Story vs setting

[Scribe]

On 9/12/2022 at 4:10 PM, Lexington said:

When this topic comes up anymore, I always come back to this question - is post-Gathering Storm 40K even really something with a story?

Like, I dunno, there's more than a human lifetime of words out there arguing over what a story is vs. a plot, but I'm not actually sure either of those terms really applies here. Robbot Gubberman came back, as did a few/most/all of the Traitor Primarchs, and there's been wars and campaigns and seasonal whatnot, but it's hard to say that it coheres  beyond the fact that one thing happens after another in a vague that's not particularly connected by anything besides the fact that it all uses the same corporate IP. Such analysis is not helped by the fact that so much of it is really, really, really bad.

From about 1996 to 2018, most anyone who knew the setting could tell you the story of 40K, or at least the main throughline. The Imperium, degraded and rotting, attempting to hold back the tide of threats to its existence, primary among them the return of the Chaos Space Marines under the banner of Abaddon the Despoiler. You had all the markers of a story there, an arc that was pretty basic in its Biblical/Tolkien structure, signposts like the Cadian Gate or the incipient return of Primarchs, and a definitive endpoint the setting was stuck on, just waiting for that final reckoning. Then you had the Gathering Storm, and it blew all of that up, but nothing came around to replace it. Now there's just stuff, bopping around the galaxy and getting into fights because getting into fights is what happens in Warhammer 40K. It's right there in the title.

Maybe the distinction here isn't really Story vs. Setting so much as Paused Story vs. Directionless Stuff.

In as charitable a view as I care to provide, and I HAVE bought several of Haley's books just so I could say "Yes, actually I did read them." I think this is mostly correct.

Especially: 

Quote

...but it's hard to say that it coheres  beyond the fact that one thing happens after another in a vague that's not particularly connected by anything besides the fact that it all uses the same corporate IP. Such analysis is not helped by the fact that so much of it is really, really, really bad.

Quote

From about 1996 to 2018, most anyone who knew the setting could tell you the story of 40K, or at least the main throughline.

Quote

Then you had the Gathering Storm, and it blew all of that up, but nothing came around to replace it. Now there's just stuff, bopping around the galaxy and getting into fights because getting into fights is what happens in Warhammer 40K. It's right there in the title.

Exactly how I view it, with the worst offense being the fact that the Paused Story, the one with an entire 10K years to explore and develop (just look at the fiasco of the 7 year Heresy and tell me GW was 'limited in what they could do' with 10K years) was replaced with the Gathering Storm, release of a lot of really bad, poorly thought out lore that did NOT mesh with the setting as of late 2nd to 7th or 8th (at best), and now 9th with outside of essentially 1 book (a cookie for anyone who can guess which), just a lot of really poor pulp.

This is why all these 'developments' the concept of which are again antithetical to the setting (Cawl, Primaris, Rob, Ynnead as executed) I see as actively working to degrade the setting.

Not because they particularly change the setting, but because they have just messed with a paused setting without going anywhere that makes sense given the context of the setting itself.

The longer I sit and dwell on it, the worse it is.

[Orange Knight]

I agree that Gathering Storm was poorly written, and in fact it has some elements that are already contradicted by more recent lore.

But the novels Black Library is publishing, such as: "The Regent's Shadow", "The Dark City" and "Godblight" are examples of some of the best lore and narrative withing the 40k setting. The Dark City in particular has eclipsed beloved novels like the Eisenhorn books.

The setting has been enhanced.

[Captain Idaho]

I think those novels give an example of story rather than setting in the context many folk are referring to. The setting is what is established by the design studio as the sandbox for us all to play in. The Black Library is creating stories to fill in minor details, but are wholly opposite to an actual sandbox because they're telling us the narrative clearly - there's no player involvement at all.

That's not to say the players set the setting, that is done first as a baseline and we then as players get to play in that setting.

Also it's not to say there shouldn't be stories written at all. In fact I love it and more power to it.

I'm merely pointing out the distinction between the 2 elements.

