PDA

View Full Version : Plot Progression



ShadowseerNox
23-06-2005, 04:09
I am wondering why people are so against plot progression, and how they weight in numbers against those who are in favor of plot progression.

Goblinardo
23-06-2005, 04:21
I guess it's because people feel it would ruin the game itself: if, say, the Tau empire is munched up by the Tyranids, then Tau players would feel it wouldn't make any sense to play with a "dead" army, even if rules were still made for them.

DantesInferno
23-06-2005, 04:56
And because plot progession either has to inevitably lead somewhere, or not.

If it does, its just going to end with something apolcalyptic like the rising of the Dragon, the fall of Terra, Ahriman's entry into the Black Library, etc.

Now, this is eventually going to get to a point where the Imperium collapses, and 40k as we know it ends completely. I actually like the setting as it is more than the alternative of galactic mayhem.

On the other hand, if they try to continue the story without any real progression, people get annoyed because nothing important actually happens, and you get left with a lot of big, menacing stalemates, with the Imperium always "on the brink of collapse".

However, limited payoff can be a good thing (like Tycho's death, for instance), provided it doesn't disrupt the setting too much.

Shinzui
23-06-2005, 05:11
Progress of the storyline is going to happen weather it's really good for the game or not. Static backgrounds have a bad habit of leading to players that play or read the background to eventually get sick of the same senarios and give up.

In actuall fact until 2000 the timeline of the background was the same as the year date (so in 1997 it was 997.M41 etc) and did have some progress in storylines (not nessesarily galactic wide events but still it was progress).

Delicious Soy
23-06-2005, 06:51
I don't think progress itself isn't the problem, its the method they do it. Of the worldwide campagins, Ichar IV seems to be the only one that worked properly. Armageedon and EoT resulted in little more than stalemate or progressions that were tenous at best.

Advancement through the books is a far better option, such as the new nids codex, which has pushed the Tyrannic wars forward (re: Kryptman's strategy). Moving forward in a controlled way is far more preferable than staking it on a largely random campaign.

charlie_c67
23-06-2005, 11:13
People have long memories and remember what happened when the switch from RT to 2nd ed occured. A lot of fluff and an entire race was lost. They don't want that to happen again. There are some things I'd like to see, like the nids being turned into the EoT, the Tau coming up against chaos/orks/nids and how they'd react/develop. Perhaps the death of Yarrick/ghazkull (sp?) and how that'd shift the balance of power on armageddon. For instance, if they were mortally wounded would they be stuck in a dreadnought by their own sides? Or would Ghazgkull need a whole gargant? :D Other things that'd be interesting would be the awakening of more necrons, what the return of the 13th company/altansar will led to. Little things like that, not huge fall of the Imperium/annhilation of the tau style things.

sigur
23-06-2005, 11:38
I'm one of those persons who are clearly against a background progression. There's SO much in the fluff to base events around, no drastic change is needed. It would just mess up the whole universe as it is now. The way GW goes now with "historical" campaigns is definitly a right one.

If the background proceeded, the Imperium would collapse, something weird would happen around the C'tan (whose role within the background is not really established because so many people despise the role GW made up for them) and all that. It would just ruin the background and the community would finally march to Nottingham, waving with torches and forks.

Rich
23-06-2005, 16:34
The thying is, you can have some progression, like the Imperium launching a crusade to push Abaddon back into the eye, without actually changing too much. The Imperium has always expanded and retreated, and this could be represented in the fluff - let the Imperium take a few steps forward ebfore being given another step back. That would still provide interest in the fluff and would help things to slip forward slowly.

Khaine's Messenger
23-06-2005, 19:12
plot progression

What plot? As elaborated upon by many a "fluffernutter" (eg, Brusilov's article in Oracle 1, here (http://www.warseer.com/article/Oracle/24/14)), 40k is not a storyline so much as a setting, and a poorly put together one at that. It's a frightful mishmash of ideas tied together by handwavium and krazy glue. There is no plot, only a big d100 table like you find in the DnD Dungeon Master's Guide with "scenario ideas." And as others have said, GW seems to think too big. Compounding this is the setting/story problem, which GW seems unwilling to really resolve.

Now, I'm not against stories set in the setting...but I'd like some follow-through on them, which we're not really getting. All we get is change, not something I would call "progress"....

Shadowheart
23-06-2005, 23:19
Indeed, what plot? It's called background for good reason. It's the stage on which plots can be played out, nothing more. If the background were to progress in the way a story progresses, it's entire purpose would be defeated. How would players be able to use the information from their army books to write their own army's background? The common background on which we base our own stories could become outdated at any moment.

What they ought to do is expand the background, by delving deeper into the 40K universe and exploring new aspects. With Inquisitor they did a fair bit of that, the "plot" wasn't moved forward any, but they introduced new concepts and characters as part of the existing structure of 40K. Which is a hell of a lot more interesting than a worldwide campaign that invariably ends in a stalemate.

Meanwhile there are stories progressing all over the place within their own niches that don't affect the 40K universe as a whole but can nevertheless be interesting. If you have an urge to know "what happens next", try a Black Library series like Gaunt's Ghosts.

Jeru
23-06-2005, 23:44
worldwide campaigns while to some may be meangingless and inane. Others enjoy the idea of participating with people around the world in one purpose. To what end GW comes up with that's for them to decide, but w/ the EoT I thought it was pretty neat.

Skander
24-06-2005, 09:16
But a campaign can be worldwide without being galaxywide... Campaigns are great, but I donīt think they need to affect the future of the galaxy in a definite way. EoT was a good example. Remember, it was a Chaos victory, but it didnīt mean the destruction of the Imperium, just a darkening of the background. And the Imperium is so extremely wide, that a great amount of that kind of darkenings are needed to destroy it. Another thing could be the campaign of mars that has been spoken of... the awakening o the most powrful CīTan at the heart of the Imperium is an event strong enough to shake the background. I donīt think GW is going to take this way at least until 40k is so stagnant and sales are so low that they need to reshape the whole game-background.

Briareos
24-06-2005, 09:41
Plot progression isn't necessarily progression of the timeline. The history of the 40K galaxy stretches over 10.000 years. There is more than enough room for 'historical' storylines.

The essential element of a progressive story-line is that choices have consequences. Sadly GW doesn't seem too eager to travel down that road, as they have shown time and again that they are incapable of thinking their background through (the Dragon located next to Earth - what were they thinking ?!?).

So, is there room for progressive storylines ? Yes, although it'd probably have to be 'historical'.
Do I think GW (if they wanted to follow that road) could pull it off ? No, because they obviously have no clear idea of what a coherent background is or how to handle it...

Gorbad Ironclaw
24-06-2005, 13:28
Also because a lot of people don't like many of the big changes that have happened over the years. Squats are still a controversial point for some, and the recent 'invention' as C'tans as big players on the 40k scene was in my opinion very badly done and destroyed a lot of the flavor and feel of 40k. Progressing and expanding the story line is always risky, as you risk putting of a lot of people, as they suddenly find there favourite bit of storyline altered or made obsolete.

axels15
24-06-2005, 23:35
People have long memories and remember what happened when the switch from RT to 2nd ed occured. A lot of fluff and an entire race was lost. They don't want that to happen again. There are some things I'd like to see, like the nids being turned into the EoT, the Tau coming up against chaos/orks/nids and how they'd react/develop. Perhaps the death of Yarrick/ghazkull (sp?) and how that'd shift the balance of power on armageddon. For instance, if they were mortally wounded would they be stuck in a dreadnought by their own sides? Or would Ghazgkull need a whole gargant? :D Other things that'd be interesting would be the awakening of more necrons, what the return of the 13th company/altansar will led to. Little things like that, not huge fall of the Imperium/annhilation of the tau style things.

Id really, really like to see the war on Armageddon end, for better or worse, because it wouldn't disrupt too much, and it would give the players some progression. I don't want a stalemate on this one, i want the real thing

charlie_c67
27-06-2005, 14:00
Problem with that is, if the orks win they'll go on the rampage pushing closer and closer to Terra causing the same problems as if Leviathan hadn't been re-routed or the 13th crusade had triumphed etc etc.

Briareos
27-06-2005, 14:10
That would lend a bit more credence to the whole "Imperium on the verge of collapse" plot-line that we get fed every type a bolter shell is fired...

charlie_c67
27-06-2005, 14:32
Losing armageddon would be the straw that breaks the camels back though. Think it's been said several times that if Armageddon falls then a large part of the imperium's up the swanny.

x-esiv-4c
27-06-2005, 14:43
Or it would force the Imperium to retaliate with extreme force.

Skander
27-06-2005, 15:18
Or it would force the Imperium to retaliate with extreme force.
this si the kind of explanation that would allow the plot to go on. Ok, the Imperium looses a system, very important and all this, a lot of planets are doomed, bla, bla, bla... But the Imperium is ENORMOUS. No matter how many wars they lost, GW can go on eternally saying "now theyīre closer to Terra". Or, the same way the produced the Necs, they can come with one of the deleted marine Legions appearing to lead the Imperium in a war of reconquest... I mean, itīs a matter of imagination. You can always find a way to continue with teh plot without loosing anything relevant on the way.

Briareos
27-06-2005, 15:23
Losing armageddon would be the straw that breaks the camels back though. Think it's been said several times that if Armageddon falls then a large part of the imperium's up the swanny.
The problem is that this is the case of almost all "trench warfare" conflicts the Imperium is fighting - Armaggedon, Cadia, Tyrannids hive-fleets, major Waaaaagh...

I believe that GW painted themselves into a corner by overdoing the whole "barely holding the line" thing. The Imperium, with its decadent tech and psyker plagues, is under attack on all fronts. And should just one front collapse, that's it, no more Imperium.
Thus we have a static background where nothing ever really changes - because the development studio couldn't be bothered to think through the obvious consequences of their pulp storylines...

x-esiv-4c
27-06-2005, 15:53
Exactly. Plot progression can be achieved through the ebb and tide of the power of the races. Yes the Imperium lost a few planets in the EoT campaign but what I would have liked to see was some consolidation and perhaps a counter-attack. Plot progression doesn't mean annhiliation of a certain race, maybe at the worst some characters ( Eldrad) but that opens up new venues to explore.

charlie_c67
27-06-2005, 16:18
Personally I'd like it for the Imperium to go on the offensive for a change. Every major campaign we've had has had them on the back foot against someone or other.

x-esiv-4c
27-06-2005, 16:20
Personally I'd like it for the Imperium to go on the offensive for a change. Every major campaign we've had has had them on the back foot against someone or other.

You have no idea how many times people in my group has stated the same thing. It's always been a war of attrition, defence defence defence. And with so many races taking a chunk out of the Imperium it's ware is starting to show. An offensive campaign would be cool. Imperium, Eldar, Tau Vs. everyone else in a backlash from the EoT campaign....I can dream :)

Brusilov
27-06-2005, 18:13
Briareos, my sentiment exactly. The "barely holding the line" seems to be present in every article on the Imperium, so much it has become a meaningless ritual phrase.
If the Imperium was always barely holding the line, a new threat would mean the Imperium would collapse. So in fact this sentence is in fact a lie.

The Imperium has lost some planets but also gained some, and many people also forget about the favourable situation of the Imperial Navy.

I'm not opposed to plot progression per se, I'm opposed to the idea of having it depend on nothing more than game results that do not represent the universe at all (see the number of goddam Space Marines...)

x-esiv-4c
27-06-2005, 18:18
I totally agree Brusilov ( the SM statement ). The plot progression should be a combination between the narrative staff and campaign results ( so gamers feel like they have some control in a massive collaborative effort). My hang up is that GW introduces all these new fantastic races, ideas, hooks but doesn't go anywhere with them. Rapid evolution of the Tau, increased Necro sightings. I know a lot of people are vehemently against plot-progression but I think some would make the game that much more interesting.

Brusilov
27-06-2005, 22:12
Personally I would not give players a say in things, or a small one only, I would direct them in the direction I've always wanted from the very beginning (GW is doing this already to an extent). Whatever you do, there will always be discontent, then just go ahead with the game developpers believe is the way 40k should go, at least it would give the universe minimal coherence.

Iracundus
28-06-2005, 03:40
The problem with any player campaign with the Imperium on the offensive is that it'd have to take player demographics into account, which I don't trust GW to do or do effectively.

What do I mean? Almost everyone and their dog has some variation of Space Marines. That's a vast player numerical superiority for the Imperium. In the previous online campaigns, it was practically everyone against the Imperium and yet still in terms of player numbers the Imperium outnumbered the other sides. It took almost a total lack of uncoordination on the Imperium's side, and a marked amount of coordination on the Forces of Disorder side for the EoT to even be a minor Chaos victory. A decisive Chaos victory was never realistically possible unless all the Imperial players didn't play, which by itself is impossible. However, the reverse isn't true. If the Chaos and other Disorder races had been uncoordinated, it is very possible that EoT might have been a decisive Imperial win simply due to sheer player numbers.

If it were a campaign where it was the Imperium against one target, it'd be a total no contest and steam roller victory for the Imperium, making it a futile exercise to even participate for the other races. For example, if it becamse say hypothetically an Imperial campaign against the Tyranids, the Tyranids are heavily outnumbered (always only looking at player numbers) would get smothered. Other racial players are not likely to help the Tyranids (after all the Tyranids are supposedly going to eat everyone), or will be pursuing whatever racial objectives of their own.

The problem with "historical" campaigns however is it removes whatever feeling there is of actually making a difference, however small that may be. If the "historical" result is already pre-written, then there's nothing the losing side can do to alter that set in stone destiny. If the "historical" result is not pre-written (ie it depends on what the campaign result is), there is still the sense that none of it matters since in the "present" 40K, it's never mentioned.

The problem with GW fiat of plotline is it gets old and stereotypical real fast. The ending of the EoT with the Cadians being driven back across the sea is at least more interesting than the tired rehashed formula GW has used in stories in the past:
1) Threat shows up, Imperials losing and on the run
2) Situation stabilizes due to efforts of Imperial hero or Eldar advice/intervention
3) Imperial reinforcements show up. Immediate threat defeated and sent running due to efforts of Imperial hero

It was pretty obvious Creed was being setup as the hero that would do that role in the EoT campaign but the Imperial side wasn't helping that portrayal of military genius. In the end I'm glad they didn't just dictate it anyway and have Creed singlehandedly turn the tide and shove the campaign back into the original formulaic mould because that would have totally discounted the efforts of players and shown the campaign as totally rigged since in the campaign there was no such turning of the tide.

Brusilov
28-06-2005, 06:27
On the matter of historical campaigns, does it really have for the campaign to have consequences at a galactic level? Does the fate of the universe always has to hang in the balance?
This is why I'm advocating for a Sabbat Worlds campaign. The setup has been done for years by novels and even if it has no consequence on the general universe it is large enough to worth playing, at least IMHO.

On the matter of unbalance between gamers, I'll have to agree however. This is one of the reasons why I can't bear Space Marines anymore...

Tom - Heretic
28-06-2005, 07:01
On the contrary Brusilov. There's nothing I like more in a game than seeing a dreadnought, three small tac squads, two predators and a killer chaplain and assault squad. Gives my three ordnance capable tanks something to shoot at ;)...

Ten plasma guns? No problem! Fire away sacred relic bearer.
10 man assault squad with jump packs and chaplain? Know how long the last one I fought lasted?

Yup. A little bitter, but in the last two tournaments all but three armies I played were loyalist marines. Two others were chaos marines, and the last was speed freaks (which was the best game by far, cheers Koppo) despite being completely mullered.

If people like the loyalist side then guard is the most sensible choice. I didn't feel inclined to collect marines when I first started 40K, so I don't know why these kiddies do, either.

Briareos
28-06-2005, 09:44
Some of the things I would like to see (amongst other things), and which I believe would flesh out the 40K universe by providing plot progression :
The history of the Maccharian crusades ; why were they launched, how were the forces assembled, how was their course plotted. Some insight into the command structure and some of the internal conflicts which developped. How Solar Maccharius became obsessed with his drive for new worlds. All this has been roughly sketched, but I'd like a more in-depth look - not just "they went, they nuked, they conquered".
The rebuilding of Maccrage after the Tyrannid invasion.
A break-down of the Black Templar crusades.
What some of the Craft worlds did between the death of the Emperor and 'now' (999.M40)

What I would be looking for is not just vague items of military campaign but the social, economical and political consequences of the campaigns. How has a crusade been beneficial to the Imperium ? What are the consequences of losing a specific system to the Tyranids ? How are newly conquered/colonised worlds handled ?

Aurelien
28-06-2005, 10:02
Perhaps a way to counter the effects of the thousands or SM players out there would be weighting of battle results based on the army?

For example, there are many more Guardsmen then SMs in the back ground, so to represent this, make each Guard victory worth more than an SM one. It might also encourage people to play guard;)

With regards to Iracundus saying that Disorder could never realistically win as there are so many more players on the side of Order, while that may be true, remember that each Order players needs to have an opponent to register a result:p

Personally, I dont much like the idea of historical campaigns because the outcome is already known. I would far rather a battle for a subsystem of lesser importance with an unknown result.

I would also like to see the Imperium make a proactive move, perhaps in a Beat Back the Xenos campaign, reflecting the impact the Tau had in Eot, and handily coinciding with the release of the Ordo Xenos codex:D

Iracundus
28-06-2005, 10:48
An Order player did not need to have a Disorder registered opponent. The only requirement was that one player had to be registered. There were plenty of games in which only one side had a registered player. If the registered player won, then the game would be reported, if not then it wouldn't. Yes, that's not really fair but that's how things went. Lot of false wins were posted by people trying to sway things. I think on the second day there were thousands of false spammed wins that were manually removed by the admins of the EoT system.

The problem is that though each side may have had a proportion of cheaters, probably more or less equal in %, in absolute numbers it made a big difference as the Order forces were more numerous so even an equal % with Disorder meant a daily net of more wins for Order. It was only the fact that Disorder distributed its wins better on a grand strategic level that swung the balance, as that threshold effect was worth thousands of extra victories each time it was triggered.

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 12:51
It's really sad when people have to cheat in a world-wide campaign of a table-top wargame. It might have not been the best system GW could have come up with but what else can you do? Register everyone and only those played at Games-workshops under the watchful eye of the mysterious purple shirts ( GW version of the Gestapo ) count?

boogle
28-06-2005, 13:32
some people will cheat at patience, so cheating in a world wide wargame doesn't surprise me

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 13:34
some people will cheat at patience...

Whats the point then? :wtf: It's like those people who buy a video game and the first thing they do is download a walkthrough, get all the cheats and blam their way through it.

boogle
28-06-2005, 13:36
don't mind using the walkthrough if i get really stuck, but i rarely cheat at computer games unless i have to

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 13:42
Well yeah, I can see why you would use a walkthrough when you're stuck but when you just bought the game and are playing it for the first time? Controller in one hand, walkthrough in the other?

Getting a bit off-topic now...So yeah, cheating is teh bad.

GavT
28-06-2005, 13:43
Indeed, what plot? It's called background for good reason. It's the stage on which plots can be played out, nothing more. If the background were to progress in the way a story progresses, it's entire purpose would be defeated. How would players be able to use the information from their army books to write their own army's background? The common background on which we base our own stories could become outdated at any moment.


Spot on Shadowheart!

GAV

charlie_c67
28-06-2005, 13:49
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have a problem with too many new players taking up SM's then do something about it! Try talking to them and show them the benefits of your army and why you like them so much etc etc. I think too many people mither on about how GW push SM's and too many kids take up SM's without bothering to look at how they can help change the trend. Almost like they believe themselves to be above kids. At the end of the day these guys are your future opponants and need encouragement to grow in the hobby.

EDIT:Err is that THE Gav back again?

Briareos
28-06-2005, 14:19
Indeed, what plot? It's called background for good reason. It's the stage on which plots can be played out, nothing more. If the background were to progress in the way a story progresses, it's entire purpose would be defeated. How would players be able to use the information from their army books to write their own army's background? The common background on which we base our own stories could become outdated at any moment.Spot on Shadowheart !
Spot off - you are confusing background and storylines.

A background can progress without significantly outdating core elements. A good example of this is the recent introduction of new species such as the Tau or the Necron to the 40K galaxy.
If handled correctly, plot progression can move the universe forward (or make it more palpable in case of 'historical' storylines) without rocking the foundations of the fluff.

For example, What would the fall of Armaggedon have changed ? The Imperium is forced to hold onto a couple of on-planet hivecities for production and falls back on secondary forgeworlds. The Imperial navy is forced to run blockades to ferry production and raw materials in and out.
There you go ; instant BFG campaign setting and Necromunda campaign (defend/sabotage/scavenge the hive).

Saying plot progression (historical or not) would destroy the background is just being lazy.

[Edit : Actually I'm not sorry at all...]

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 14:25
....

I'm sorry to have to write this, but saying plot progression (historical or not) would destroy the background is just being lazy.

Totally agree. Changes in the background, as mentioned earlier like throwing in the Necrons and Tau changes a lot but it didn't destroy anything, it opened up new venues like the damoclease (sp) campaign and all that theory about the "Dragon" being inside Mars.
There was a lot of excitement during and after the EoT, a lot of people were saying "What happens now?" I think the majority of the people enjoyed the dynamic background rather then a static one.

Iracundus
28-06-2005, 14:28
Spot off - you are confusing background and storylines.

For example, What would the fall of Armaggedon have changed ? The Imperium is forced to hold onto a couple of on-planet hivecities for production and falls back on secondary forgeworlds. The Imperial navy is forced to run blockades to ferry production and raw materials in and out.
There you go ; instant BFG campaign setting and Necromunda campaign (defend/sabotage/scavenge the hive).

Saying plot progression (historical or not) would destroy the background is just being lazy.

The same could be said of the area around Cadia post 13th Black Crusade. Unfortunately it seems to have turned into the "eternal warzone" ever on the brink of falling but never quite falling that Armageddon has turned into. I think the ramifications and changes due to a Chaos victory could have been more fully explored either directly or indirectly via its effects on other areas in the galaxy.

With the release of the Tyranid Codex for example, the drain of resources to the Cadian Gate would be interesting to have as background if any campaign were ever done on the Imperium fighting Tyranids. For such a supposedly serious threat, they've not had much time in the limelight. Even when they're eating planets, the reader still overall gets the impression of a planet skirmish here, a planet there, rather than the sensation of the Imperium clashing head on with the Tyranid race.

charlie_c67
28-06-2005, 14:50
Think the point of The nid dex this time round is to show things aren't just nid vs Imperium.
Behemoth was Nids vs Eldar and Imperium, Kraken was nids vs Tau, Eldar and Imperium, Leviathan is now Nids vs orks after the Kryptman plan.

boogle
28-06-2005, 14:51
Armageddon was/is a vital production planet thoguh, so saying that other forge worlds could take over is all well and good, but the output of Armageddon is greater than most forgeworlds

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 14:54
And theres your hook. The Imperium goes on the offensive for a change. Say Armageddon was taken, then the Imperium could push back and in doing so further the plot without rattling the foundations.

Briareos
28-06-2005, 14:57
Assuming that the Imperium never prepared secondary production sites to potentially replace the ones on a planet which has now suffered THREE FULL SCALE PLANETARY INVASIONS means that the Imperium is brain-dead.

But we digress. The point is that stories with consequences can be told in the 40K universe without destroying the overall background.

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:01
the Imperium never saw any f the invasions coming.

Angron wasn't there for supplies, just skulls

Ghazghkull's 1st attack was without warning

Ghazghkulls 2nd attack was successful despite all of the efforts made to counter against it (even 50 years preparation wasn't enough)

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:03
Think the point of The nid dex this time round is to show things aren't just nid vs Imperium.
Behemoth was Nids vs Eldar and Imperium, Kraken was nids vs Tau, Eldar and Imperium, Leviathan is now Nids vs orks after the Kryptman plan.


where does it say that Kraken was against Tau? it might have infringed slightly on Tau space, but it wasn't aimed at the Tau

Briareos
28-06-2005, 15:05
...
Ghazghkulls 2nd attack was successful despite all of the efforts made to counter against it (even 50 years preparation wasn't enough)
After two full-scale invasions, a third on the way and 50 years of preparation time they didn't think of putting up secondary production lines ? Just in case ? And when the third invasion got going, they didn't think "maybe we should prepare for a worst case scenario" ?
Like I said : brain dead.

Or rather, poor writing. Unless you're aiming for the now well-known and done to death "stalemate" story-arc.

charlie_c67
28-06-2005, 15:05
Isn't that where how the tau met the nids? When the Ambassadors got munched?

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:10
don't remember that, where was that written down?

anyway, there are other production planets, but they just don't give the same output as Armageddon, plus they thought the defence plans they had made were going to be enough

Briareos
28-06-2005, 15:17
Armaggedon was just an example amongst others (Cadia, Badab, Maccrage, Maccharius) of potential progressive plots.

You can come up with reasons why a stalemate had to happen, others can come up with ways the stalemate could be broken.

The point is progressive plots could be written into the 40K background. It is possible.

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:23
it is possible but unlikely as you get great outcry when things people don't like happen in them (the death of Eldrad being a good example), GW aren't going to do that for a year or 2 yet, but they are dropping suble hints in there (Nids vs Orks and the possibility of the Dragon returning)

Briareos
28-06-2005, 15:26
Subtle hints ? Ooooooh, I shiver with anticipation...
...
...
Not really. I'll believe it when I see it. And frankly, I've seen so many wasted opportunities for great storytelling that I have long since lost faith in GW's capacity to properly exploit the intellectual property goldmine they sit on.

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:30
read the Nid Codex then, it has plot progression in it, to be honest they are more exciting things in the history from HH to the present (so to speak), that can be covered than worrying about the progression, it isn't going to happen any time soon, get over it

Briareos
28-06-2005, 15:45
We are pretty much in agreement then, since you're basically saying that plot progression is possible but that GW doesn't seem to want to travel that road ("it isn't going to happen[...], get over it").

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:50
yes it would seem that way, that why there are no new races planned at the moment (that we know of), and a lot of the armies haven't moved on story wise (except the UM, Nids, BL and IG)

x-esiv-4c
28-06-2005, 15:52
We don't necessarily need new races to advance the plot, introduction of new characters of a few units could provide new background.

boogle
28-06-2005, 15:54
so we'll just ignore your Xenarchs then :p, the new races help flesh out the universe, just think what the Hrud migrations woudl mean with an army and Codex to back them upp, instead of minor mentions here and there

Falkus
28-06-2005, 17:10
Try talking to them and show them the benefits of your army and why you like them so much etc etc

The problem is that this is not a cheap hobby, and for many people, once they have an army, they're not likely to get a second one.

charlie_c67
28-06-2005, 17:17
So talk them round before they too deep in one army. Saying oh other people do it so I don't need to is another excuse. Unless your trying to do something about it then there's really no room to complain.

Falkus
28-06-2005, 17:28
So talk them round before they too deep in one army. Saying oh other people do it so I don't need to is another excuse. Unless your trying to do something about it then there's really no room to complain.

I don't have a problem with it. Only two guys where I play have a marine army, and Shawn also has an Eldar and Imp guard amies in addition to his marines.

Brusilov
28-06-2005, 20:10
Personally I stand alongside Gavin and Shadowheart on the matter of background (or fluff, here goes another kitty :evilgrin: ).
I don't care for storyline progression. The universe is so vast I can make my own story, destroy a whole sector if I want to and never have any impact on the universe at all. But I'll still be able to play around things to my heart's content, create plots that I enjoy, make things evolve in the way I want...

Look at White Wolf's vampire. In the end they had to make a tabula rasa out of the universe and start over because things had changed so much you could not recognise the universe as it was.

That's not something I want. I want a setting, I don't want a storyline. If it were a RPG I'd say give a storyline, but then it could be limited to part of the universe.
You don't have to fight universe-shattering battles every other day. In fact quite the contrary, battles is 40k should be pointless and meaningless, you're fighting for a piece of dirt no one wants because your general, warboss, Master Cockroach, god... told you to do it.

What I care about however is the introduction of new pieces of fluff shattering the established background and turning it on its head. There is nothing I disliked more than the way the C'tan were made responsible for the birth of the Mechanicus. I know the older fluff from the 2nd Ed. about the civil wars on Mars and the reliance on technology, but many people no longer do. And thus they believe the organisation responsible for the technology of the Imperium is controlled by an alien god.
I'm sorry to say, I really don't like this. Influence I don't mind, overt or covert control I don't like.

That is something I've always wondered about, why must the background be described in such a piecemeal and game centered fashion? It takes a great deal of effort to try and piece together information not directly related to the game, and information on something other than Space Marines (the Index Astartes must end and GW should write about something else : other Imperial organisations, alien races... unless the purpose is to write about the 1,000 Space Marine Chapters... :rolleyes: ).

Yes plot progression is possible, but is it worth it? Do you really believe all the secrets of the universe shall be revealed? the Rhana Dandra will happen? The remaining C'tan will awaken? the Primarchs will return?
No it won't. Get over it.
So instead of asking for plot progression that leads nowhere because the whole purpose is to change nothing, accept the fact that 40k is a setting and get thinking on your own little corner of the Imperium.

boogle
28-06-2005, 20:27
that is so true Brusilov, as i've said there is more than enough stuff not covered before the current timeline, we don't NEED progression, and GW can't cope with progression all of the time, hence the historical campaigns running this summer rather that a worldwide one, plus as i also said, progression of the GW timeline often leads to resentment

Shinzui
28-06-2005, 21:56
If GW say it's a background setting I say "Show me the money".

GW has done little to make this a static background, fantasy is leaps better in that reguard. 40k has had a progressive background and because of plotlines within the background will eventually force the background to progress again. The Tau are evetually gonna to get big, the events in the EOT campaign is gonna have to be resolved and the Tyranid advance is eventaully gonna get somewhere important. Abaddon is gonna need to be killed or he's gonna make an ever bigger mockery of himself.

If GW wants to make this a setting they'll also have to as Brusilov has mentioned, stop with the Imperial focus. There is more information on one aspect of an Imperial faction then there are in entire races like the Eldar or Tau.

Brusilov
28-06-2005, 22:09
I think you're partially mistaken Shinzui. GW has for very long pointed out at catastrophic events happening sometime in the far future of 40k and never elaborating on them.

The Tau will not become a real force to be reckoned with in the galaxy at large for another couple of centuries unless they discover long distance warp travel overnight.
The Chaos invasion is frozen in time as GW has gone for the 2 minutes before the apocalypse cliffhanger after EoT. A cheap one I might add, but that definitely works :rolleyes:
The Nids, we've seen in the recent Codex just how much of a headway they've made. They've eaten a few planets, including Gryphonne IV (quite annoying I'm telling you) and have been thwarted for the time being by Kryptman. That's all for the next 5 or 6 years on Nids until the next Codex.
And the list goes on and on (let's not even mention stuff like Cypher's destiny here, GW made a mockery of that and of all Dark Angels players in the world with the way they handled that in the EoT campaign).

I definitely agree that GW should move away from too heavy an Imperial focus (IMHO it's a Space Marine focus, I'd welcome stuff on the Astropathicus, the Mechanicus, the Administratum, the Arbites, the Custodes, anything but more interchangeable Space Marine fluff), but the real thing is that GW should move away from a wargame focus and actually take the time to describe the universe at great length.
Damn, I've said it before, but I'd give good money for background books.

My only hope is that a 40k RPG is in the works at Black Industries because it will force GW to describe things in a clear and coherent manner. But here's hoping... :eyebrows:

Xisor
28-06-2005, 22:14
I think it's safe to say GW will 'stop there'. Everything is now on the brink and can be fleshed out. Other aspects can be added. Bits can be focused on, but 40k as it stands now:

Chaos: Ascendant, it's broken the Cadian gate, hordes are pouring out and assaulting the Imperiums defences
Tau: Establishing/Carrying out the 3rd Phase Expansion, they're on the way up to, now our fights show how this is happening...
Tyranids: They're not swamping the galaxy, but they are about to. More systems are falling, we fight on those worlds.
etc etc

The 40k as a background can be summed up nicely IMO: Poised. Everything is *about* to happen. We fight then, and in the build up, thats where our battles take place!

Xisor

Shinzui
28-06-2005, 22:24
My only hope is that a 40k RPG is in the works at Black Industries because it will force GW to describe things in a clear and coherent manner. But here's hoping...

If it is only Imperial focused I'm gonna eat my Eldar models ;)

Brusilov
28-06-2005, 22:33
Shinzui, you can already start to stock up on salt, pepper and mustard then :D The Eldar and other Xenos races would probably have their own sourcebooks, but written from an Imperial perspective (although I quite enjoyed the way the Old World Bestiary was written : common view, scholar's eye, in our own words, that gave you three very different points of view on top of a more or less objective view).

Xisor, you explained quite well what I believe is now GW's stance on 40k background, at least it's the way I understood it from talking with the people from game development I had the opportunity to meet after EoT.

Shinzui
28-06-2005, 22:46
Sorry what I mean by Imperial focus is that it only slightly touches on some Xenos (like Inquisitor and Necromunda which prevent xenos participation). I don't mind the look for the Imperial point of view (in fact it's quite nice and better way to describe something alien).

A good example is the Tyranid codex, while it nice to see the Imperium getting eaten it was slightly dissapointing that it had not one mention of any other race (other than the Orks) which was clashing with the tyranids. Intellegence reports or witness report of Tyranid vs Xenos clash would've been a nice addition (not that saying the Tyranid codex background was bad but it would've been a niec aspect)

Brusilov
28-06-2005, 23:00
The fluff must mention the defence of Iyanden, if only in passing. And the Imperium knows little of the confrontation between Tau and Nids as they have their own hive fleets to deal with.
As to Chaos, the irritated comment by the Black Legion Sorcerer sums it up quite well IMHO.

x-esiv-4c
29-06-2005, 04:12
...
As to Chaos, the irritated comment by the Black Legion Sorcerer sums it up quite well IMHO.

Are you referring to the out of place comment in the new Tyranid codex?

Brusilov
29-06-2005, 06:34
Yes, I quite enjoy that quote. I can just imagine the Sorcerer throwing a childish tantrum because the Nids denied him the world he wanted to corrupt... ;) :rolleyes: :eyebrows:

Briareos
29-06-2005, 22:23
A comment about a small xenos kingdom having been eaten by a Tyranid hivefleet before the planned Imperial crusade could conquer the planets would have been a nice touch...

It would have reinforced the feeling of creeping doom while underscoring the fact that the Imperium needs to 'evolve' faster, bigger strike forces to fight the Tyranid menace.

Brusilov
29-06-2005, 22:43
Bigger strike forces? The real solution, as IIRC mentioned in the Codex would be to give every man and woman in the Imperium a gun and send them to fight off the Nids...

But yes, one could have mentioned a random minor race being eaten, just to reinforce the feeling of impending doom

Briareos
30-06-2005, 17:13
Not so much impending doom as a brutal stop to imperial extension, conquest and colonisation, at least in some sectors.

Brusilov
30-06-2005, 17:42
The Nids do that well enough on their own, and the Imperium does not always conquer worlds from other civilisations to expand their realm, some worlds are uninhabited by sentient species.

Lord-Warlock
30-06-2005, 20:03
Bigger strike forces? The real solution, as IIRC mentioned in the Codex would be to give every man and woman in the Imperium a gun and send them to fight off the Nids...

The problem with that being, of course, that when the ammo runs low and the officers start ordering more, the people who used to make it are screaming "For the Emperor!" and wondering who the heck are making ammo in their stead... :p

On plot progression, I think it's high time the Imperium started winning something rather than loosing all the time (Leviathan, the Arch-Fiend (?), Abaddon, even the Necrons...). The End Is Nigh is so last year ;) - now we need an Imperium Strikes Back to make things interesting again.

Brusilov
30-06-2005, 20:59
You're obviously right, I was just mentioning just how many people would be required to stop the full force of the Hive Fleets.

I would happily look forward to the Imperium taking the offensive, but I doubt it would take place in the near future, considering that the fluff is now frozen in time.

Lord-Warlock
30-06-2005, 21:07
True, true. Well, at least it can't stay frozen indefinitely - sooner or later people will start losing interest, and then GW will move it forwards again ("We're losing money! We need a summer campaign!"). And when it does, I somehow suspect we'll see a 40K Valten - a Living Saint, probably. Considering all the Thorian fuss that could be interesting, actually...

Brusilov
30-06-2005, 21:55
You don't need to make the storyline move forward to keep people's interest. You need new minis and events, that's all, no matter what they're about. For the vast majority of people fluff is just that, a nice thing on the side to get the general idea of why my army wants to be the crap out of yours.
Just look at the Lustria campaign, it's not as fancy as EoT or SoC but new minis, alternative army lists and a good reason to play a few games are more than enough to get people excited... :eyebrows: