Yes. The games played by the players are a disposable story, which persist only as long as the people involved want them to and have no bearing on other players.
You just relocated a thread about what's wrong with evolving narratives. They change things that people like, and good world builders are not always good story tellers.
A narrative that moves 'forward' is always going to close doors behind it even as it opens them in front. There is a balance of loss to gain there, and each forward motion is inescapably a gamble. Is it better to hold? To move more laterally than forward? To go full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes? There are legitimate arguments for all of them. But the risks of movement are very much as real as the risk of stagnation should you not.
I relocated a thread from the news to Yu Jing because it started devolving to the same arguments all other threads in Yu Jing had, it has nothing to do with evolving narrative, it has to do with how the posters do not like this evolving narrative and definitely nothing to do with the news section of the forum.
Given the knee-jerk reaction yesterday in the Australian scene (Facebook group) - it felt as though the response was mostly upset at the outcome and was followed by people making threats to refuse to participate in ITS tourneys where this change would be implemented. It was less clear whether people's planned forces even included these models, or was just an overall level of outrage that such restrictions would be imposed. In spite of all the carry on over the loss of a single model per human faction for a matter of a few months, I honestly think they'll all get over it by next week and people won't *actually* pull out of tourneys. But the question is then - if not ITS, how else can CB reflect these kind of narrative changes in the game? Realistically, the only way is to alter the core game and remove models/options/profiles altogether, rather than just from ITS. Is that really what people want? Because anything that is "optional use" is guaranteed to be ignored and be wasted effort - the same way as all the people currently asking TOs to fudge army lists, so they can still bring Tarik/Kusanagi/Gui Feng bro/etc, are trying to do. (I say "etc" but I honestly think those 3 are the only profiles that actually matter to anyone. Guard - what a silly rule, am I right?)
How about change the narrative in a way that is a) fun (ie adds something) rather than punitive b) not part of the tournament system if it affects balance. You don't give one side less pawns because white invaded black land in the story. That's not really the point of a tournament system, which is to provide as fair balance as possible. They have been using it as "story mode" for a while, and it's pretty kludgy. It's be better to have a narrative module attached to ITS (maybe Infinity Narrative System) that does this. And actually make the things in it fun if you want people to play it. If people don't want to play it, might be a hint you shouldn't be doing it. Taking things away isn't fun. Doing a faction swap for 3 months for all those characters would be an example of something that might be fun.
How many games do you play that aren't ITS missions? Or use a different system? I'm pretty sure my local scene runs approximately - 0 games outside of teaching new players. ITS is what people play. As I stated in my post, if CB want people to play the changes they enact, it is either ITS specific or it is core game change. Similarly, consider that the "fun" was playing the selected missions as, perhaps, a change to your normal gaming. Perhaps also consider that losing that one model (that is apparently the crux of your entire army, given it causes this much upset) to be a challenge for you to improve your gameplay or try something new? Perhaps you can find fun in doing something new rather than applying the same old list? I also refute that a "faction swap" of characters would be considered a "fun" alternative for those already feeling slighted over the issue. They would just as quickly turn around and accuse CB of trying to *force* them to invest in a new army - as though CB had a gun to their head. *eyeroll* The poll results from this post show 30 people in favour vs 42 against. There are a further 27 who have no opinion (which could well be the Tohaa, NA2, and Combined Army players who had no real outcome - and thus no investment in the campaign) and 5 people who suggested they didn't even know what the event was. So that is still a 60% majority who had either a good or neutral interaction with the event. Arguably, those neutral responses are a failing of the event or communication that can be improved upon with better advertising in future. CB have made the game what it is by doing what they want to do. Hearing Carlos talk about Guitierre's (I've probs got the name wrong) vision of Infinity being that he virtually explains *what it is* rather than *how he thinks it should be*, as though he was stating facts, is inspiring. It makes me sad to see the gaming community stew in negativity, knee-jerk react to changes, and generally act in an arrogant and priveliged way - as though they, as players, own the game/IP and have the sole right to dictate how it is used :(
The thing is, CB actually did worse than a zero-sum game - they made a negative-sum game. People are going to be grumpy, that's just human nature.
