What do you think of Fantasy Flight Games fluff?

[b1soul]

How would you rate it relative to GW and FW?

[deathspectersgt7]

so,so.

[Lord Marshal]

Miles above Games Workshop, but that's not a very high bar to reach.

 

The amount of detail they put into it is excellent, particularly the institutions. The only 'issue' is that much of it is only relevant to the Calixis Sector specifically, but there's enough fleshing out done on the broader stuff for it to be relevant (particularly the Inquisition and Arbites). Hell, pretty much everything we have on the Deathwatch came from FFG.

 

I'd find it difficult to compare to Forge World just because they tend to focus on different things. Forge World reads more like an historical account of an overall military campaign, whilst FFG's lore has a much more 'ground level' focus to it. I suppose Only War is the exception but even then, it was focused more on the institutions, powers and planets than the campaign itself.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Lord Marshal

[Ishagu]

Isn't fluff quality subjective? :-P

[Blindhamster]

well, alan bligh worked on some of it so.... if you like FW stuff, you'll like the FFG stuff too i guess.

[N1SB]

My Dark Heresy/Only War RPG gamemaster summed up his views as follows, "GW doesn't tell you a lot about how (regular) people in the Imperium actually live."

 

That's the blank I think FFG was trying to fill, what the day-to-day lives of Imperial society was like.  I absolutely agree with the Lord Marshal's take; if FW lore are war documentaries, then FFG lore was like local news (i.e. the "ground level" focus).  Of course, that content was that way because it was for roleplaying, where we have to consider characters' personal backgrounds.  Not better or worse, just filling a gap that GW left, because GW tends to focus on when people are already "heroes".

 

That said, personally, I would personally compare FFG lore to GW's Necromunda lore.  There, we delve more into people's lives, their business, how they make a living...even if we're mostly focusing on the Ganger elements of a Hive.  But even in Necromunda, we learn about the Mechant's Guild, how the Guilders print out credits in a barter economy, how Orlock and Delaque are fighting over supply contracts. FFG lore does this, for a far wider range of topics, and I think does it quite well.

[Lord Marshal]

Isn't fluff quality subjective? :-P

 

Yeah, but Games Workshop could literally fill the lore section of their books with 'derp derp derp derp derp' written in crayon and I'm sure you'd find a way to defend it.  

[Ishagu]

 

 

Isn't fluff quality subjective? :-P

Yeah, but Games Workshop could literally fill the lore section of their books with 'derp derp derp derp derp' written in crayon and I'm sure you'd find a way to defend it.

You wound me!

[Jareddm]

 

The amount of detail they put into it is excellent, particularly the institutions. The only 'issue' is that much of it is only relevant to the Calixis Sector specifically, but there's enough fleshing out done on the broader stuff for it to be relevant (particularly the Inquisition and Arbites).

 

I know you put issue in quotes, but for me, the focus on only a single sector (technically about 3.75 sectors across all lines) is a key feature.  I don't want lore that says, "This is the way things work."  I want lore that says, "This is the way a thing works HERE, because of reason X.  It may work like this elsewhere but it may not."

 

Examples, not absolutes!  It is why the Legion of the Damned supplement is still one of my favorite pieces of GW lore.  Because it presented a half dozen conflicting theories rather than state, or even imply, an absolute truth.

 

FFG lore went out of its way to allow for almost anything the players could want.  The Deathwatch lore was especially good about this by establishing exactly how and why Watch Fortress Erioch is not like other branches of the Deathwatch, and that the players would not be operating like a regular Kill-Team.  It offered the players every opportunity for their characters to be more than 'Bolter Porn'.

[Lord_Caerolion]

By and large their fluff is pretty good. It certainly focuses more on general life in the Imperium, given Dark Heresy (both editions), but they've also got the Rogue Trader, Black Crusade, Deathwatch and Only War books, to give focus on other aspects of life. Black Crusade is particularly good for fleshing out Chaos settlements on daemon worlds, showing how they can be functional societies.

[Lord Marshal]

 

 

The amount of detail they put into it is excellent, particularly the institutions. The only 'issue' is that much of it is only relevant to the Calixis Sector specifically, but there's enough fleshing out done on the broader stuff for it to be relevant (particularly the Inquisition and Arbites).

 

I know you put issue in quotes, but for me, the focus on only a single sector (technically about 3.75 sectors across all lines) is a key feature.  I don't want lore that says, "This is the way things work."  I want lore that says, "This is the way a thing works HERE, because of reason X.  It may work like this elsewhere but it may not."

 

Examples, not absolutes!  It is why the Legion of the Damned supplement is still one of my favorite pieces of GW lore.  Because it presented a half dozen conflicting theories rather than state, or even imply, an absolute truth.

 

FFG lore went out of its way to allow for almost anything the players could want.  The Deathwatch lore was especially good about this by establishing exactly how and why Watch Fortress Erioch is not like other branches of the Deathwatch, and that the players would not be operating like a regular Kill-Team.  It offered the players every opportunity for their characters to be more than 'Bolter Porn'.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love how fleshed out the Calixis Sector is. It's why I'm glad it wasn't retcon'ed away with FFG losing the license, since they could easily have just scoured the name of it from the galaxy map without having to change anything. It was an excellent idea to give people a giant sandbox, fill it up with sand and then give players the spade. It's why I ultimately feel Wrath & Glory going for it's kitchen sink approach on every single facet (lore, setting, character types, rules, etc) will feel a lot less weighty.  

 

For somebody who may approach it wanting lore that's relevant to the entire setting they can utilise out-of-the-box in their OC sector, I can see where there may be gripes with FFG's approach, thus the quotations. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Lord Marshal

[The Unseen]

I'd consider it some of the best 40k material for background, and understanding a bit about how the IoM (dis)functions in its own way.

[b1soul]

 It's why I ultimately feel Wrath & Glory going for it's kitchen sink approach on every single facet (lore, setting, character types, rules, etc) will feel a lot less weighty.  

 

I didn't even know about Wrath & Glory...thanks for the info.

 

It seems to be an RPG focusing on adventures into Imperium Nihilus as a whole, rather than just one or two lost sectors. Very Macro.

 

I would prefer a more micro scale like Fantasy Flight's approach.

[Lord Marshal]

 

 It's why I ultimately feel Wrath & Glory going for it's kitchen sink approach on every single facet (lore, setting, character types, rules, etc) will feel a lot less weighty.  

I didn't even know about Wrath & Glory...thanks for the info.

 

It seems to be an RPG focusing on adventures into Imperium Nihilus as a whole, rather than just one or two lost sectors. Very Macro.

 

I would prefer a more micro scale like Fantasy Flight's approach.

 

 

Not to mention published adventures dealing directly with Primarchs, entering the Black Library, fighting the Daemonic Primarchs... ugh. It just sounds so high adventure. I know, I know, you can just ignore all that and keep writing Grimdark Adventures with the Literally Who Crew but these kind of things set the tone of the overall system. I loved how deliciously dark the FFG books were, especially Dark Heresy, just the presentation alone bled pure atmosphere. Everything I've seen of Wrath & Glory looks like a bad homebrewed DnD campaign.

[b1soul]

If the player characters are that important and getting involved with galaxy-shaking events...what are they?

 

The chapter masters of first founding chapters, high lords of Terra, inquistor lords, Guilliman's equerry?

 

Or are they the lucky few plebs who get to witness such events?

[Lord_Caerolion]

That's the thing, Wrath & Glory looks like it's trying to do everything at once, unlike FFG, who split them into various different games.

[Warpmiss]

I really want to try W&G since I never had a chance to try FFG's. But what you guys are saying is true, the fact they are trying to develop a system that allows adventures more similar to DnD (fighting Primarchs? Whaaaaa....?) makes me suspicious. I like FFG approach better since it seemed to fit in the narrative and takes the 40k universe limitations into consideration.

[DuskRaider]

Didn't FFG come up with the concept for the Rak'Guol? Such a cool Xenos race, I wish we would see them on the tabletop...

[b1soul]

Yes, FFG came up with a lot of cool xenos

[Battybattybats]

I really loved a lot that they had in the Lathe Worlds book. Some really great ideas in that book.

[Bryan Blaire]

Didn't FFG come up with the concept for the Rak'Guol? Such a cool Xenos race, I wish we would see them on the tabletop...

Here I thought that BioWare came up with Rakghouls first for the Knights of the Old Republic game back in 2003.