Story vs setting

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

A lot of people have said they liked how 40K was a sandbox setting rather than a progressing story since I came back to the game which has resulted in a lot of grumbling about the advancement in the setting, making it more story like.

at first it seemed like they were hoping to have a few good years of going back to a setting when they first advanced the story, by advancing it 100ish years or so, but then they backed it down to an advancement of a dozen years…

i think  a lot of people would have been happier had the advancement been 1-2000 years providing a lot of new detailed fluff, allowing for the whole indomitus crusade to happen, and then many more major conflicts that people could choose to set their battles in. Then after 2-3 editions they could advance another 1-2000 years, so on and so forth.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It really depends on a lot of elements and some conflict. Seriously who can read all the lore they churn out now? I remember when I could say I had read every 40K novel… it’s not really possible now. Head canon is where it’s at for most.

[TheMawr]

Stories set in a huge evolving setting... this it has always been imho.  But not stories wich make the setting small. Many bolterporn stories do this, eldar stories too. Some inquisition etc stories i read on the other hand make the setting feel big.... the problem with the war stories is they feel the strong urge to put everybody in there. 

In the early days when reading the fluff it felt as if the spacewolf/dark angel thing for example was a consequence of proximity.. however most space wolves had never met nor would ever meet a blood angel or ultramarine, let alone one of their big names, and the setting felt huge because of that ( though possibly it was always headcanon) same with Phoenix lords.. 2 appearing at the same time at the same place should be near impossible, but it feels nowadays they are constantly teaming up power rangers style.

Wich brings us to the retconned timejump. They had their chance and blew it.. i do think it would have been good if they made the timejump of a few 100 years in tandem with the full rules reboot and a soft reboot of some ranges. But most of all i think they put too much présence in imperium nihilus too fast. The timejump plus the cutoff meant we had our settings gamma or delta quadrant.. if it makes any sense what i mean. Introducing a new army now needs weird fluff solutions, but the timejumped imperial nihilus gave the oppurtunity to do this more naturally. 

The problem though is the 10 minutes before midnight thing the setting had/has. Especially regarding Tyranids. A solution there would be that with the great rift opening the larger Tyranid fleets stalled as if frozen in time ( small ones still a problem), but investigators observing them suggest the entire galaxy is surrounded by Billiton  fleets now,  the great rift being the wrong disaster at the right time. If the great rift expands chaos will devour all souls, if it collapses Tyranids will devour all life... so its 10 minutes before midnight without a time progress restraint.

Sorry for lots of words with not alot of points ;) 

[gideon stargreave]

Personally, I mostly ignore the novels and the story aspect of 40k. The snippets of fluff in sidebars in white dwarf or codices is flavour text, rather than a metanarratiive, and I like it best that way. I like hearing legends of characters like Dante or Abaddon, I don't like the setting being a background for their actions. I prefer my wargaming to have questions rather than answers. So for me, most of my inspiration comes from the art, not from the writing.

[Domhnall]

For me, the setting is the main thing. The stories are within the setting, and can be as true or made up as you want them to be. The setting has the overarching framework of 'plot', timeline, and faction arrangement; stories fit within this framework and can be as rigid or loose as needed.

The details of the setting are within the stories, which can honestly be at any time past or present (or future as it seems), can be as detailed and precise as needs to be, and generally follows the unreliable narrator trope. What I mean is, a story doesn't need to be key to the advancement of the setting, or even entirely accurate or even true within the setting. It can happen at key points, or it can take place on a forgotten backwater that has mostly been forgotten about by the galaxy at large.

The unreliable narrator trope is why we can have stories that contradict others, that don't make sense timewise in relation to other stories, or even have major characters do things that wouldn't normally be in keeping with said character. 

 

I've just had an interesting experiment that could be done on the forum... 

If we set a warzone, give the planet/system, who's fighting, what they're fighting over, then let anybody who wants to, to write a short story (as short or long as wanted) about an individual or group within that zone, and then we could see how they all interact or clash as time goes on... might even eventually get a cohesive story out of it 

[Orange Knight]

I just finished reading "The Dark City" by Chris Wraight.

The novels written by Wraight and Hayley over the last 5 years or so have now far eclipsed the old classics by Abnett in my opinion. I understand some people simply don't read, but I am also surprised at how many seem to avoid engagement with the novels.

 

This topic supposes that Story and Setting are in opposition. They are not.

The novels and stories all enhance the setting greatly, providing insight into characters, institutions and the various worlds of the Imperium. Black Library novels have all done a great job in both enhancing our understanding of events and happenings, whilst leaving things open enough to maintain the sandbox utility of the universe. Even the "meta plot" of the Dark Imperium Trilogy, the Vaults of Terra books and Watchers of the Throne series don't impact our freedom to create our own campaigns and plots within the 40k universe.

[Xenith]

23 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

This topic supposes that Story and Setting are in opposition. They are not.

The novels and stories all enhance the setting greatly,

I think you;'re missing the OP's point a bit - the conflict between having the 40k universe as a whole, as a static setting in which we can tell our own stories, like the novels you just mentioned, versus having GW decide an overall narrative for the setting, i.e. the indomitus crusade, nachmund, nephilim, etc, and we play games in their storyline. 

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

i think  a lot of people would have been happier had the advancement been 1-2000 years providing a lot of new detailed fluff,

I think 2000 years is over the top. Remember that basically all of the events/stories in warhammer 40,000 are set in the last hundred years or so of the 41st millenium, the years 40,900 - 40,999. The point is that all this stuff has been building for 10k years, then all hits the fan at the end of the millenium - the emergence of the hive fleets, the rise of Ghazkull, the return of the necrons and the 13th black crusade all happening effectively within a short space of time marked the end of the Imperium and the dominance of humanity. 

The Indomitus crusade has also just jumped ahead by 100 years, the same length of time as 40k told stories in previously, however we now have all the other stuff going on, red scar, vigilus, nihilus etc. A lot of people may have wanted the massive changes that you describe...however the majority, probably 99% would want things to remain similar to before. 

[Orange Knight]

I didn't miss the point. A setting doesn't have be static, nor does development within the setting impact it's integrity.

In truth, the moment you have named heroes with personal histories the setting itself becomes linked to those stories. There is no story or novel that prevents people from telling or inventing their own stories within the 40k universe. On the contrary, the current setting that has been developed by the recent stories is actually better at facilitating your own plots, as it has created good reasons for the various factions to engage in different parts of the galaxy. Prior to the great Rift, simply having the Tau appear in the western side of the galaxy was technically impossible.

PS: The Indomitus crusade has not jumped 100 years. This was actually one of the few times GW actually retconned a plot point in order to tidy things up.

[Xenith]

1 minute ago, Orange Knight said:

I didn't miss the point. A setting doesn't have be static, nor does development within the setting impact it's integrity.

Well, your post talked about individual Black Library stories set in the 40k universe, as opposed to the universe itself having an ongoing, developing storyline (v.s. the static setting of 1990's-2016), which is what the OP was asking about. 

Good to know about the retcon, bit more realistic in terms of existing characters.

[MARK0SIAN]

For me, what’s made the feeling of the setting change significantly is that the Imperium now has a regent ruler who is both known and active in Guilliman. 
 

Previously the figurehead was the emperor but he was exactly that, a figurehead. He wasn’t involved in the actual running of the imperium or responding to its threats except in some mystical terms. Below him you just had this faceless band of high lords who you didn’t think would even be aware of most of the stuff happening in the imperium. 
 

Having a central figure now means that almost anything involving the imperium must be seen in the context of how he might react and it kind of makes the setting feel smaller. 

[WARMASTER_]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:10 AM, Orange Knight said:

 

PS: The Indomitus crusade has not jumped 100 years. This was actually one of the few times GW actually retconned a plot point in order to tidy things up.

Just to jump in @Xenith is right 

The time line has still jumped 100+ years but Guy Haley has retcon’d “his story” to now fit within the Crusade [After the first stage - 12yrs] rather than be after it’s ended… That’s all, the timeline still stands 

he discusses his Retcon here at 7:20 onwards 

 

He says they made the decision to move “his story” within the timeline not to completely retcon the whole time line 

40K is a narrative with a meta plot and what the authors are now doing is filling in that timeline just like before

Think of it like Gaunts’ Ghosts that’s set hundreds of years before the old timeline but its still a “modern” 40K novel 

Edited September 10, 2022 by BladeOfVengeance
Spelling Error

[sitnam]

55 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Having a central figure now means that almost anything involving the imperium must be seen in the context of how he might react and it kind of makes the setting feel smaller

I think this is a false premise, and it doesn't really seemed back up by the books. Guilliman has delegated quite a bit of authority, particularly in Imperium Nihilus.  Very large events, sure. Events at the more localized scale, I don't think so

[Karhedron]

I quite like the evolving storyline but for me it feels familiar. Up until 3rd edition, there was story progress. The background between Yarrick and Ghazhkull was presented as "setting" but then the storyline evolved with the Golgotha encounter and then the Armageddon 3 campaign. GW were steadily expanding and advancing the Universe. It was a setting but it had a built-in meta-storyline. Then we got the 13th Black Crusade campaign at the end of 3rd edition which ended with Abaddon poised to destroy Cadia. I remember waiting with quite a bit of anticipation to see the new fluff in 4th edition explaining what happened next.