The only problem with that is that, as we see (and I hate to break this to anyone who still believes in Santa Claus, but...) People can be WRONG. Gutier is only human, and makes mistakes (clearly). I'm not even referring to this ITS thing or the JSA split in particular. I'm just saying, he's not infallible. Most good leaders and good business people have advisors, panels, boards, etc. There's a reason for getting advice and having multiple opinions weigh-in on development, and that's because individuals tend to be blinded to their own flaws (and artists tend to swing either way, either totally blinded or seeing flaws that don't exist). The issue is that CB's small development/production team is just that: small. They, for lack of a better way of saying it, don't have a '10th man' like in WWZ to suggest to them the opposite viewpoint. And that's complicated by the fact that they've got all creative stuff filtered through one guy. Until that changes, this stuff is going to continue. Even with huge productions with major companies and hundreds of creative staff you STILL run into the problem of things not being as many fans would like...but that's going to certainly be exasterbated by a smaller design team.
Agreed. I think it's also worth adding that, as much as some people like to worship the creator's word, the reality is that a lot of the time the fans are actually more in-tune with the overall tone and 'mood' of the work than the creator, because the creator's working behind their own inner filter, whereas the fans see 'what it could be'. Not to say fanboy-ism is good, but... dismissing fan unhappiness because 'they don't own the work' is ridiculous, and a sure way to alienate most of your customer base lol.
But the growing mentality seems to reflect that fans/players feel that they, in fact, own the work :P Feels like every second post I saw yesterday was "I bought a model and therefore it is my right to play it in your game".
I hear ya. I mean I agree that's not good...but while being able to use the model in the game might not be a right...removing the ability to use it after people have bought it does seem a bit...mmm...deceitful? At the least, it doesn't seem very consumer-friendly.
Proxy rules exist. Just because the model is a Tokusetsu Butai and you play YJ, doesn't mean it can't be a Yisheng... Plus, this event outcome is temporary. Official proxy rules didn't even exist when my Exrah were canned ;) I didn't dummyspit over it.
It is still bad form. I have officially lost a player from my small group who took this as a last straw. Considering that other players have been sniffing around 40k for some time now this might be the end of infinity in my small town. Listen, I understand YOU don't see the issue and it's not even really about models. This is about what it represents from a tournament game. If CB is not going to take ITS seriously then how can it's players? There are plenty of rewards and interesting ways CB can reward faction play, but this kind of change to the game is best done with something like Wotan or Dawn.
I'm going to take a pot shot at 'my own people' and just say this: Nerds are shitty entitled people. There is no rage like nerd rage. This is an outrage multiplier that gets added on top of the existing outrage bonuses humans get when dealing with change. And I'm sure most of us have worked in an organisation or even a sector that was the subject of some very poorly implemented change that did nothing to quell the stress and anxiety people suffer during the process. Effective change management may seem less important to do for nerd hobby stuff, but remember that people have spent money on these products. With children and daycare fees, my hobby budget is low nowadays comparitive to when i was single and carefee. Losing units hurts a lot so I'm glad I didn't cop an uprising.. Saying you can proxy with the 'dead units' is a shitty cop-out for the JSA units/Exrah/Squats/Tomb Kings. Particularly given there was no lead-up to the change - what happens to the person that loses their armies models within a week of purchase? In the context of the current outrage over the temporary ITS ban, yes, it's 2 months, I don't think saying proxying the banned units as something else is a big deal. It may even encourage a cash strapped played with limited models to experiment with units he previously wouldn't in order to fill out his/her list. But at the end of the day, it could have been better communicated. If the facebook page can repost articles from blogs, surely it can take out a time to reinforce knowledge and implications of the event (during the event) and then announce the results and full impacts at the end? Leaving people int he dark about somethings don't help either. The exact amount of time that the models will be banned has been made clear in the forums (2 months) but the page just ominously says "The following characters