Which does lead me to the following; it's a case of reach. The setting reaches ALL of the 40K player base as it is the fundamental base. Narrative written within is a percentage of it. It's impossible to know the numbers but it would be a mistake to think that even a quarter of the total 40K community buys any one novel. So those stories don't enhance the setting at all, because they're reaching so fewer people.

[Scribe]

9 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I agree that Gathering Storm was poorly written, and in fact it has some elements that are already contradicted by more recent lore.

But the novels Black Library is publishing, such as: "The Regent's Shadow", "The Dark City" and "Godblight" are examples of some of the best lore and narrative withing the 40k setting. The Dark City in particular has eclipsed beloved novels like the Eisenhorn books.

The setting has been enhanced.

Godblight is not setting enhancement.

[Karhedron]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

Godblight is not setting enhancement.

That is subjective. I enjoyed the book and the chapter speculating on the true nature of the Emperor is brilliant IMHO. The Emperor is becoming more active via miracles etc but it is unclear what this means. Is it even a good thing for the Imperium?

[Captain Idaho]

Did anyone watch the live stream yesterday? I found it quite interesting that the live stream had the presenters actually confirm the setting hasn't moved forward in something like 27 years (their estimate) before 8th edition, with the latest advancement of the story being even bigger than anything since the great rift.

They actually mentioned the terms we've been discussing in this very thread, that the game has had a sandbox setting for years and they've changed that and advanced the story.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Scribe]

20 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Is it even a good thing for the Imperium?

With Haley seemingly at the helm? Probably. 

[Bryan Blaire]

Yes, stories definitely take place in settings.  Meta-stories can advance in settings while the main setting still exists for everyone to play in.  You don’t have to play in the meta-story events if you choose not to.  GW is not knocking on your door forcing you to take part.  You can even take their materials for their meta-story and use rules from the books, etc., without using any of the narrative details if you want.

I don’t disagree on the point of the meta-plot/meta-story - I’d like less of it, I’d like to see more widespread story areas/campaigns where things are happening, but the players aren’t the Who’s Who’s of of the 40K universe.  Introduce us to the Imperial campaign leaders of some of the other 1000 Marine Chapters, Imperial Guard regiments, off-shoot Necron tomb lords, a newly grown Tyranid beastie, some new Chaos warbands and the like, and they can even be connected to the “main meta-story” by things like “we were given commands to come here and do this thing” without specifically having to be shown doing that.

 

GW may have also realized that people don’t really seem to buy stuff like that, and want stories specifically about the Ultramarines and Black Legion, etc., so they keep making them and selling them, because that’s what people buy.

I will reiterate my point - the wider 40K setting and the 9,200 years or so of pretty much detail lacking events are still there for us all to play campaigns or whatever else in - you don’t have to play in the events of the current meta-story to play 40K - you don’t have to play their meta-story either if you don’t want to.  Even within the current meta-story, there are so many areas that you could play in with non-GW generated sub-factions/groups with wide open options…

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[Captain Idaho]

I think no one disputes they don't have to play in GW campaigns. I think the issue many people have is they just don't want the setting being moved on so frequently and dramatically by GW, for various reasons.

Myself? I like my own campaigns that don't become invalidated or fan fiction because GW brought out a new book. I mean, you can't prove it's fan fiction and not how GW will progress things after all, because the setting isn't being moved on.

That's me. It means I want a sandbox that is grounded and established that won't keep morphing. 

I can't speak for other people but I'm sure there are other reasons some might not like the sandbox being moved around with so substantially.

[Bryan Blaire]

@Captain Idaho  Dude, if you, a fan, and not having any official authorship/IP capacity, write anything in 40K of any kind, period, it’s fan fiction - you can prove that immediately by it having zero official standing with the company in any way, shape, or form.  It has been for three and a half decades.

GW having a more swiftly advancing meta-plot doesn’t change that.  If you felt otherwise, you were deluding yourself.  Even if you guessed right on what they wanted to do when they did write in new little narrative blurbs on war zones and combat actions into the timeline stuff in the main rule books and Codexes, you were still writing fan-fiction by the very definition.

Glad we agree that it is the setting being shifted by an existing meta-story, and that we play within the setting sandbox.

 

The idea that people don’t want the setting shifted around so much I can completely understand - but even that you can choose to not deal with.  You can play with the current rules in any of the 9,200 odd non-written years and just not use the “new lore progression minis” or something - you could use new rules for stuff that existed then, etc.

 

The amount of shifting being disliked is why I don’t think the idea floated in the original post of this thread would work out well for anyone though, where you have like a 1-2 millennia time skip, then an edition or two, then another 1-2 millennia time skip, etc.  That seems like basically the worst method of shifting the sandbox to me - even the folks that are okay with the setting being moved on by meta-plot over a one or two decade period probably don’t want the entire setting reframed every 3-8 years with a millennia or two of changes.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[Captain Idaho]

I liked reading the background that was written around the setting, but because they moved the setting into something I didn't like, I don't really enjoy it anymore.

I agree; I've never been into large time jumps so it did alienate folk more than it needed to. Natural evolution you can follow feels so much better.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Captain Idaho

[Orange Knight]

13 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I think no one disputes they don't have to play in GW campaigns. I think the issue many people have is they just don't want the setting being moved on so frequently and dramatically by GW, for various reasons.

 

 

They have slowly amended elements of the 40k universe since it's inception.

The post "Gathering Storm" lore is the first real advancement of the setting in around 20+ years. I wouldn't describe what GW are doing as frequent or dramatic in any real sense. It was significantly overdue in my personal opinion.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah that's the point. GW have advanced the story of the setting in such a way that folk aren't happy about it.

Sure there are some who are and some who aren't, but those who are happy likely didn't change their purchasing habits of fluff and books when GW advanced things, whereas those are don't like the changes were more likely to...

[Bryan Blaire]

Captain Idaho, I think you have identified what is probably a defining element of whether you are still considered a “customer” by GW… if you aren’t actively purchasing, then you are no longer a customer to them, and while you may want them to change their methods, they are unlikely to if more people are buying the new material vs. those people that used to buy, but are no longer doing so.  It’s also not a matter of whether it is veterans who have continued forward vs. veterans that haven’t - if the Twitch stream on Saturday was to be believed, there is an entire flock of new players (probably larger than it ever has been before due to market expansion and wider visibility and distribution, though I have no data on this other than GW distributing more in Asia than it has before, etc.) who started playing 40K in 8th and 9th editions.  Those players, who may be a larger portion of the purchasing base right now, probably have limited knowledge of “what was before” and are perfectly happy with the new state of the 40K universe.

The company is unlikely to change much direction at all if it is improving their bottom line - which it very much seems to, despite “some” folks distaste for the way it is proceeding.  The very likely situation is that the “some” that dislike the universe/lore changes are very probably the minority at this point, and are either not buying, or are buying in such a small quantity that they are making little impact - or they are buying despite the changes, in which case, they are implicitly approving with their money, even if their posting habits in any location indicated otherwise.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[Scribe]

7 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

The company is unlikely to change much direction at all if it is improving their bottom line - which it very much seems to, despite “some” folks distaste for the way it is proceeding.  The very likely situation is that the “some” that dislike the universe/lore changes are very probably the minority at this point, and are either not buying, or are buying in such a small quantity that they are making little impact - or they are buying despite the changes, in which case, they are implicitly approving with their money, even if their posting habits in any location indicated otherwise.

Sad but true. At this point the people who started with 3rd, will be approaching, if not already into their 40's. Prime 'nostalgia' purchasers, but hardly the age bracket GW will push toward.

What I just find so sad, is that 40K remains, still, to date, a unique and glorious thing. I will be very sad if they ruin it.

[Captain Idaho]

I have no doubt the majority of people who signed up to the GW Twitch stream are new players, but I doubt that is an accurate indicator of the numbers involved.

But that's the point. GW have actively pushed existing, long term customers away and one of the ways relevant to this topic is the changes to the setting and way they present the narrative.

Is that higher than the new customers coming in? Do we know the book sales?

Lastly, no successful business looks to alienate its existing consumer base in favour of a new set of consumers. That's just massively risky. Many of the new business are into it because of the models not the narrative, so their joining our hobby is largely irrelevant to the changing of the background material.

I don't agree with the concepts of one customer or another (new vs old)... why not have both satisfied?

[Bryan Blaire]

Because they have risked it to see if they can get new customers and retain as many of their old customers as they can - for instance, they have retained me, even though I don’t really care for the new lore much, but I’m willing to ignore it and not complain everywhere about it.  GW didn’t actively do anything to me, I choose my actions, not them.

So they have not sought to alienate their old player base - some of their old player base is alienating themselves.  Adapt and overcome - you don’t have to love the new lore and play it.  If you can’t find a way around it, and feel like you can only play the new stuff, I would ask exactly why you are struggling to - you know you don’t like it.  I’m not saying that anyone should have to “get out”, but why consume anything but what you like about it?  You don’t need to read anything at all to look at nice models or read only the rules - just don’t worry about GW’s new lore and play stories set in what you do like.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[MegaVolt87]

5 hours ago, Scribe said:

Sad but true. At this point the people who started with 3rd, will be approaching, if not already into their 40's. Prime 'nostalgia' purchasers, but hardly the age bracket GW will push toward.

What I just find so sad, is that 40K remains, still, to date, a unique and glorious thing. I will be very sad if they ruin it.

The nostalgia people have the new HH and specialist games I guess. Many in that group (myself included) hardly recognise modern 40k anymore. I think there is space in the market for legacy 40k, up to the old cap stone of the 13th Black Crussade. GW could then go buck wild AoS style with 40k past that, seems like Devs like the creative freedom in AoS vs the set nature of 40k. 

[Scribe]

26 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

The nostalgia people have the new HH and specialist games I guess. Many in that group (myself included) hardly recognise modern 40k anymore. I think there is space in the market for legacy 40k, up to the old cap stone of the 13th Black Crussade. GW could then go buck wild AoS style with 40k past that, seems like Devs like the creative freedom in AoS vs the set nature of 40k. 

Something I've been giving thought to for sure in my time looking over 3rd-5th, and the lore updates. I look at D&D, and it can manage multiple sets of rules, its bewildering to me that 40K players never did the same.

[Marshal Reinhard]

13 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

But that's the point. GW have actively pushed existing, long term customers away

Quite annoyign to see you constantly claim the role of representative agent of  the long term customer segment. You feel alienated, so all long term fans feel alienated, they're all being actively pushed away. That's just how it is, huh?

[Orange Knight]

I've been invested in 40k for over 25 years.

GW have not pushed me away.

Things change, and over the years my hobby passion has waxed and waned, but that is true of all things.

[gideon stargreave]

I don't believe GW are pushing people away either. I'm sort of sad that "lore" and "canon" is brought up at all except as a sort of insider joke nowadays, and having the special characters in the army books also be the focus of black library stuff and metanarrative is crazy annoying, but despite that, it's obvious that they want my money and are doing everything in their power to get it, including but not limited to, small scale skirmish games, retro miniature design, reboots of factions etc.

[Guest Triszin]

I very much like the story advancing.

[gideon stargreave]

51 minutes ago, Triszin said:

I very much like the story advancing.

Why? Also, can I ask, when did you get into GW and how? I'd be interested about hearing from others about this too.
I got into the hobby before there was a story at all, just some flavour boxes, and I struggle to connect with the metanarrative. When I fist began collecting and playing, all I had was a collection of loosely connected facts. 

eg
There were 20 primarchs, two are missing, here are their names. 
There is a corpse eperor on a throne on Earth

Space marines can get awards for certain acts. They also usually have markings and company organisations
Such and such a craftworld has a lot of psykers

etc.

So for me, to even imagine that there is a story is a bit strange, rather than stories set somewhere inside the information they provided. And the idea that they might by true, or affect the setting doesn't even matter. When black library was created, it was essentially fanfiction via warhammer monthy and inferno magazines. 

i'd be interested to know if other people here have similar experiences. I mean, of you got into the setting through the lore, then that lore is gonna have to be canon right?

[Scribe]

5 hours ago, gideon stargreave said:

I mean, of you got into the setting through the lore, then that lore is gonna have to be canon right?

I didn't get into the setting via or for the lore, but I absolutely reject the position that all and nothing, is canon. 

I also don't feel 'pushed away' yet.