PDA

View Full Version : Scenario Battles and Narrative games.



ChaosVC
04-03-2009, 06:53
Hi all, just curious, how many of you, with you usuall gaming group have actually came out with Narrative scenario games and played them.

For me, after playing a number of games in Napolean Total war II, which the mods of the game insisted that there should be a dedicated attacker and defender role for players to chose in a battle, find the concept refreshing and more challenging and more realistic. But when I look at warhammer fantasy, there are no attackers or defenders, the initiative belongs to whoever roll first for the turn and usually the list with the most fire power (magic and shooting) can chose to be the defender.

So will there ever be a day when the dwarves have to march up against the warriors of chaos to capture certain objectives? What would you think about such battles? Can the game become more meaningful and inspire people to create scenarios backed with interesting story to explain why the dwarves who are usually defensive are now force to capture the enemies position? How would this affect the game balance of current army design? Simply Can this be done?

Personnally I would love to see GW do something like this, give the defender 3 objectives to hold and the attacker to capture, be it a redoubt, a hill or a bridge etc. given that only certain troops can hold and capture objectives while others can contest. This is partially inspired by 40k scenarios but 40k objective scenarios are more of an attempt to make their games more tactical like Fantasy pitch battles while this concept is more of what I think a
way to make fantasy more interesting and possibly micmick historical war games.

Love to read your opinnions.:)

Toomanymind
04-03-2009, 07:04
Hi all, just curious, how many of you, with you usuall gaming group have actually came out with Narrative scenario games and played them.

For me, after playing a number of games in Napolean Total war II, which the mods of the game insisted that there should be a dedicated attacker and defender role for players to chose in a battle, find the concept refreshing and more challenging and more realistic. But when I look at warhammer fantasy, there are no attackers or defenders, the initiative belongs to whoever roll first for the turn and usually the list with the most fire power (magic and shooting) can chose to be the defender.

So will there ever be a day when the dwarves have to march up against the warriors of chaos to capture certain objectives? What would you think about such battles? Can the game become more meaningful and inspire people to create scenarios backed with interesting story to explain why the dwarves who are usually defensive are now force to capture the enemies position? How would this affect the game balance of current army design? Simply Can this be done?

Personnally I would love to see GW do something like this, give the defender 3 objectives to hold and the attacker to capture, be it a redoubt, a hill or a bridge etc. given that only certain troops can hold and capture objectives while others can contest. This is partially inspired by 40k scenarios but 40k objective scenarios are more of an attempt to make their games more tactical like Fantasy pitch battles while this concept is more of what I think a
way to make fantasy more interesting and possibly micmick historical war games.

Love to read your opinnions.:)

I recently played a 1000 pt scenerio battle Dwarfs vs. Lizardmen. The Dwarven treasure hunting expedition's goal was to capture a sacred Lizardmen shrine, rumoured to have vast amounts of treasure inside. Needless to say, he got his skinks into the objective, while my Dwarven units were too broad to fit through the opening. :cries: It was fun other than that fact.

Morale of the story:

Close quarters street fights are for skirmishers only. :eek:

Demonborger
04-03-2009, 08:14
I'd like to see more multi-front battles, so intead of having say three battle objectives on one table there are three battles on seperate tables, with say two minor battles which have set goals for both sides which impact on the third major battle. You could play around with the idea, perhaps have the 3 battles going on at the same time, or if space is an issue then play the 3 battles seperately.

Some of the smaller contributary battles could even be skirimishes (e.g band of heros venture into a lair in search of a magic weapon which will aid them to defeat the enemy in a later pitched battle).

Peegore
04-03-2009, 08:47
Well, my little gang of gamers regularly play scenarios, and we even knocked up a mini campaign ( see the link in my sig to my website )

The scenarios are from a set of 10-ish cards we just pick before the game. The only thing I had to take into account is if Dwarfs had to capture an objective on the other side of the table... thus they get an extra 6" added to their deployment zone on the appropropriate scenario card. No standard VP's, just 1 vp / objective achieved, 2 per card )

What I would do though is possibly simplify things down to the new 40K scenario level, as many of them are very similar to each other.

But the advantage of playing scenarios is immense. It really does encourage taking a more balanced army ( flexible enough to defend or capture objectives... cos you don't know what you'll get ). And taking objectives vs. managing vp loss/gain means battles are more, well, battle-like and hard fought. You can afford to throw units at capturing an objective because you don't care about their VP value... just that you control an objective at the end of the game. Just like battles ought to be ;)

ChaosVC
04-03-2009, 09:17
Good to know you guys actually do all that Narrative Scenario Stuff. Peegore, great website, awesome painting and battle reports, wish I was there.

Famder
04-03-2009, 10:03
While I do like scenarios and narratives I think you are neglecting the fact that sometimes a pitched battle is a scenario in and of itself. And it is still a mimicry of historical battles because scouts would give enough warning to armies to prepare that when the finally met they were in the proper formations. Sometimes the army's goal really is to just break the opponent and capture ground, which is represented by the VP and Table Quarter system.

I like narratives and scenarios, just don't forget that the typical pitched battle is can still be a narrative.

