What makes it a “narrative” event?

[Khornestar]

Please see title.

 

In my mind, seeing the term narrative event implies there will be some sort of cohesion; a narrative of sorts driving the games and telling a story. That is probably right as it seems straightforward, no?

 

But what separates a narrative event from a competitive event? What stops players from bringing the same unfun/broken (my opinion) lists from being taken to a narrative event? Is there some sort of different listbuilding typically used? Is this usually accounted for at all? Or is the list itself irrelevant to a narrative event?

 

What’s your experience? What are your thoughts? How did the “good” ones that you’ve attended work?

Edited February 23, 2023 by Khornestar

[Khornestar]

I found this re: the GW narrative event in 2023:

 

Quote

The Grand Narrative is about community, immersion, and story. It has a very different feel from a competitive tournament – for a start, there’s no winner, and personal glory is secondary. Instead, attendees are playing to advance the story in favour of their faction’s goals.

 

[Brother Tyler]

I see the primary distinction between "competitive" and "narrative" as symmetry. In a competitive event, the external factors should be as symmetrical as possible so that all participants have a theoretically equal chance of success, affected only by their choice of army composition, tactics, and luck of the dice.

 

In a narrative game, meanwhile, things can be as asymmetrical as possible for the storyline. Narrative gaming is quite popular in historical wargaming, where battles are re-created and opposing forces might not have equal chances of winning, though each should have a theoretically equal chance of succeeding at their own objectives. A perfect example is the ever-popular Rorke's Drift wargame, where a handful of desperate soldiers attempt to hold a defensive position against a significantly larger enemy force. Soldier for soldier, the smaller force should lose. However, since each side has different objectives, the asymmetries in the game allow for either side to "win" if they can achieve their objective.

 

Narrative games, too, often fit into campaigns where the branches and overall outcome can vary depending on the outcomes of individual battles. For example, if the Black Templars succeed in silencing the Ork hulk, a subsequent battle featuring the White Scars versus the Orks might disallow or limit the Orks' ability to use orbital bombardments. If the Black Templars fail, however, the White Scars might take some heavy fire during the subsequent battle. Regardless, if the White Scars succeed in their flank march to intercept the Ork speed freaks rumbling across the wastelands, the Armageddon Steel Legion forces guarding Hive Tempestora won't be quite as outnumbered in a subsequent battle. Should the Sons of the Khan fail, however, the Steel Legion will face an even larger force of greenskins.

 

In contrast, competitive gaming will tend to limit consequences to small things that won't have as noticeable an impact on subsequent games. The point, after all, is to give each participant a relatively equal chance of success in a game despite their performance (or the performance of others) in previous games.

[MARK0SIAN]

Generally winning takes a backseat to telling a story. Generally the events I’ve seen use normal lists but it’s made very clear in the naming and info about the events that it is a narrative event, with at least one near me outright stating that the competitive lists should be left at home.

 

Because it’s made so clear and attracts a different kind of player there’s a healthy dose of self regulation and even peer pressure. Knowing you’re going to an event where people will essentially look down on you or consider you ‘that guy’ if you bring a cheesy list is a huge deterrent. 
 

A lot of the events don’t have prizes for the winner or even have a winner other than a faction and they certainly don’t contribute to any rankings or anything either so that helps quell the desire to bring a cheesy list. 

[Noserenda]

I think its a spectrum just like everything tbh, they range from super tight narratives featuring only one or two armies (Perhaps with specific units/characters added!) with lots of scripted events and GM interventions/options to essentially matched play events with a more relaxed atmosphere and a bit of story. Both ends can certainly be fun in their own ways and scratch different itches, again, like most things :D 

Even within an event! Like the old Tempus fugitives events were pushing down one end for some of the more "dedicated" players who knocked out campaign specific armies and characters, many of which never saw play outside the events or prep but equally some players turned up for some casual games with sometimes radically "off story" armies and also had a good time, well at least they kept coming! :) 

[apologist]

