Named Characters In Narrative Games
/
Narrative Playbook is a new regular column written by Martin from Narrative Labs, taking a look at the many and varied aspects of narrative play in the many worlds of Warhammer. Check out Narrative Labs on Twitch, Twitter and Facebook for the latest streaming times, and for some fantastic interactive narrative gaming.
In the worlds of Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar there are lots of amazing heroes (and anti-heroes) we love to hear about. Whether it’s the bellicose antics of Gotrek Gurnisson or the insane experiments of Fabius Bile, these characters help create the worlds in which we fight our own narrative games.
Many of these heroes have models and rules to allow us to play with them on the tabletop, and are often called 'named characters' or 'special characters' (I find I use the term 'named characters' a lot, but I think it’s a poor description because I have plenty of characters in my own forces who are named). They often have incredibly powerful abilities which make them very appealing to add into our army lists, but how much should we use them in narrative games?
Whenever I run a narrative campaign, and certainly on Narrative Labs, one of the things I try to encourage my players to do is not to bring any of these special characters, and this often surprises people. I’m going to outline why I do this and when I make an exception.
There are two main reasons why I don’t like to see named characters in narrative games:
To preserve the authenticity of the narrative
To make the narrative about my/our personal characters
What do I mean by the authenticity of the narrative, and why can named characters potentially spoil this? I want to imagine that the narrative games I fight actually happen in the worlds of the 41st millennium and the Mortal Realms. In doing this, it’s important to avoid anything that contradicts the lore created by the authors of the universe, be they the background writers or authors of fiction.
Within these works, established characters have their own stories that explore their impact on the universes they inhabit, and those stories are sacrosanct. Their origin stories, their mightiest conflicts and ultimately their deaths are set out in these works, and anything that you do in your own narrative games that contradicts this, in my mind, invalidates your own stories. Now, in reality, there are many ways to explain away some of the events that take place in your own narratives without breaking the established lore, but you always risk running afoul of something already written, or indeed yet to be written.*
Worse still is when many of these named characters appear on the battlefield together. In the written lore of the Warhammer 40,000 universe Abaddon the Despoiler, Warmaster of the Black Legion, has not come up against Roboute Guilliman, Lord Commander of the Imperium and primarch of the Ultramarines (as far as I’m aware at the time of writing). When that does happen (and I’m sure it will) it’ll be a big deal and will very likely be portrayed as the first time these titans of the lore have met. And the minute that happens, it will contradict any and every battle you’ve fought in which these two have both appeared – potentially invalidating the narrative of those games and every game related to them. That makes those games at best 'alternate history' at worst complete works of fiction that have no place in the 'real' Warhammer 40,000 universe, undermining the authenticity of my own narratives. That always leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth that I’d like to avoid.
It's also worth considering the presence these named characters have in the setting as a whole – and that is 'next to none' (with some very notable exceptions). There’s only one of them, and they can only ever really be in one place at a time, so should they really be present in so many narrative games? Just how is Vandus Hammerhand in so many places at the same time, fighting so many battles? Yes he is built for war, but he can’t be everywhere at once. The number of battles these characters fight in, if you collate all the games they’ve been involved in across the world (our world that is) would be staggering, and well beyond the capabilities of most of these individuals.
The second reason I prefer not to see named characters in narrative play games is that I want my games and campaigns to be about my characters, and the characters created by other players. When my Wight King Kriel takes to the battlefield atop his somewhat badly assembled Dread Abyssal (the necromancer who tried to raise this fearsome mount didn’t get it quite right, so the poor creature’s a bit slow!) I want the story and the game to be about him. If Arkhan the Black or even Nagash himself turns up, then by the pure nature of what these named characters represent - both in the lore and in the game - the focus inevitably shifts to them, and poor Kriel is very much left on the sidelines of what should be his story.
I love creating my own characters, seeing how their stories progress and how they interact with other gamers' stories and characters. When I use them I want them to be the focus, and what happens to them (usually get beaten badly, as it turns out) to be what excites me about the game and drives me to tell more stories with them. I find the presence of named characters distracts from this, and I’m always disappointed when I end up in a narrative game against such a character.
With all things, however, there are exceptions and it’s important to consider these.
Some named characters actually can be in multiple places at once. Daemons are probably the most obvious examples, but they’re not the only ones. Many gods of the Mortal Realms can project an aspect of themselves into battle, and so can be in many places simultaneously. Most Tyranid characters are just very specific bio-forms which can be created by any Hive Fleet, anywhere in the galaxy. While it’s rare that Kairos Fateweaver is released into the galaxy or realms, as a daemon unfettered by the constraints of time and space he could be in multiple battles at the same time. Still, I don’t see that as a good reason why he should be in every battle involving Tzeentch Daemons that ever takes place.
Named characters can also be a great way of adding drama to your own narratives and stories. While in my view having Magnus the Red turn up in a game you’re fighting with your Thousand Sons shouldn’t be the norm, when he does it’s a clear sign that whatever’s going on is really important, and helps make that particular game and its outcome seem much more exciting. This can create a real sense of tension to a game and a story, if using sparingly.
An interactive narrative play game in full swing over at Narrative Labs’ Twitch channel - not a named character in sight!
With all that in mind then, I try to follow a few simple rules for narrative games and campaigns I’m involved in:
In general, do not use named characters at all.
Where you are using named characters, no more than one should ever appear in any one battle - that’s not one per side or player, that’s one per game. This avoids characters encountering each other who shouldn’t. (Exceptions can be made for when named characters are known to hang about together a lot).
Where these rules are not applied it should be either in the name of making a game/story more dramatic, or because one of these characters is someone who really can appear in multiple places at once, but in both cases this should be used sparingly.
So that’s the end of my ramblings – what do you think? Do you use named characters in your narrative games a lot? Do these issues concern you? Do they add to your immersion or detract from it? Do you have any approaches to using named characters in your narrative games?
* Of course, sometimes when a development in the official lore impacts upon your own narratives it all works out. I once wrote a campaign set during Abaddon’s 13th Black Crusade that resulted in a small portion of the 40k galaxy getting caught up in a warp storm. A few months later, Games Workshop revealed the Great Rift, which just happened to go right through the star system we’d been playing in. We were able to readily expand the lore of that campaign to say that this warp storm contributed, in some small way, to the Great Rift).
