What is in a story?
When it comes to trivial pursuits of the mind like gaming, we all have an opinion point or two that draw us to or repel us from the hobby.
Some just like the game play and are willing to look past inconsistencies in story or relevance.
Others need to feel connected to the story lines that interested them in the first place.
One of my personal “pillars” of happy gaming is sharing the story of my favourite characters in the most realistic and genuine way.
I think Kirk should be on the Bridge of the Enterprise (Not B to E, but the original), Luke and R2-D2 should fly together and timeline, faction and story specific realities should not be tampered with too aggressively*.
If you do throw all conventions out the window and play the game system before the story, I strongly feel you are missing the point.
Unfortunately for game designers, trying to anticipate the needs of their players, often find that gamers are cut from several different cloth’s and they cannot hope to cover all of these bases.
Tournament style players will maximise their chances of winning, using what ever tools are at hand and within the rules as written. If this means Kirk on a Borg Cube with Malcolm Reid on weapons and a Klingon crew are game legal, then go for it.
I personally dislike this. It is only a game you say, but that cuts two ways.
If it is only a game, then surely the only thing that counts to an individual player are what drew them to the game in the first place. Were they drawn to the tournament play, the back story or the companionship. Would I like to be crowned world champion of X Wing with a totally unrealistic and cynical list, playing against the exact same ships in the enemy squad just because they are the top dogs at the moment?
No, I would not.
I would rather play using thematically correct (or at least acceptable) ships in an asymmetrical scenario, just like in the movies, books and TV shows they came from, win lose or draw. For me, the shared gaming experience and the simulation are important.
Nasty but nice, Royal Guard Interceptors.
Designers obviously do feel a certain amount of obligation to the story roots of their games.
FFG releases expansion packs with (generally) the right upgrades for the theme of the ship. It is not entirely their fault these upgrades are often used on any other ship but these**. They also limit pilots to ships that they were known to fly.
Wizkids certainly do, they even supply scenarios to help fit the ship into it’s place in it’s universe. Sometimes expansions are used to “tournament balance” elements of the game, but even then, there is an effort made to keep things on theme. Unfortunately, they are heavily abused at tournaments, as the designers allow almost any combinations to keep tourney players happy.
The other advantage of keeping to Canon, is generally the more even application of your available tools. While making X Wing lists recently, I deliberately limited my squads to the squadrons they were a part of. Black Squadron, Blue Squadron, Onyx Squadron, all got a look in. Some are stronger than others, but by applying the upgrades that FFG supplied with the packs (to all factions), applying modifications logically (and avoiding EPT’s), the balance was generally good, the flavour of each squad was varied enough and the “engagement” level much better.
I suppose the final word from my side of the fence is, I never want to leave a game resenting the game itself, because an opponent did not get that the play is the thing, not the victory at any cost.
But that is just me, your take may obviously differ.
*Hypotheticals are fine, Star Trek is full of “cross over” stories, but there is a limit.
**The Tie Aggressor is a good example. The Twin Laser Turret and Unguided Rockets are their take on the ship’s known capabilities and make those ships quite well rounded. TLT’s and Unguided Rockets find themselves on other ships regularly, but rarely the Aggressor and the Aggressor is then considered a mediocre ship in comparison.