Except it didn't. GW froze the clock at 5 minutes-to-midnight and we were left hanging for over 10 years. New fluff was added to edges, expanding previously unseen corners of the galaxy but it wasn't really progression. The timeline remained frozen at the end of the 41st millennium. Imagine watching Infinity War and then getting years of "Captain Marvel" and "Ant Man and the Wasp" movies with no Endgame to resolve it.

So when GW finally activated some of their plot hooks at the end of 7th edition, I was really excited. My only complaint is that it felt very rushed, as though GW were in a hurry to make up for lost time. In the space of a year we had the Fall of Cadia, the Fracture of Biel Tan, Guilliman's return, the introduction of Primaris Marines. It was as if 10 year's worth of progression had been crammed into one.

TLDR I am quite happy having a storyline takin place within the setting as that is how I remember it when I started. Aside from the break-neck pace and the wonky timeline, I am quite pleased to see the universe evolving once more.

[Captain Idaho]

I like a setting being... set? Getting me involved in a campaign, to pay money for the book and rules, play it that sandbox then 6 months later release a new one and tell me the results of my games meant nothing detracts from the whole point of the thematic setting.

So because of that, I'm struggling to be interested in any of the developments.

[Blindhamster]

tbf, settings are still able to move for narrative. Look at the major D&D settings as an example. The idea that a setting is set is not really accurate IMO

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, sitnam said:

I think this is a false premise, and it doesn't really seemed back up by the books. Guilliman has delegated quite a bit of authority, particularly in Imperium Nihilus.  Very large events, sure. Events at the more localized scale, I don't think so

I’m not saying he’s reacting to every little skirmish but in the past, Terra was this faceless, uncaring, distant entity somewhere far off in the galaxy. It generally played little to no role in the big events of the galaxy other than to say something might have been ordered from there. If you look at the major events before RG came back like the nids almost destroying the ultramarines, or Armageddon or the sabbat worlds crusade etc, none of them really had any involvement from Terra other than vague reinforcements possibly being sent at the High Lords behest. Now if something like Armageddon or the arrival of the Nids etc happened it’s very hard to imagine that taking place without at least some involvement or acknowledgement of RG. 

Basically they’ve put a face and an individual persona (and not a small one at that) to a previously faceless and basically unknown bureaucracy and at least for me, it’s now hard to see anything that happens without referencing it to RG.

[Evil Eye]

One of my issues with the current setting vs story conflict going on with 40K is the effects it has on the rules and models. Before 8th, it was kind of the norm that you'd have minis for characters who were either long dead or had physically changed. Tycho has been dead for a long time but his mini and rules were still sold. Likewise, Marneus Calgar had adopted the Armour of Antilochus, but you could still buy and run him with his older power armour. The idea being that "historical" scenarios before the current present of 40K were catered for so you could run a game set before Tycho succumbed to the Black Rage, or play out Calgar's doomed stand against the Swarmlord during the First Tyrannic war. Nowadays however, older versions of a character get outright replaced both in the catalogue and Codex. If you wanna run Calgar it's Primaris or nothing. It feels like a huge majority of 40K's timeline has been "locked out" such that if you're playing current 40K, you can only really play events after the Rift opened.

[Orange Knight]

@MARK0SIAN

I understand what you mean, but on the upside things actually matter now. Before, events were never even acknowledged once they had taken place, and all were ultimately irrelevant. But I can see that some people might like that.

---

Going back to the 100 year jump, Haley rolled the clock back on the Dark Imperium trilogy. Aside from that, only the Devastation of Baal and the Great Work take place after, chronologically. Neither looks like it happens 100 years later. Baal definitely isn't that far in the future as the Crusade is still on. So what remains in that original time jump?

As for things happening too quickly? I don't think that's the case. The entire Horus Heresy takes place over 9 years, for example. That spawned 100+ novels and all sorts of shenanigans.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Orange Knight

[RWJP]

21 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Nowadays however, older versions of a character get outright replaced both in the catalogue and Codex. If you wanna run Calgar it's Primaris or nothing. It feels like a huge majority of 40K's timeline has been "locked out" such that if you're playing current 40K, you can only really play events after the Rift opened.

No it's not. This is exactly what the Warhammer Legends system is for. If you want to play Power Armour Calgar, or Armour of Antilochus Calgar, you use the Legends datasheet.

Sure, you're not going to play with them in tournaments, but there is nothing stopping you setting up a game with your mates: "Hey, I'm bringing a pre-Great Rift Ultramarines army with Calgar in Armour of Antilochus and no Primaris."

It's literally that simple.

[Noserenda]

24 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

One of my issues with the current setting vs story conflict going on with 40K is the effects it has on the rules and models. Before 8th, it was kind of the norm that you'd have minis for characters who were either long dead or had physically changed. Tycho has been dead for a long time but his mini and rules were still sold. Likewise, Marneus Calgar had adopted the Armour of Antilochus, but you could still buy and run him with his older power armour. The idea being that "historical" scenarios before the current present of 40K were catered for so you could run a game set before Tycho succumbed to the Black Rage, or play out Calgar's doomed stand against the Swarmlord during the First Tyrannic war. Nowadays however, older versions of a character get outright replaced both in the catalogue and Codex. If you wanna run Calgar it's Primaris or nothing. It feels like a huge majority of 40K's timeline has been "locked out" such that if you're playing current 40K, you can only really play events after the Rift opened.

Thats only the case if you ignore Legends units though isnt it? The options are there, its just up to your playgroup whether to use them or not.

Personally i always took it as a pillar of the setting that noones actions matter on the whole :D 

[sitnam]

56 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

If you look at the major events before RG came back like the nids almost destroying the ultramarines, or Armageddon or the sabbat worlds crusade etc, none of them really had any involvement from Terra other than vague reinforcements possibly being sent at the High Lords behest.

I don't understand how the reinforcements to those warzones are vague, it's the purpose of the HLOT to allocate resources to important war zones. For all their faults, the HLOT weren't ignoring major theaters of war. Those fronts that suffer from inattention are those regarded as minor.

It probably feels like Guilliman has his hands in everything because, unfortunately, most of the Great Rift era stories have been centered around him. Dawn of Fire, the Dark Imperium, etc. But stories like Spear of the Emperor, Darkness in the Blood, Assasinorum: Kingmaker all take place in the Great Rift era and they don't take much focus into RG

Quote

Going back to the 100 year jump, Haley rolled the clock back on the Dark Imperium trilogy. Aside from that, only the Devastation of Baal and the Great Work take place after, chronologically. Neither looks like it happens 100 years later. Baal definitely isn't that far in the future as the Crusade is still on. So what remains in that original time jump?

I'm pretty sure Spears of the Emperor take place well into the Great Rift era

Edited September 7, 2022 by sitnam

[Evil Eye]

10 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Thats only the case if you ignore Legends units though isnt it? The options are there, its just up to your playgroup whether to use them or not.

Personally i always took it as a pillar of the setting that noones actions matter on the whole :D 

That is true, and I've always been a big supporter of Legends. The removal of the older models is a shame though, especially as we're not likely to get "remakes" of the historical forms. It also further reinforces my belief GW should subcontract out smaller companies to manufacture back-catalogue minis on demand as a means of making extra money off of those old sculpts without having to devote resources to them, cater to fans of older minis and also hopefully drive down aftermarket prices on them. If things like Diaznettes were available from a licensed 3rd party on like an indefinite made to order basis it'd be great, especially given how absurdly pricey they are on eBay even after GW's MTO!

[Orange Knight]

@sitnam

Ahh yes, I forget about the Spears. I have read the book, and it was pretty good. It's one of those stories that ultimately has little impact on the setting or universe, and it could take place at basically any time period post Primaris. 

[ThePenitentOne]

I sort of agree with Orange in that the line between setting and story is blurry. The Indomitus Crusade is happening; if the battles I fight are a part of said Crusade, then in a sense I am interacting with the story, whereas if I fight battles that are not a part of that Crusade I am merely fighting in the setting?

I have found that building a campaign inside a story takes more effort, but it has the potential to be more rewarding. I've been developing the Chronicles of Saint Katherine's Aegis off and on since 2008, and when 8th edition dropped, I had to relocate the action of the campaign to take advantage of some elements of the ongoing story; I specifically wanted the armies in the campaign to interact with the BSF characters and narrative, so I moved the Desdaemona system from the Scar to the Western Fringe of Pacificus so that ships heading to or from the BSF can stop over for a fight or two before moving on.

 

[sitnam]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

@sitnam

Ahh yes, I forget about the Spears. I have read the book, and it was pretty good. It's one of those stories that ultimately has little impact on the setting or universe, and it could take place at basically any time period post Primaris. 

My favorite 40k stories are.all basically standalone, with no real need to associate with greater events. I like the Indomitus series stories, but they pale in comparison to standalone stuff for.me