ChaosVC
04-03-2009, 11:25
I also think you are also neglecting the fact that no one is disputing that with you, but when we talk about scenarios, we talk about everything other than pitch battles. And in historical battles, there is always a defender and an attacker, something not very well represented in warhammer version of pitch battle. Historical battles are rarely balance.

edit: That said, I like Demonborger suggestion, where multiple battles are fought to decide the advantages gained for the final battle, something that is narrative and fun. Very different from the usual chess like pitch battle where everything is about balance between the two.

Urgat
04-03-2009, 11:45
We do from times to times, but it's more suited for skirmish games.

w3rm
04-03-2009, 13:41
Well in Lord of the Rings we did a 2 table scenario for the battle of pelenorr's field(SP?). The good had to hold the evil off of one table. if evil broke through the seigers would get extra reinforcements. If the besieged broke though the evil line on the other table, the good on the other table would get reinforcements. it was alot of fun, even though good got butchered!

Mireadur
04-03-2009, 13:59
I used to make narrative campaigns which involved several armies. Currently though, we are in the middle of a map-construct your empire type campaign, in which theres ruling for attacking and defending too.

I find the mindless random games absolutely unispiring and empty. They are good here and there, but our gaming group main focus have (fortunately) always been this kind of narrative/scenarios gaming.

Keller
04-03-2009, 15:00
We usually do not do any kind of story/narative for our games. We just show up, see who is available to play, and hit the tables.

It would be fun to do some different scenarios, I think....

ChaosVC
05-03-2009, 01:11
Well my group once tried to organise a Dark elves vs Chaos Major battle with no point constrain involving a castle, a beach and 3 6' by 4' tables. Basically we just bring everything we have in our collection which is painted for battle. Could have happened if not for the Real life commitments that delayed the project. In the end, it didn't happen. Its good to know that there are groups out there that actually make the effort and pull it off for narrative scenarios games.

But now we mainly play the mighty empire campaign, but to be honest I find that not much of a difference to playing normal pitch battle, but at least it gives us an excuse to play games. Currently, I am cracking my head to come out with a one off narrative campaign that doesn't require too much time commitment but involves multiple battles with a final showdown. Kind of like that idea.:p

Urgat
05-03-2009, 09:15
We usually do not do any kind of story/narative for our games. We just show up, see who is available to play, and hit the tables.

It would be fun to do some different scenarios, I think....

Completly. The best ones I've played are sceneris where the objectives are not related with points whatsoever.
They need some thinking beforehand to be balanced though.
My favourite remains the "capture the playmobile pirate ship!" scenario :D
The end to this campaign is yet to be played though (the castle is yet to be completed, in fact, I'll have to look into this this weekend ><)

Famder
05-03-2009, 10:00
I also think you are also neglecting the fact that no one is disputing that with you, but when we talk about scenarios, we talk about everything other than pitch battles. And in historical battles, there is always a defender and an attacker, something not very well represented in warhammer version of pitch battle. Historical battles are rarely balance.

I know full well what you were talking about, but I was offering the stand point that you don't need fancy rule changes to create "narratives" for your battles. Terrain deployment for instance can force armies to act differently to follow a narrative. Or just play for your own objectives that fit your armies own narrative. Without being prompted to I often find myself hunting for the general's head on a pike to "break the enemy's spirit" in the story I construct myself. Again, I reiterate, I know what you are getting at, I am just offering ways that don't involve having to come up with balanced rules.

You are greatly oversimplifying historical battles and what it means to be an "attacker" or "defender." Pitched battles were very common, the more memorable battles happened to be the ones where armies did not meet in a pitched manner. Because of shoddy communication it wasn't practical to organize ambushes or flank attacks with large armies. There are many accounts of armies sitting at opposite ends of the battlefield and not do anything except prepare for when their forces meet.

ChaosVC
06-03-2009, 02:55
I know full well what you were talking about, but I was offering the stand point that you don't need fancy rule changes to create "narratives" for your battles. Terrain deployment for instance can force armies to act differently to follow a narrative. Or just play for your own objectives that fit your armies own narrative. Without being prompted to I often find myself hunting for the general's head on a pike to "break the enemy's spirit" in the story I construct myself. Again, I reiterate, I know what you are getting at, I am just offering ways that don't involve having to come up with balanced rules.

You are greatly oversimplifying historical battles and what it means to be an "attacker" or "defender." Pitched battles were very common, the more memorable battles happened to be the ones where armies did not meet in a pitched manner. Because of shoddy communication it wasn't practical to organize ambushes or flank attacks with large armies. There are many accounts of armies sitting at opposite ends of the battlefield and not do anything except prepare for when their forces meet.

I am not sure how I over simplify historical battles by stating that there can be an attacker and defender, when most battle involves an invading army and
a defending army. I can go on all day to tell you about other circumstances that sometimes put the invading army on a defensive stance but then I would be overcomplicating getting too much into detail. Even when armies sit out on opposite ends of the battlefield, eventually the one that have a more pressing reason to make a move will be the attacker. To be honest I am not sure if you are actually the one over simplifying battles.

Anyway, I don't see your point, because most people who played warhammer would have already played pitch battle to death and narrative scenario battles offer a more refreshing change, and I have read some and played some scenarios that are actually more engaging and fun that the pitch battle. People are general resistance to change, too competitive or others simply do not have the luxury or time to plan fun and elaborate campiagns and scenarios like Keller.