Lately, I've been submitting the outcomes of my games to Dagobah Dave's Unofficial X-Wing Galactic Campaign. It's been a lot of fun to think about what the story of the game was after-the-fact, as you may have been reading in my HoloNet News exclusives. However, they're decidedly after-the-fact.

I'm thinking that having narrative stakes to fight over might make the skirmishes themselves a little more exciting.

Yet, I feel a little sheepish about suggesting playing missions, or thinking up a story with my opponent, when the games I play are largely pick-up games with guys I hardly know at the FLGS.

Is this a missing element in your games? Do you feel narrative stakes don't (or wouldn't) add excitement? Or do you have some way to incorporate narrative stakes into your games?

This is the biggest weakness in this game IMO, I never feel like I am an Imperial trying to destroy my enemies I always feel like I am just reliving a movie moment at best.

It's a great game but if you have an imagination its difficult with the Canon Nazis sometimes wont let you just play a made up battle if you get my meaning.

Games like 40K and fantasy just seem easier to make your own, if you get my point

But yeah I still love the game.

I'm doing it by trying to homebrew an RPG system based around pilots. It's a long way out, but when I've got something worth posting, I'll start a thread.

That aside, I've also delved into writing some fan fiction about some OC pilots. Because I have no shame.

After reading your HNN posts, I've been considering joining in with some batreps of my weekly games. I'll have to clear it with my opponents first though.

Forging The Narrative.

LOL

This is the biggest weakness in this game IMO, I never feel like I am an Imperial trying to destroy my enemies I always feel like I am just reliving a movie moment at best.

It's a great game but if you have an imagination its difficult with the Canon Nazis sometimes wont let you just play a made up battle if you get my meaning.

Games like 40K and fantasy just seem easier to make your own, if you get my point

But yeah I still love the game.

Lilikin,

I strongly agree with some of what you said, while equally strongly dis-agreeing with what you've said.

I think the lack of context/narrative to most battles is one the weak points of the game. In the "real world" and in the SW universe, battles happen for a reason... there is a context to the battles... neither the Empire nor the Alliance risk precious resources (ships and crew) will-nilly in pointless battles. Without a context, the XWM game is just that... a game. With a narrative, the game becomes a form of story telling, something bigger, more enjoyable and more enduring, IMO.

Re: your comment about "Canon Nazis" limiting your "fun" by not letting you use your imagination to "just make up battles", is confusing to me. My experience is that "Canon Nazis" would be more likely, not less, to include some form of narrative into their games. Now, they might insist on only allowing contemporary ships or pilots and disallowing others (ex. in a game set immediately post Battle of Yavin, the Rebels would not have access to B-wings, Biggs, Porkins, etc... while the Empire could not use any of the named Black Squadron pilots except Vader). To the "Canon Nazis" sticking as close to the original source material/setting has value, though this does not mean that they only wish to refight battles from the OT.

... in my experience...

At the opposite end of the Canon vs Free Fight are those (in my experience) who care little for the story or canon but are more interested in just playing the game- whether that is in a competitive, tournament setting or a more casual, pick-up battle. To both these groups, there is no problem mixing Ibtisam and Biggs in the same squadron or flying E-wings against Vader-crewed "Doom Shuttles".

So, which group is really exercising their "imagination" more- the "Canon Nazis" with their emphasis on SW lore or the "Free Fighters" who just want to field the squad of their choosing with no limitations (within a points limit)?

I would say the first group but your experience has obviously been otherwise.

Regardless, play the game the way you want to... and have FUN.

Not with this game. I read and write books instead.

I find that worrying about narrative in this game kills the strategic value of the game. If I wanted story I'd be looking at the RPG section. This game was not built for competitive storytelling. Competitive storytelling breaks game balance.

To answer the OP: I don't. I don't give a flying fudge about narrative in my games, which is why I find no problems with Blood Angels slaughtering Blood Angels, Finns fighting the US in Siberia or Rebels dogfighting Rebels. I might point out how absurd it is but I never let it get in the way of playing the game, whatever that game may be called.

Chris,

STATEMENT 1: I like Star wars and have a reasonable grasp of the Lore, I know probably the same level of Lore from games like WHFB and 40K

STATEMENT 2: I have built some pretty interesting armies in WHFB and 40K with very funky stories (that kept to the rules of building armies) and NEVER had any negative comments or corrections on how my force or indeed why they were fighting the enemy when we talked a little about a) the back story of the army b) why the two forces in question where fighting.

STATEMENT 3: Whenever I have tried to discuss a narrative with a group (not the normal guys I play with) there is ALWAYS someone there to tell me that during that period Luke/Hans/Whoever else was doing something else or some how the force I had wasn't in keeping with the theme of the game. So I stopped trying to do it.

MY ASSESSMENT OF THIS:

The SW Lore is so well defined and so obsessed with the Characters that make it up that it is very difficult to say that my Imperial force are fighting another imperial force unless I know the entire canon and know an instance when it could have happened, with the ship composition that I have. There is no creation here (ie no imagination(following on with what someone else has written isn't imagination)) is my point that's ok because its a predefined game a GREAT game but still predefined for the most part. Other games like WHFB are designed to let me create but require a lot more work and are more rewarding in this area!

Chris,

STATEMENT 1: I like Star wars and have a reasonable grasp of the Lore, I know probably the same level of Lore from games like WHFB and 40K

STATEMENT 2: I have built some pretty interesting armies in WHFB and 40K with very funky stories (that kept to the rules of building armies) and NEVER had any negative comments or corrections on how my force or indeed why they were fighting the enemy when we talked a little about a) the back story of the army b) why the two forces in question where fighting.

STATEMENT 3: Whenever I have tried to discuss a narrative with a group (not the normal guys I play with) there is ALWAYS someone there to tell me that during that period Luke/Hans/Whoever else was doing something else or some how the force I had wasn't in keeping with the theme of the game. So I stopped trying to do it.

MY ASSESSMENT OF THIS:

The SW Lore is so well defined and so obsessed with the Characters that make it up that it is very difficult to say that my Imperial force are fighting another imperial force unless I know the entire canon and know an instance when it could have happened, with the ship composition that I have. There is no creation here (ie no imagination(following on with what someone else has written isn't imagination)) is my point that's ok because its a predefined game a GREAT game but still predefined for the most part. Other games like WHFB are designed to let me create but require a lot more work and are more rewarding in this area!

However, like Star Wars, Heroclix has rabid fans of its characters who know everything about everybody in the game. In order to keep those players happy more and more rules were added until the game stopped being fun and interesting and started being "play a theme team or lose" This game could easily have devolved into that if it focused on story in game. It would suck. We'd see Tie Swarms and only tie swarms because that's the only functional thematic list.

You're agreeing with me basically, You can't them this game to much because of the 'rabid fans'

You're agreeing with me basically, You can't them this game to much because of the 'rabid fans'

But I'm saying that's intentional on the designers end. They've designed the game to be almost impossible to theme. They've offered no bonus to theme. They've done so for a reason, and a good one. It sucks the fun out of list building, and degrades the strategy of thr game as a whole.

I'm a huge SW fan. Have been forever. But I find no point in being all about canon list building or narratives.

To me, this game is meant to be a 'build squad'-'fly squad'-'improve' type of game. The appeal of it lies in the combos you come up with and the counters you can use.

Sure, having story is fun sometimes. A battle with context is great, but there's a place for that and they're called missions. They come with the expansions and lots of people have done a good job at creating their own.

But this is not the game, or why FFG made it. Missions are a way to continue using the game when you're bored of 100-point versus games.

Personally I haven't flown a mission yet, or been on some kick where every squadron needs to be movie faithful. Perhaps that's because I don't get to play as often as I want so the base game hasn't bored me, but the game is about how well you create a squad, fly it and adapt mid-game to your opponent, and for me that's plenty right now.

You're agreeing with me basically, You can't them this game to much because of the 'rabid fans'

But I'm saying that's intentional on the designers end. They've designed the game to be almost impossible to theme. They've offered no bonus to theme. They've done so for a reason, and a good one. It sucks the fun out of list building, and degrades the strategy of thr game as a whole.

I'm not sure what - precisely - you mean by 'theming' here, but it's a pretty big charge to make at FFG that they consciously designed against it (if, by 'theming' you mean what I am getting at with 'narrative stakes'). It seems like they've gone out of their way to make missions that I have not seen much demand for in my local scene. (Also, the missions I've seen leave something to be desired, but that's not really evidence either way.)

I would say that FFG has (smartly) taken the video gaming community as their main audience. In my RPG-gamer conceit, I would say that this targets a population that is less driven to come up with story lines on their own. They're more used to storylines that are fed to them. That narratively passive population is simply larger. (I expect pushback on this statement, which is why I called it 'conceit' .) As evidence, I would point out that the game includes more elements from computer games than from other sources.

Regarding the charge of rabid fans. Yes, there is a strain of übernerd that likes to start sentences with: "well, actually...." As someone who is fairly well versed in some parts of the SWU lore, I have to fight that impulse as well. As a bit of a canon nazi myself, I do like to stay away from involving named characters in the narratives that I deal with.

But like Chris said - do what you feel is fun for yourself and the people you play with.

You're agreeing with me basically, You can't them this game to much because of the 'rabid fans'

But I'm saying that's intentional on the designers end. They've designed the game to be almost impossible to theme. They've offered no bonus to theme. They've done so for a reason, and a good one. It sucks the fun out of list building, and degrades the strategy of thr game as a whole.

I'm not sure what - precisely - you mean by 'theming' here, but it's a pretty big charge to make at FFG that they consciously designed against it (if, by 'theming' you mean what I am getting at with 'narrative stakes'). It seems like they've gone out of their way to make missions that I have not seen much demand for in my local scene. (Also, the missions I've seen leave something to be desired, but that's not really evidence either way.)

I would say that FFG has (smartly) taken the video gaming community as their main audience. In my RPG-gamer conceit, I would say that this targets a population that is less driven to come up with story lines on their own. They're more used to storylines that are fed to them. That narratively passive population is simply larger. (I expect pushback on this statement, which is why I called it 'conceit' .) As evidence, I would point out that the game includes more elements from computer games than from other sources.

Regarding the charge of rabid fans. Yes, there is a strain of übernerd that likes to start sentences with: "well, actually...." As someone who is fairly well versed in some parts of the SWU lore, I have to fight that impulse as well. As a bit of a canon nazi myself, I do like to stay away from involving named characters in the narratives that I deal with.

But like Chris said - do what you feel is fun for yourself and the people you play with.

To me, this game is meant to be a 'build squad'-'fly squad'-'improve' type of game. The appeal of it lies in the combos you come up with and the counters you can use.

I think this game is 'meant' to be something that FFG's customers can have fun with, and the more ways that people have deeper fun with it, the more they can (and should) make money with it. Suggesting that people who want narrative are somehow transgressing the game's 'original intent' seems like a way of suggesting that that desire is misbegotten.

Don't be a hater, man.

I'm a huge SW fan. Have been forever. But I find no point in being all about canon list building or narratives.

The 'point' would be a deeper enjoyment of the game for those who feel the need to have it. If you don't have that urge, then I can see how this thread might be a bit of a puzzler for you.

There's a sig line a friend of mine uses in another forum: 'For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.' I'm not quite that pessimistic, but it might apply.

But this is not the game, or why FFG made it. Missions are a way to continue using the game when you're bored of 100-point versus games.

Yes, they're there. But at the same time they feel a bit hollow to me. I just have the need for something deeper.

Theming like Every pilot that died at Yavin can only run with X-wings and Y-wings and only then with pilots that from that battle. Because the B-wing was invented after and Han Solo only hit the battle after everyone had died theming.

Oh, like that.

I do suppose there's a middle ground between the 6a100pntDM and narratives that have to meet exacting historical standards.

I do like exacting historical standards, but I would only mention them in a context where it's appropriate to do so. (Well, my best self would keep from doing so. My not-so-best self may have been guilty of side-line commentary at some point or another, but we're just human. )

A part of it is about knowing your own X-Wing community and what sorts of fun people in that community are in to. I know that I'm looking to explore what kinds of enjoyment styles are out there (ergo this thread.)

Theming like Every pilot that died at Yavin can only run with X-wings and Y-wings and only then with pilots that from that battle. Because the B-wing was invented after and Han Solo only hit the battle after everyone had died theming.

Oh, like that.

I do suppose there's a middle ground between the 6a100pntDM and narratives that have to meet exacting historical standards.

I do like exacting historical standards, but I would only mention them in a context where it's appropriate to do so. (Well, my best self would keep from doing so. My not-so-best self may have been guilty of side-line commentary at some point or another, but we're just human. )

A part of it is about knowing your own X-Wing community and what sorts of fun people in that community are in to. I know that I'm looking to explore what kinds of enjoyment styles are out there (ergo this thread.)

That's the best way to get what you want.

If nothing else, it allows for some killer Crossovers where Wedge Antilles takes to the sky with them.

Honestly, put together an RPG game about fighter pilots. USe X-Wing as the air combat system. Let them work out their pilot abilities and control their ships while you pump crap at them. Don' worry about balance in this game. Worry about them having fun in your campaign.

That's the best way to get what you want.

That's certainly a way to go.

However, this game is too deadly to focus on the heroic exploits of specific pilots. Of course, you can make it less deadly at the expense of that balance.

The thing is, as much as I love RPGs, that's not what I'm looking for. Instead, (as I detail in my Multi-Level Play thread) I'm looking to have X-Wing battles fought as part of a broader campaign. So, kind of like the campaigns that (I hear) are in the Tantive and Transport expansions, but then with a richer embeddedness in the SWU.

Of course, that's a lot of work (and I'm working on it), but that work is not particularly useful if there is only a mediocre demand for that sort of gaming.

From the other responses that I've gotten in this thread, and elsewhere, I think that there is a demand for more narrative. I'm starting these threads in order to explore what people are into (as well as build awareness so that it won't come out of the blue when I shamelessly plug the campaign engine I'm building [/disclamer] ).

Rebels vs. Rebels and Imperials vs. Imperials = Training exercises/virtual simulators. I'm also working with my FLGS to make a huge poster for a "Galactic Conquest" map that we may organize into a season-long tournament.

I've also written a few short narratives featuring Dagger Squadron (I love B-Wings) after a few of my battles. It's awesome even just imagining and narrating battles after those small games and seeing them play out in your head as if it were an epic dogfight scene in a SW movie, even if the special characters involved never met each other.

Tactical aspects aside, I find it hard to believe that people lack the creativity of making their own stories out of this game, or even a whole campaign. I mean sure, the elitism and extremely finite boundaries of SW canon can be stifling in creativity at times, but I recommend trying to make up your own story every once in awhile. Creative writing is fun and challenging and always beneficial to the mind (even in a limited universe such as SW), it can even be exciting.

To me, this game is meant to be a 'build squad'-'fly squad'-'improve' type of game. The appeal of it lies in the combos you come up with and the counters you can use.

I think this game is 'meant' to be something that FFG's customers can have fun with, and the more ways that people have deeper fun with it, the more they can (and should) make money with it. Suggesting that people who want narrative are somehow transgressing the game's 'original intent' seems like a way of suggesting that that desire is misbegotten.

Don't be a hater, man.

I'm a huge SW fan. Have been forever. But I find no point in being all about canon list building or narratives.

The 'point' would be a deeper enjoyment of the game for those who feel the need to have it. If you don't have that urge, then I can see how this thread might be a bit of a puzzler for you.

There's a sig line a friend of mine uses in another forum: 'For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.' I'm not quite that pessimistic, but it might apply.

But this is not the game, or why FFG made it. Missions are a way to continue using the game when you're bored of 100-point versus games.

Yes, they're there. But at the same time they feel a bit hollow to me. I just have the need for something deeper.

I'm not sure you fully understood what I was trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear in how I put it.

I'm not hating on any way this game could be played, I just said that for ME I don't do the missions and canon list building.

Also, yeah, I wasn't a part of the planning process in creating this game, but I would be willing to bet money that their first thought was to create a strategic dogfighting game and how it can be played competitively, and missions with story were an afterthought. But that's just my two cents on that, it really has no bearing on this discussion, nor do I think it detracts from any enjoyment anyone can get out of playing in a different style.

Hell, put all your minis in the washing machine and hit the spin cycle if that's what makes you happy. It doesn't affect me, but we'd still be having the same conversation that I don't have a desire to do that.

And yeah, I fully comprehend this thread. It's an exceedingly simple subject, and the title asks a question that I both came to answer and see what other people say on the subject.

I'm merely saying that, personally, it's not for me and I explained why in my first post.

I'm not sure you fully understood what I was trying to say.

That is entirely within the realm of possibility. I am probably still not fully understanding what you're saying, so please take the rest of this with a grain of salt. I am interested in your thoughts, though I am a little rough on the edges with my criticism.

Also, yeah, I wasn't a part of the planning process in creating this game, but I would be willing to bet money that their first thought was to create a strategic dogfighting game and how it can be played competitively, and missions with story were an afterthought.

I wouldn't bet money against that, because I suspect you're right.

Hell, put all your minis in the washing machine and hit the spin cycle if that's what makes you happy. It doesn't affect me, but we'd still be having the same conversation that I don't have a desire to do that.

Dude, how do you know 'till you try? Just seeing them dance around in there (you have to put some tape over the pin to allow you to leave the door open) is absolutely AMAZING!! Cancel everything else, spin-cycling your minis is the BOMB!

And yeah, I fully comprehend this thread. It's an exceedingly simple subject, and the title asks a question that I both came to answer and see what other people say on the subject.

I'm merely saying that, personally, it's not for me and I explained why in my first post.

But you actually didn't answer the question or explain why you don't care for narrative. You said what the game was designed for, not why you happen to be drawn to the build-fight-repeat style of play.

I guess it's implied in your answer: that the game was meant for a certain style of play, therefore people doing something else are doing something that perverts the original intent, and is therefore not unlike tossing your minis into the washing machine.

Not that you have to confine your answers to the questions asked, but the question was "How...?" not "Why not?"

That said, if you can make the case that the game is ill-suited for narrative play, you might have a great case to make. I'd be interested in hearing it, because it might give me valuable pause in what I'm trying to do.

The term 'narrative stakes' probably best describes what I'm looking for, but there seems to be very limited space for them in this game.

I'm definitely not interested in canonical squads or permanent death of important pilots over the course of a long campaign. Over a very short campaign, permanent death could be interesting -- but it really does upset the balance of the game, and there's a nasty feedback involved in most campaign play where winners tend to get rewarded and losers tend to get punished, leading to greater imbalance down the road. Not fun.

I sort of agree with Aminar's comments about the game simply not lending itself to narrative play on the table. However, I think it's entirely possible to add narrative stakes to a short series of missions, giving players a sense that they are competing for some longer-ranged goal. But you just can't lose Biggs or Howlrunner in the first mission of a campaign and expect the rest of the campaign's scenarios to be any fun.

In the quest for narrative stakes and alternate play styles, my philosophy has been to leave the basic game mechanics alone and not try to add levers that don't really have points of attachment in on-the-table play. Missions can have novel objectives and new elements to interact with, and they can put limits on the sorts of ships that each player can field, but it's very tough to make Luke or Vader an important character because ultimately he boils down to a functional game element that a savvy opponent will deal with in a very clinical way in order to maximize their chances of success.

That's unfortunate for those of us who want more of a roleplay aspect in this game, but I think that's the reality of what the game does and doesn't offer.

The term 'narrative stakes' probably best describes what I'm looking for, but there seems to be very limited space for them in this game.

Well, in order to keep plugging away at the project, I'm convinced (or convincing myself) that this limited space is created not by the game itself. Instead, that limited space is created by the nature of the groups that play the game, the conventions of playing it, and the challenge of building the required architecture to make it happen. I'm working to overcome these problems.

But you raise some good points, namely:

1. A feedback loop of winners being given ever greater means to grind down the losers.
2. The emphasis on named characters who can be killed (in long-term games).

I'm trying to overcome the first point by having a 'fog of war' that separates out tactical wins/losses from operational and/or strategic wins and losses. Basically, while you might generally assume that a tactical victory will lead to an operational or strategic victory, you can't always be sure.

Also, I want to stay away from named characters. While there might be some room for having pilots learn the skills that named characters have (and then using the cards with sticky notes on them for actual play), I'm not at that point yet, and my first challenge is the create the proof-of-concept in a short-term game.

Further, there's the notion that the game can be short or long term depending on how things play out.

Yet, I would like for you to explain more of what you mean with the following statement:

...my philosophy has been to leave the basic game mechanics alone and not try to add levers that don't really have points of attachment in on-the-table play.

I personally like a good narrative for fun and I think that is why I dislike named characters in any game I play; I feel as if I am restricted when I play with them because we already know what should/shouldn't happen with them. "Luke can't die here! He has to blow up the Death Star!" *desynchronizing...*

Fortunately with generic characters, you can make up whatever backstory you want with them!

I came to XWM from a (mostly historical) wargaming background. I'm not talking WHFB or WH40K or even Flames of War. I'm talking good, old-fashioned wargames, where the point of the game was to have fun while participating in a form of historical reenactment or exploration by pushing little toy soldiers (tanks, planes, etc...) around. Competitiveness was generally limited to beating the historical record (or not) not defeating a single opponent in a balanced point tournament. There were no tournaments and wargames were generally multi-player experiences. My friends and I played a lot of games, some based on specific historical events and characters, some completely theoretical in nature (Cold War gone Hot kind of stuff) but nearly all were fought with some kind of background/situation in mind and objectives to be accomplished. Sometimes that goal may be as simple as inflicting as much damage as possible on an opponent while minimizing friendly casualties but usually (as in "real" battles), the goal was something else- a piece of terrain, etc... Even in air combat scenarios (which is kind of like XWM, since George Lucas based his combat scenes on WWII air combat footage), there was some sort of "context", ie. an "attack on an enemy airfield" or "bomber escort" or "fighter sweep", etc... set in a particular place and year. There is no particular reason this cannot be done with XWM... as nearly all my "casual" games with my gaming group are done this way.

Now, I know that XWM is "designed" with a points system to make balanced scenarios easier and to make tournaments a possibility and I have no problem with that. I have played in tournaments, done well and had a great time but never as good a time as I have playing "with" other players rather than just "against" an opponent. To each their own, I guess. One of the great things about XWM is that you can have multiple play and game styles and that is O-Kay. Personally, I am really looking forward to Team Epic-style games.

As far as injecting "theme" into list building, many already do and some of those squads can be not only fun to fly but competitive as well. I think Flames of War (even though I do not like the rules themselves) offers a simple way to do this. Many (most?) FoW players build their "armies" from some sort of "army list", with some sort of "historical unit" in mind (ex. a Panzerkjompanie from 2SS Panzerdivision in Normandy, June 1944). None of these "themed lists" provide any specific advantage over any others, they are just more fun and interesting.

Now, I am not proposing "Army Lists" or that all lists/games should be based on "historical" units or battles from Canon SW lore but, personally, I would like to see more "themed" events where players are free to create squads within certain limits to fit in with a greater narrative, giving each battle a "context" and thus "meaning". This could be something like setting a particular "date" for a game (only ships/pilots available in 0 BBY), a particular battle (any ship/pilot available for Battle of Endor), a "type of battle" (attack on a Rebel convoy or raid on an Imperial base) or something very specific (DS "trench run", etc...), a campaign setting (where the results of one game have an effect on the next, etc...) or even something like the on-going Unofficial X-wing Galactic Campaign. To me, battles are more meaningful and FUN, when they have meaning.

In the end, there are different play and game styles possible with XWM and it is to FFG's credit that they all work within the rules as published. I just like games that are more imaginative than straight-up, set point battles fought within a tournament framework. To me, SW (and by extension, XWM) is about imagination and my imagination is excited more... and my game enjoyment enhanced..., when there is a context to the games I am playing, beyond simply defeating my opponent.

Again, these are my opinions and other opinions are O-kay because there is room for that within the fine game that FFG has given us.