cannot be used in Army Lists for ITS Leagues or Tournaments until further notice". That scary shit is not cool for players. That's poor change management. If this was a party one night and we knew the events would last the night then we'd be cool to be left in the dark for flavour reasons. Because tomorrow morning everything is normal. In the context of Backd00r crisis, thanks to imaginations and poor information we could have potentially lost the models until the next ITS season or even longer. Which is exactly where a lot of peoples minds went untill it was made absolutely clear it'd be only for 2 months - and only ITS tournies - and only ITS tournies that enforced this narrative. That's a big jump from imagination to reality that could easily have been resolved by effective communicaiton.. I accept that we have limitations on the quality of communications we can receive from CB due to language barriers. However, as as Infinity grows and the events become more dynamic and with substantial/meaningful outcomes that effect the global community of players, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. So on a similar note: Maybe I'm wrong but I'm certain that a longer lead-time would have led to less player-base outrage from Uprising. Prior to the narrative ITS, we only got significant updates to fluff with every book (2 years?). Unless CB is going to investigate more frequent updates to fluff and the world beyond the ITS narratives, they need to provide greater lead-times to changes. So maybe it's made clear that the Japanese are actively rebelling so when the next book comes out and they split, the butt-hurt is measurably less. Maybe another alien army is coming and it's going to negatively impact Tohaa and CA and that's noticeably alluded to in the narratives and fluff updates on their website. it's built up, their implications for the other factions are made clear and then they arrive. Players greet the new army in the human sphere with interest and not outrage. Which is much less of a table flipping moment than "Oh hey, here's some new toys that you should buy as of the upcoming release of the book "Down-Falling". Also CA are really scared off these new toys and that's why the Avatar can't deploy anymore. Before I forget, the new aliens have somehow made the Tohaa lose their ability to count so Fireteam Triad is no longer a thing. GLHF".
In fairness to the post this refers to (even if obviously in good hunour) this is a style that varies from group to group. Some feel the faces rolled by each player are sacrosanct; others that faces can be fairly altered by collision with the opponents’die - a sort of ‘petanque’ with dice. Myself, (and as usual) I don’t mind how it’s played as long as all parties are agreed before the game begins. Everyone knows that the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the event that finally sparked the First World War, but what is not widely known is that the assassination was the result of an acrimonious triple-crit incident caused by this very style!
I have yet to see this... never seen somethign like this, either in real life or in some video. Does REALLY exist people who does this?
So far, not a fan of this event for the following reasons: 1) Gameplay-wise, nothing was gained from it. At the same time, losses were either negligible if you play ITS with "right" faction (or if you don't play official matches at all), or annoying (mostly to YJ players and maaaaybe Haqq). Edit: well, there's the Unmasking mission. People may or may not like that one, but it's a gain, I guess... 2) I'm in stark opposition to fluff messing with competitive gaming. Writing fluff to accompany gameplay-related changes is cool when those changes are made with competitive play in mind. Seeing how characters were picked for bans and that there's no lasting change, I doubt this entire thing was driven by competitive play concerns. 3) On fluff itself... It's an excuse of a fluff and it doesn't help that we already know how some events will end because CB had to give it away in advance in order to ensure people won't snatch their torches and pitchforks again. It's better not to think how does actual gameplay translates into what happens in the first place. But frankly, it's a minor point.
I'd also never heard of it or even seen it in use, but I recall that Plebian said his group commonly use it as a house rule. Can you confirm or deny that for us, @Plebian? I think Pétanque Dice is exactly the sort of wild-eyed, testosterone-charged, muy macho gaming experience we might expect from you Spaniards, but just about the opposite of the tightly-controlled '19th Century English gentleman's club' atmosphere he portrayed in his video! [edit: I belatedly note that others are commenting on this topic with an alleged-cheating slant. It was not my intention to contribute to that debate but to make light of the 'Pétanque' method.]
