Opinion on GW's History with Story Progression

[Khornestar]

 

So, I'm sure it's been somewhat discussed and I may have overlooked it, but I believe in trying to understand people with a different point of view, rather than condemning them. If someone has the time and the inclination, can you please point out what I'm missing? The crux of my philosophy is that it's our hobby, we can approach it however we choose.

When people say they like/accept/are interested in different point of views, it means they are interested in different views of the same kind of views they have. Two people can/may want to talk about stuff like merit of 1850games[when they play 1500 exclusivly] or what shade of red trims should a 36k 4th IF company assault sub section have on their left boot. Other way... it kind of a doesn't work, because the base of any argument is different. At best you can get one of the sides forcing its narrative based on higher social standing, or taboo and that is more or less it.

 

 

I'm not sure I quite understand. Based on your first sentence, are you saying that perhaps I'm not really genuinely interested in other people's points of view?

 

And based on the second part, I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't think one side or the other needs to necessarily "win" the argument, but probably would be better off finding players who share their preferences/view of proper gameplay to have the best time. Personally, I'd play whoever and just have fun rolling some dice, but what I was trying to understand is why that would be impossible for some people.

[the jeske]

eh, I disagree (as ironic as that is) I don't enjoy social friction like arguments, but if people manage to take a step back at some point, they might be able to, through their argument, figure out where the other person is coming from, and why they think the way they do. That alone is valuable, imo. Even if nobody changes their mind, they can still come to better understand a differing point of view.

Well it is not my idea. It is a general law that was tested on stuff ranging from basic stuff[like if you give a group of people two types of visible stickers, they will form 2 groups without anyone ordering them to make them] to multi layer stuff[like why do people like movies about the same things over and over again, and why are realy new ideas or ideas from other cultures not popular. Example real bad endings in films, you know the ones where the bad dudes win].

as the understanding goes, ones does have to remember that people are multi layered. So yes why someone may not enjoy gaming and some else may not enjoy painting, they may enjoy some same things[like lets say the story]. And only on those levels can they find understanding. If you find to people that have a different view and no in common interests, you at best get passive agresive reactions and at worse physical violance. what is interesting here we share a common trait with animals, as they react in the same way. What is even more interesting the agresion is proportional to how simiular the "other" is. A squirl will destroy a test phantom squirl , when against "Other" opponents the normal Flight or Fight reaction is triggered.

In Tokyo they made an interesting study about robot helpers. They found out that to make them more efficient[where efficiency is people being helped, people actualy using the robots for helps etc], they had to make them less human. When the robots where as close to humans as it was possible at the time of the study, fewer people used them and those that did described them as eerie. the same theory explains why people dislike multiculti or mixed people more [racists reactions for example are stronger vs mixed people then people of the race one does not like].

Now that does of course not have to mean, that people won't claim to interested in the other sides opinion. Specialy when such behaviour has a positive incite from sociaty. But in the end it is a bit like telling lies. It is not accepted, as a child parents will tell it is not a thing one does, but when real life kicks in the same thing becomes a very important trait, pro activly sought after by companies and organisations in their employees .

[Servant of Dante]

I think I see your point, though I also think you are casting it in what I consider a very negative light. Anyway, sure, I'll admit I'm probably more interested in understanding someone's opinion that differs from my own if we share some common interest. Basically, I have to decide if it's worth the time and energy to try and understand, based on how important I judge that understanding to be :P

 

Anyway, we are waaaay off topic.

[Arkangilos]

I think I'm missing something. What's stopping players from taking part in any period of the timeline they choose? In what way does advancing the story change a person's army (short of removing characters, etc., that is straightforward)? I'm not talking about killing the setting, because the changes caused by that are obvious.

Well, for me, I want to have my personal force exist in the setting's "present" so that I don't know what's coming next, so that I can feel like they are part of the action, part of moving history forward (regardless of whether the timeline actually moves). The issue is, if GW does move the timeline forward, and I don't like it (by that I mean that a change is made to the setting as a whole that makes it hard for me to enjoy that setting), I have to then either play in the "past" of the setting, which reduces my enjoyment personally, or ignore the new fluff, which just alienates me from the larger 40K community, which is small enough as it is. So, this is why I do not prefer plotline advancement.

Now, maybe some of the Fall of Cadia events were corny, but it sounds like there were some epic scenes. Personally, I can't get into the Celestine presented in that book (a major issue), which has led me to kinda just ignore it in general. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that means for me. I suppose I'm interested to see what happens, but I'm certainly skeptical. For instance, I will not buy any Sisters of any kind fighting alongside xenos. Period. Which means that I have to tell people I don't include said hypothetical fluff in my headcanon, which puts a divide between me and the wider community, imo. So, mixed feelings Hopefully this helps explain why I have reservations.

You could always say that your own personal order of SoB thinks that the ones that fought with Xenos are obviously Traitors and heretics, and have been deceived by a daemon of Tzeentch. Then in your head cannon you can reject them like you want, but can still "acknowledge" it happened to leases the rift you spoke of. "But SoB would never turn against the Emperor!" One might say. Well they would be right. It's not that they turned against the Emperor, it's that it's an elaborate scheme that they got caught up in and their devotion has twisted their vision. They are still loyal, just being led astray.

[Servant of Dante]

I think I'm missing something. What's stopping players from taking part in any period of the timeline they choose? In what way does advancing the story change a person's army (short of removing characters, etc., that is straightforward)? I'm not talking about killing the setting, because the changes caused by that are obvious.

Well, for me, I want to have my personal force exist in the setting's "present" so that I don't know what's coming next, so that I can feel like they are part of the action, part of moving history forward (regardless of whether the timeline actually moves). The issue is, if GW does move the timeline forward, and I don't like it (by that I mean that a change is made to the setting as a whole that makes it hard for me to enjoy that setting), I have to then either play in the "past" of the setting, which reduces my enjoyment personally, or ignore the new fluff, which just alienates me from the larger 40K community, which is small enough as it is. So, this is why I do not prefer plotline advancement.

Now, maybe some of the Fall of Cadia events were corny, but it sounds like there were some epic scenes. Personally, I can't get into the Celestine presented in that book (a major issue), which has led me to kinda just ignore it in general. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that means for me. I suppose I'm interested to see what happens, but I'm certainly skeptical. For instance, I will not buy any Sisters of any kind fighting alongside xenos. Period. Which means that I have to tell people I don't include said hypothetical fluff in my headcanon, which puts a divide between me and the wider community, imo. So, mixed feelings Hopefully this helps explain why I have reservations.

You could always say that your own personal order of SoB thinks that the ones that fought with Xenos are obviously Traitors and heretics, and have been deceived by a daemon of Tzeentch. Then in your head cannon you can reject them like you want, but can still "acknowledge" it happened to leases the rift you spoke of. "But SoB would never turn against the Emperor!" One might say. Well they would be right. It's not that they turned against the Emperor, it's that it's an elaborate scheme that they got caught up in and their devotion has twisted their vision. They are still loyal, just being led astray.

But that would still leave quite a sour taste in my mouth. Sure, I play a specific order, but I care about the Sisters as a whole. If I feel GW does something that goes against my interpretation of the fluff, I'm going to at least consider ignoring it, but really I'm left with two unappealing options, like I said before. :D but at this point I'm leaning toward just excluding the offending fluff from my headcanon, though I'll still talk about the new stuff with other people, since that's what they will want to discuss (and it is new and interesting, regardless of whether I like it enough not to ignore it headcanonically (totally a word).

[Race Bannon]

Lay, thank you :tu: