Narrative Toolbox 1: Storygaming

I have been running monthly narrative Age of Sigmar events for the past 3 years (just by counting the battleplans in my campaign books, I have planned and run at least 30 Game Day events).  This is the first part of a narrative toolbox for other NEOs to draw from to hopefully learn from my experiences and further build the technology of narrative event design.

Warscroll Design Methodology

I received a question on one of my recent posts regarding how I create these.  It seemed like something that would be interested to devote a post to, just to go over my methodology, and how you can make your own warscrolls.

The Infinite Expanse of Age of Sigmar

I've been seeing some negativity lately on the Age of Sigmar Facebook groups I follow toward the recent uptick in homemade warscrolls.  Namely, towards the various 40k homebrew projects floating about (most recently these Tyranids rebranded as "Cosmic Horrors").  Obviously I feel differently, but I think it's worth discussing why I feel differently.  It's not just a "we can play however we want!" situation, I think the fluff of Age of Sigmar uniquely lends itself to very, very, very open play and storytelling.

So the setting of Age of Sigmar is nine infinitely large realms (eight of which are "mortal") each of which is attuned to one of the lores of magic from oldhammer (and then Chaos).  While they are connected by magic and portals and whathaveyou, geographically they are completely distinct and separate.  So we have a collection of 9 alternate realities similar to the D&D Feywild and Shadowfell, where they are elementally attuned, but similar to eachother, but in this case there is no "prime material plane".  But wait, instead of each plane being a planet or something, it's actually a whole infinite expanse with its own moons, planets, space, and so forth.

So let's take for example Azyr, the Realm of Heavens.  In AoS, it's the realm that Sigmar has on lockdown where reasonable people hang out.  But that's probably only part of it... it is infinite after all.  There are planets in the sky!  Given infinite space, for every unique segment of space, there should (statistically speaking) be an identical segment of space.  Similarly, for every conceivable finite space, there should be a segment of the infinite space that is exactly as conceived.  All this is a bit more than is necessary though to support my point, which is that the entirety of 40k could easily be set within Azyr, somewhere in those glittering heavens.  Somewhere in the infinite expanse is a segment of space that is exactly identical to all of those cool maps in the 40k books where the exact events laid out in 40k fluff have transpired.

Similarly, somewhere in the Realm of Shadows, I imagine there is an a place called Malifaux (warning: I may make warscrolls for this, although I can't imagine it would interplay all that well).  Perhaps in the Realm of Beasts some bold humans have carved out a Cygnaran Kingdom with the might of their warjacks.  The point being, the fluff for Age of Sigmar supports and envelops all other fluffs.  Because Age of Sigmar is so vague and expansive, it seems like there's no good reason for any given thing to not exist... right?

Chess vs. Craps

  For a long time, I have used a scale to compare games.  At one end is Chess, a game which has exactly one random element, at the other end is Craps, which has (correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure I am (but I'm probably close))) zero non-random elements.

<--------------------->






         The Game of Kings                                                                                                   Show Me 7s!

  The defining factor here is that Chess is a solved game.  It is a (more or less) perfectly tactical and determinate game in which the better player will almost always win.  Craps (at the other end of this spectrum) is completely unsolvable and computers are no better at it than humans.  Maybe I should be using a different game for my example here because I am getting the sneaking suspicion that I am soon going to receive a thorough education in the tactical intricacies of Craps, but I'm going to stick with it because it's still a good example (says I!).
  Neither of these games is implicitly superior to the other.  Maybe that sounds all new-age special butterfly-y, but I think that these games simply cater to different audiences.  I prefer Chess (sorry Craps enthusiasts) and I think that most gamers would follow suit.  I feel pretty safe saying that gamers want to have some element of control over their win or loss in a game.  However, some amount of crapsiness (how do you like this word I've just made up?  Try using it in conversation (I do... it's fun)) can add to the fun of a game.
  If you look at popular miniatures, card, and board games, the Craps element of the game frequently outweighs the Chess.  I like to think that most miniatures games (once models are on the table) are somewhere toward the middle on the Craps side of the spectrum.  Some games like Warhammer are extremely Craps heavy, whereas WarMaHordes is shifted a bit toward the Chess side.  The difference in predictability meaningfully affects who plays each game and why.

 In the Grim Darkness of the Chess<>Craps spectrum, there is only war

  Chessier (not to be confused with Cheesier) games are (presumably) better for competitive play because they reward tactical thinking and often are won by the 'better' player.  Crapsier games are (also presumably) better for casual play because they shift some responsibility for results away from the player (your friend didn't just steamroll you... you rolled poorly).