In the lead-up to 8th edition, GW (via Warhammer Community) defined their 'three ways of playing':

• Open play is the most flexible system – where you can use any models you like in a game to achieve any sort of objective you like. You can play archetypal scenarios like raids, ambushes or desperate last-stands with “What If” themes, set up races between vehicles, or even use the classic “who would win in a fight between…” as a catalyst for a game with undeniable appeal.
  • [...] If there is some sort of challenge that can’t be fit into a narrative or matched play game, open play is where it’s at.
• Narrative play is just what it sounds like – fighting battles based on stories from the far future, whether from campaign books, Black Library novels or legends of your own creation. Perhaps they even form part of an ongoing campaign, or are set in the notorious war zones of the 41st Millennium, such as Armageddon, Cadia, Fenris, Baal… the list goes on. Playing games that tell part of a larger story is what narrative play is all about.
  • Suggestions for missions that can form the basis of open or narrative play games (including the return of the classic Warhammer 40,000 battle “Meatgrinder”), as well as suggestions on historical and campaign games are all available in the new edition.
• Matched play is the final type of play-style. This system will be very familiar to those of you who play Warhammer 40,000 regularly now. Like the game today, it is based around one of two mission tables of 6 possible battles – either Eternal War, or Maelstrom of War, though the missions briefs have all been updated a little.
  • Your armies for matched play games will always be Battle-forged (more on that in future) and use points values to help ensure a balanced game. [...].

+++

 

In terms of ticketed events, I'd suggest that Open Play is simply not represented (it's rather the preserve of close-knit gaming groups and such-like) – though from experience these sort of points-free, house-ruled gaming can make for some of the most enjoyable experiences. For the purposes of this discussion, however, let's discard it for the moment.

 

Of the remaining two, it's interesting to note that 'competitive gaming' is not mentioned at all – and while I think GW might have had high hopes for more clearly defining and supporting their Three Ways, in practice the majority of gaming events instead use either 'Competitive Matched play' or 'Narrative Matched play', and that's what I think @Khornestar is after  (feel free to correct me!) 

 

Here's my attempt to define those, then:

• Competitive Matched play – An implicit expectation of a fair and balanced 'no-holds barred' contest, using the rules to their fullest to create the most powerful list(s), and defeat the rest of the field over the course of a number of games.
  • The games will focus on symmetry, a fair field of play and – wherever possible – stripping out the element of chance (e.g. symmetrical terrain set-ups) so that player skill and knowledge of the game can be best adjudged.
  • Armies will frequently 'follow the meta' or attempt to creatively usurp it, with less importance placed on lore-friendliness.
  • While sportsmanship is lauded; and good painting, background and modelling are important to the spectacle, they frequently have less (or no) bearing on the final results.
  • Less beer-and-pretzels, more sportslike.
• Narrative Matched play – An implicit expectation of a series of linked games that explore a particular aspect of the game-universe. Less emphasis on individual victories than Competitive Matched play, and more on using the results of individual games to inform a final shared result.
  • The event will place a heavy focus on theme, with pre-fixed scenarios common, and narrative updates from the organisers throughout to keep all players informed on the unfolding story.
  • This sort of event frequently rewards 'lore-friendly' armies (either in terms of army selection, modelling or painting), and usually has some form of prize or award separate to the overall results of the event.
  • 'Meta-chasing' is implicitly frowned-upon, but there is still an expectation of competition, rather than pure scenario. 
  • Less sportslike, more beer-and-pretzels.

[2PlusEasy]

Narrative events have been both my very best and very worst experiences in this hobby. Most of that boils down to three factors:

 

- Subjectivity. what defines a narrative game or event is subjective to the individual,

 

- Expectation management. With competitive events, everyone has similar expectations that there's an incentive to do well. With a narrative event, because once again it's subjective, you never truly know what to expect from other participants or even the event itself, and finally

 

- what is "subjectively fluffy" isn't always fun for both sides. Ask the 1st edition Heresy players how fun Iron Warrior armies with siege tyrant terminators and max phosphex quad launchers were to play against. Or Necromunda players about playing against Van Saar or Corpse Grinder Cults (especially if you're not prepared for them).

