competitive crowd, and too competitive for the strictly casual crowd. Call me Goldilocks.

As for what aspect of the game I enjoy: Mindscrew. I greatly enjoy employing tactics and strategies that upend my opponents traditional way of taking to battle. It also gives me a minor happy that I get to give Mathhammer the finger every once in a while.

 
2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

The smallest amount of adjustment that provides the largest impact. Unit OP? We don't use it. Rule unbalanced? Change a word that makes it fair. Army matchup not looking fun? List adjustment.
 
3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

WAAC takes focus on the "At All Costs". To make it not a game any longer. I find difference between "Winning is the point" and "All there can be is winning". Against the former, I enjoy the challenge frequently. Against the latter, no game can be had.
 
4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

Word for word, no. If it truly fit the placement it was set in, then myself and our group would tone the rule down to serve balance while still serving the fluff or narrative.
 
5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?
More rewarding when it is the case, but not required. The playing of the game itself is entertaining enough to not need the story behind the battle - sometimes two people are battling because they're the only two in the room who play Warhammer. But if we can craft one? The imagination becomes alight with interest.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

 

Strictly casual.

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

 

n/a

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

 

A player who wants to win at any cost. No.

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

 

Yes, and probably yes. Unequal arms and unequal objectives makes for good campaigns.

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

 

Very. Yes, I seriously hate seeing Loyalist P.A. v. Loyalist P.A. on every single table, everywhere I go.

[Brother Lunkhead]

Okaay.... College survey. Sound like a worthwhile cause... here goes! To save time and repetition let me say right out of the shoot, I enjoy both narrative and competitive games. In narrative games you can create some marvelous stories almost spontaneously with a chance roll of the dice. That's what I like best about narrative games.

Competitive games are a totally different beast and I approach them with a totally different  mindset...CRUSH, KILL, DESTROOOOOYYY (just kidding...sort of). I love pitting the best of what I have against the best of what my opponent has.

 

1) I'm more of a casual player...I prefer both competitive and narrative games that are not too drawn out or serious (but I can do that too).See above for extrapolation.

 

2) Issues of balance should be discussed and agreed upon before starting. All players should know the rules.... whether in a competitive or narrative game, once you're in it, put your whining in your pocket. If you're playing with young ones, there's room for flexibility. Competitive games should be as balanced as possible. Once again, players should know the rules.

 

3) WAACs.... as Indiana Jones said, "I hate these guys". Rude, annoying, bullies that love nothing better than to belittle their opponents and make small children cry. There should be a special place in hell for these miscreants. It's because of these trolls that I seldom participate in sanctioned tournaments outside of my FLGSs. They possess a special kind of :cussryness that makes me feel soiled (pardon my language  ). However, there is a special kind of satisfaction when I smash one of these guys in a tournament... I'll bet it takes ten years off of their miserable lives 

 

4) Enjoyable in a casual narrative game, but not really appropriate in a competitive one.

 

5) Narrative games should always have an engaging narrative (hmm... grammar?), otherwise it's...... BOOORRRRING. Not at all important in competition.

 

I hope that was helpful.

 

Come on B&C brothers and sisters... Let's see some survey participation here!! Mesaknight's college grade and maybe his entire future is hangin' in the balance!

[MyD4rkPassenger]

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

 I don't want to sweep my opponent and I don't want to lose by being swept, because thats fun for no one.  However I do not consider myself a competitive or tournament player, I don't like fluff breaking lists built solely for the purpose of crushing my opponent.  I guess I'd have to consider myself a casual player, I like making a fun narrative with my group.

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

We play it out and talk about how to counter it next game, we want everyone to enjoy rolling the dice, its a game after all.  Some things we houserule.

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

Cheating, bringing tourney lists to a friendly pick up game with no prior warning, loudly and rudely correcting me when I mess up on rules but getting angry when pointing their slip ups or attempts to bend rules.  I find no enjoyment in it at all, I have been on the receiving end of a very rude and cheaty tourney scene in my store over the years and have no wish to see them return.  

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

Talk it out with an opponent, it's all about compromise so we both have fun.  Perfect case was when the deathworld forest rules came out in our local kill teams event.  The trees mauled my squad turn one and the same to another, so we all agreed to adjust the stats so everyone wouldn't feel screwed over by being forced to deploy near said tree.  

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

It can vary, I like creating narratives, but sometimes I just want to roll dice and have a good time.  I know a guy who refuses to play against imperial armies, and it definitely handicaps our group's play sometimes, even if say the guard player agrees to be traitor guard for the purpose of the battle.  

[gaurdian31]

Hello B&C!

 

I have a short survey for a college class I am taking on digital communities that I wonder if you might fill out. I've been playing 40k (Imperial Guard and Wolves) for years now, and found these forums to be some of the most helpful and friendly on the internet. I appreciate you immensely!

 

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

I'm a casual player. I love the narrative of the game. I also enjoy modelling and painting if those are part of the question as well so to me they are part of the game.

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

Haven't had this be an issues before. I suppose we would talk it out to make the game fun for both of us.

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

To me a WAAC player is someone who is only there to win, not necessarily to have fun during the game itself. It is the person who can't enjoy a game even if they lose.

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

In a casual game sure, it'll probably adds to the narrative. In a competitive game probably not as the sides should be as even as possible if it is a tourney. If not in a tourney I can't say.

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

Having a narrative makes the game more enjoyable for me. For me there is always a reason to fight the opponent's army. Wrong orders, training exercise, suspicion of heresy that sort of thing. 

[N1SB]

I did a survey in a Target store in the US once. I had a terrible time. It turned out the exercise was for us to understand what it was like to be a pollster. Very valuable.

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

I don't consider myself competitive. Everyone else considers me ultra-competitive, though. I enjoy the optimisation process, learning what works/doesn't, improving.

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

I say bring it on. We have a WAAC player that deliberately speedpaints proxied armies that are hard counters to ours. War is not symmetrical.

This is important so I add an extra line. I don't see such a person as an opponent or enemy. He is merely a benchmark, that I can use to gauge my own performance.

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

I know this is meant as a grey area, but we found a really good red flag. Context - 40k is NOT just a game, it's The Hobby experience: painting, modeling, etc.

When someone completely sacrifices all other aspects for the sake of winning a game, such as barely painting even proxied models, then that's likely a WAAC.

(The WAAC player above played a 30k game with me. I used all FW models, Mechanicum. A passerby looked at his army and literally asked if we were playing AoS because this WAAC player proxied his entire army with fantasy miniatures. Recently a local campaign started a rule of "no proxies" just to deal with this player.)

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

Yes, in such cases, I get in the mindset that I'm not playing against a player or his army, but against the game designer responsible for it. Like I'm debugging.

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

For a 40k/30k/AoS game, I have found narrative important and it HAS impacted the way I view the game, especially the long game (i.e. not just 1 match but the overall long-term experience, what armies I choose to paint and model, etc.) The reason is Warhammer is enjoyable as The Hobby, but the game itself is not the best game. For example, if I wanted a purely strategic game, I'd choose Western chess, Chinese chess or Weiqi. Possible bias - I'm also a roleplayer, might affect my thinking.

+++++

When I did my MBA thesis, I included images, not because they're "interesting", but because they served as "evidence". I have a WIP, "Patient Zero", in case you want to include an appendix or exhibit: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/340376-patient-zero-chaos-daemons-astra-militarum-artillery-army/

The reason is it combines a few things mentioned above, with this picture just showing one, more through that link:

A. The Hobby experience isn't just a game, I was "playing" via painting and modeling, like the Guardsman fleeing with his duffle bag or the Nurgling tank commander

B. The army, combining Chaos Daemons and Astra Militarum Artillery, is me testing the designers. This is a combination only available from the FW Index rules.

C. I'll add some more posts in the WIP thread above to illustrate the narrative process. It might be helpful to illustrate some of the points.

Good luck on the paper. Give me time to update that thread. The thing to look for is an "in-universe propaganda poster" to illustrate a point.

[Qkhitai]

1) Purely casual.

 

2) N/A

 

3) I have absolutely no idea.

 

4) Yes, 100%. I would also house rule in general. The rules aren't sacrosanct, they're there to be tinkered with (which used to be officially encouraged, but now seems verboten). I'd also happily use an entirely different system altogether, but I guess I'm drifting from the point.

 

5) There's no point playing without a narrative. I've played the odd pick up game before, but when I play a regular opponent, I would much prefer a narrative. In my opinion the game is subservient to the story; when I game I'm letting the dice decide the next chapter in the tale of my army. The game is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Adeptus]

Great thread so far! These are really good questions!

 

 

1) Would you consider yourself a more casual or more competitive player? In either case, from what aspect of the game do you derive the most enjoyment?

 

Definitely more casual!

 

2) How do you and the people you play with deal with issues of balance when you come across them?

 

Mutual agreement. After one side totally obliterates the other, we take moment to work out why, and if the cause was poorly balanced super-units on one side then we sort of develop an unspoken agreement that these units are for special occasions only.

 

3) What defines a WAAC player? Assuming they do not cheat or otherwise interfere with the game, do you enjoy the competition of playing against one?

 

For me, a WAAC player is one who is only concerned with their own enjoyment of the game. They mercilessly crush their opponent even if they're a newbie, they refuse to mention when their opponent has forgotten something, they proxy for advantage, see no benefit to painting their models, and generally are only concerned with adding another notch to their belt and have no consideration for the fact that there are TWO people playing the game.

 

4) If a game rule (say, for a specific campaign or scenario) is interesting and fitting in terms of fluff and narrative but not very well balanced in terms of rules, would you still use it in a casual game? A competitive game? Would you enjoy using it?

 

I love lopsided rules, but with the caveat that the victory conditions are changed so that each side still has a fair chance of winning.

 

5) How important is it that each game have an engaging narrative for you? If there was little or no reason that your army would fight the army your opponent brought, would it impact the way you view the game? How so?

 

It's not SUPER important, but I always prefer to play games that have a realistic chance of happening. If I'm taking a special character and I see the same character in my opponents army, I will re-work my list so if nothing else, the game can be considered a training exercise. But usually I would prefer to play proper opposing forces.

[Claws and Effect]

I'll add some.

 

1. Both, about equally. I tend to tailor my competitiveness to my opponent. In a tournament I'm extremely competitive, but if I'm playing a game at home against my wife I'm much more laid back.

 

I enjoy painting and building my army, and coming up with stories for who the models are. For example, my Raven Guard Relic Contemptor has an Alpha Legion infiltrator inside it who has since fully gone over to considering himself Raven Guard.

 

2. I haven't really encountered balance issues as yet, so I can't give this one a good answer.

 

3. To me, a WAAC pkayer is someone who deliberately seeks out loopholes to let them do things that are unlikely to be intended. Another thing they tend to do is combine things in lists that have no business being together just because the individual units are strong. 7th edition Taudar lists would be a good example of that.

 

4' Yes and yes. If someone is using a rule that fits the theme of their army, I generally have no issue with them using it. It's different if it flies in the face of their theme and they are just using it to ein.

 

5. I always have a narrative in my head for every game. If it's 2 loyalist Space Marine armies, I look at ut as wargames or crosstraining between the 2. Marines vs Guard could easily be explained as one side getting false information that the other side are traitors.