 

However, like with D&D and other RPGs, if you find the right group where you're all on the same page and have the same subjective expectations, narrative games and events are a significantly rewarding experience.

 

So what constitutes a narrative event or game in my opinion?

 

Firstly, it's remembering that there's two or more people who are invested in the immersion within the experience itself, rather then two individuals invested in winning as an outcomr. (Though let's face it, everyone still tries to win regardless of what game type it is: winning is just more important in competitive games then it is in narrative ones)

 

The second is that a narrative play mentality focuses far more on the holistic hobby experience then it's competitive counterparts. The miniature's pose and paint scheme both tell a story as much as the game itself, emphasising that tabletop wargaming is as much a form of art as it is a game. This is in contrast to the more pragmatic competitive mentality where everything from army selection to paint scheme is chosen based on how brokenly well they perform.

 

 

 

 

[Warden-Paints]

8 hours ago, 2PlusEasy said:

Narrative events have been both my very best and very worst experiences in this hobby. Most of that boils down to three factors:

 

- Subjectivity. what defines a narrative game or event is subjective to the individual,

 

- Expectation management. With competitive events, everyone has similar expectations that there's an incentive to do well. With a narrative event, because once again it's subjective, you never truly know what to expect from other participants or even the event itself, and finally

 

- what is "subjectively fluffy" isn't always fun for both sides. Ask the 1st edition Heresy players how fun Iron Warrior armies with siege tyrant terminators and max phosphex quad launchers were to play against. Or Necromunda players about playing against Van Saar or Corpse Grinder Cults (especially if you're not prepared for them).

 

However, like with D&D and other RPGs, if you find the right group where you're all on the same page and have the same subjective expectations, narrative games and events are a significantly rewarding experience.

 

So what constitutes a narrative event or game in my opinion?

 

Firstly, it's remembering that there's two or more people who are invested in the immersion within the experience itself, rather then two individuals invested in winning as an outcomr. (Though let's face it, everyone still tries to win regardless of what game type it is: winning is just more important in competitive games then it is in narrative ones)

 

The second is that a narrative play mentality focuses far more on the holistic hobby experience then it's competitive counterparts. The miniature's pose and paint scheme both tell a story as much as the game itself, emphasising that tabletop wargaming is as much a form of art as it is a game. This is in contrast to the more pragmatic competitive mentality where everything from army selection to paint scheme is chosen based on how brokenly well they perform.

 

 

 

 

Could you expand on some of your bad experiences? 

[Mandragola]

This is a tricky one to define. My advice would be to look at the event pack and see if you like what they’re doing. You may or may not like it. 
 

Personally I think you need some sort of list restrictions and probably list checking by the organisers to avoid people bringing competitive lists to narrative games. Actually it’s also useful to avoid people bringing stuff that’s flat out illegal, either because they are new to the game or because they’ve just decided it suits their narrative so everyone else just has to live with it. 
 

I’ve had problems at narrative events that don’t do this stuff. You meet people who’ve brought competitive lists and others who barely know how to play, because some new players will go to these things to figure out the game. It’s impossible to write a list that will give you good games against all of these things.

 

The best thing might actually be to keep to a fairly small number of players. That way the organiser can spend more time with everyone, for lists, rules and the actual narrative. It’s harder to give everyone the attention they need at bigger events, which can become a lot like tournaments. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Mandragola

[Xenith]

I think there's a few variations here that we need to consider, and I'm not sure what GW are going with. I'm involved in the HH Narrative event at WHFest, and it's still unclear how things will work.

 

1) Narrative driven games: Clear narrative scenarios, where the story drives the games - this will be asymmetric missions, clear attacker and defender etc, where you are recreating a specific event or story, like Istvaan, or a traitor assault like Paramar, Beta Garmon etc. 

2) Results driven narrative: where the games are as close to matched as possible, with the outcome of the games affecting the 'story' that the organisers make up as they go along, so not exactly recreating battles, just letting the outcome of those games determine the story that they weave.

3) A combination, where the result of one game affecting the next game/specific scenario played

[sarabando]

i think events that reward narrative behavior over WAACyness. Such as rewarding people for their paint jobs, creative army lists, background fluff for their army, most legion like behavior. Although ive never even been to an official event ever so my opinion is worth dirt. 

[Mandragola]

3 hours ago, Xenith said:

I think there's a few variations here that we need to consider, and I'm not sure what GW are going with. I'm involved in the HH Narrative event at WHFest, and it's still unclear how things will work.

 

1) Narrative driven games: Clear narrative scenarios, where the story drives the games - this will be asymmetric missions, clear attacker and defender etc, where you are recreating a specific event or story, like Istvaan, or a traitor assault like Paramar, Beta Garmon etc. 

2) Results driven narrative: where the games are as close to matched as possible, with the outcome of the games affecting the 'story' that the organisers make up as they go along, so not exactly recreating battles, just letting the outcome of those games determine the story that they weave.

3) A combination, where the result of one game affecting the next game/specific scenario played

I'm also going to this, so maybe I'll see you there.

 

I'm sorry to say that my least enjoyable narrative experiences have been at GW's official events. GW has to pretend that its games are balanced so they never impose list restrictions or check lists for "fluffiness". I'd much prefer to go to a tournament at a GW event than a narrative thing, but here we are.

 

I've got especially low expectations for the WHF event because they're running several things simultaneously. It's always hard to give multiple systems the attention they need in this situation. I've no idea how they'll get enough terrain together.

[ThePenitentOne]

So obviously, the Grand Narrative is just one example of a Narrative event, but I think it's likely the aspirational goal for any GW narrative event. So check this out:

 

 https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/03/the-warhammer-40000-grand-narrative-is-the-best-crusade-event-in-the-world/

[Closet Skeleton]

On 2/22/2023 at 5:18 PM, Khornestar said:

But what separates a narrative event from a competitive event? What stops players from bringing the same unfun/broken (my opinion) lists from being taken to a narrative event? Is there some sort of different listbuilding typically used? Is this usually accounted for at all? Or is the list itself irrelevant to a narrative event?

 

In 9th edition the top tier OP lists tend to be pretty fluffy anyway so there's really nothing to do. A lot of nonsensical 'just spam the best stuff' lists end up highly themed, for example that ork buggy list that got banned could easily show up again as a joke list at a narrative event under a future codex..

 

I've run 'unfair' armies at narrative events and fluffy armies at 'competative' events.

 

19 hours ago, sarabando said:

i think events that reward narrative behavior over WAACyness. Such as rewarding people for their paint jobs, creative army lists, background fluff for their army, most legion like behavior. Although ive never even been to an official event ever so my opinion is worth dirt. 

 

Competative events generally reward painting way more than narrative events. Warhammer World's Throne of Skulls isn't a narrative event but is 50% soft score based. This means to get a max score you need 5 wins, 5 best game votes and 5 best army votes from your opponents. So if you win 5 games with no best game or army votes you're in the middle with no chance of getting any prizes but if no player actually gets max score someone can come first with only 3 wins.

 

While the Warhammer world narrative events just don't have any winners and the only prizes are for the player with most best game votes per faction. These events also had no army lists so you could change your army completely for any opponent so it was up to the players to discuss what would be a 'fair' game which is really the only way to do things even if it can work badly in practice. The newer crusade events are similar except the flexibility is limited by the crusade roster.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Closet Skeleton

[gideon stargreave]

On 2/25/2023 at 4:32 AM, ThePenitentOne said:

So obviously, the Grand Narrative is just one example of a Narrative event, but I think it's likely the aspirational goal for any GW narrative event. So check this out:

 

 https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/03/the-warhammer-40000-grand-narrative-is-the-best-crusade-event-in-the-world/

That looks quite something