One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
There's actually more nostalgia and rewrites than there really is breadth of background for Warhammer.
But few games currently have as much simply because few games have existed for as long.
The only one off the top of my head that really has the same breadth is Battletech, which hasn't been rewritten quite as much. But as a lesson in development, Battletech is a game that very much let itself be trapped in its own gigantic history, and only now is trying to get out from under it.
Warzone might have had a similar scope. However it's died and come back multiple times, although it seems to exist outside gaming as a comic and book series too.
Well, it's kind of cheating, but you'd have to have a lot to compete with the Batman miniatures game. I appreciate that it's not a universe built around a game, but the game is most definitely inspired and informed by the setting; the thing that impressed me about it from the start was how much the various characters did act just like their source material (be that comic, film or game) counterparts. Definitely worth checking out if you want a wealth of material to draw on and immerse yourself it, it's hard to beat 75 years of comics, multiple film franchises and TV shows and even videogames!
If you look at Napoleonics there are more than 2,000 books about Napoleon himself alone, on top of which there are many thousands of other history books about the period.
When we come to Napoleonic fiction there are various series such as Sharpe, Ramage, Hornblower, Aubrey and Maturin, plus one-off books like War And Peace (arguably one of the greatest novels ever written), The Gun, and others.
That's just books. There are of course many films and TV programmes about Napoleonics, such as Waterloo, The Duellist, and dramatisations of a number of novels.
You can basically say any historical has all of human history behind it, which is fine. But considering he's talking about a purely fictional setting, let's not go in that route.
Vertrucio wrote: You can basically say any historical has all of human history behind it, which is fine. But considering he's talking about a purely fictional setting, let's not go in that route.
Why not? Why should we not consider actuality alongside fiction? Is it less dramatic, detailed or realistic?
No, because people get butthurt like you are and feel excluded. Except that the OP clearly talks about a game that's as future fantasy fiction as possible.
The key word being fiction.
I love and play historicals, but they are not for everyone. That's a sad fact, but that's also beyond the scope of this thread.
Talking historicals in this thread would be like someone going into the historicals forum and answering a question with a response about how some fictional space cat general was clearly better than Napoleon.
Batman and Star Wars games (X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault, etc) have more source material than 40k could ever dream of. Heroclix as well, if you can handle their God-awful minis. And Star Trek. And Terminator. And Cthulhu Wars and related games. You have a ton of options that have deeper stories than 40k. Not to say 40k has bad background. They did Anakin's fall to the Sith in the Horus Heresy better than Lucas did in SW. They just happen to have a smaller amount of background than all of those other game options.
I don't know, 40k has had hundreds of novels and short stories out over the years, plus 7 editions worth of supplements and codices, in addition to hundreds of editions of white dwarf (and other things like inferno, audio books, collected art books) that have added to the background. When you take all of that into account (and allow for duplication of material) I think it would give most things a good run for their money, and I doubt there is much that would massively eclipse it.
Sadly a lot of the 40k novels don't add much, they are just bolter porn (even the HH series is no bogged down with filler stories that don't advance the overarching plot and the HH is now seen as a setting not a story).
And really how much of the fluff in the rulebooks and codexes over the last 3 editions has been new and how much of it has just been rewriting old stuff?
40k has a TON of material to read, but sadly there is little depth to it outside a couple of their better writers.
JamesY wrote: I don't know, 40k has had hundreds of novels and short stories out over the years, plus 7 editions worth of supplements and codices, in addition to hundreds of editions of white dwarf (and other things like inferno, audio books, collected art books) that have added to the background. When you take all of that into account (and allow for duplication of material) I think it would give most things a good run for their money, and I doubt there is much that would massively eclipse it.
Two of the things I mentioned, Batman and Heroclix (involving all super heroes) have monthly books released. Multiple issues monthly. Like 4 different batman issues: dark knight, batman and robin, detective comics, and Batman. And arkham. And a ton of others. And they've been going since the late '40s continuously. 40k can't even come close to it, even with a hundred books. That comparison is like my wallet vs Donald Trump's.
(Sigh) Why can't we get a real Marvel miniatures game. Talk about back story and stuff to read? Hard to beat.
:(
I'd love to assemble my own team and duke it out against other teams. But alas...
JamesY wrote: I don't know, 40k has had hundreds of novels and short stories out over the years, plus 7 editions worth of supplements and codices, in addition to hundreds of editions of white dwarf (and other things like inferno, audio books, collected art books) that have added to the background. When you take all of that into account (and allow for duplication of material) I think it would give most things a good run for their money, and I doubt there is much that would massively eclipse it.
Two of the things I mentioned, Batman and Heroclix (involving all super heroes) have monthly books released. Multiple issues monthly. Like 4 different batman issues: dark knight, batman and robin, detective comics, and Batman. And arkham. And a ton of others. And they've been going since the late '40s continuously. 40k can't even come close to it, even with a hundred books. That comparison is like my wallet vs Donald Trump's.
Yeah I'm aware of the scale of batman mate, and it's longevity. Read my post again, I said hundreds of book, not a hundred, what's on the shelf at present is only a fraction of what has been published. I also said there isn't much that would massively eclipse it. Much. Not nothing.
Buttery Commissar wrote:How's Malifaux holding up? That seemed to have some very solid and expansive world building.
They did recently release an RPG supplement and their monthly ezine usually has a short story or two. They'be also got a new game coming at some point that deals more with the Earth side of the Breach, which is set to be basically WW1 history with added Malifauxness.
MWHistorian wrote:(Sigh) Why can't we get a real Marvel miniatures game. Talk about back story and stuff to read? Hard to beat.
:(
I'd love to assemble my own team and duke it out against other teams. But alas...
It's happening at some point. Knight Models are working on a Supers game that in theory will encompass the DC and Marvel characters (whether that's officially or just a 'these systems are totally not compatible wink wink' setup). They've got a head start on the minis, so the range should be there by the time the game hits.
At which point, Avengers vs Justice League is a thing that will be happening on my table.
Vertrucio wrote: Yeah, but how much of that is actually good today?
Unfortunately not much, but there is some. Rob Sanders' books are good, he knows how to structure and pace a plot. ADB too, but I am starting to see a little too much repetition of phrases and scenes (if I read 'crenulated blade' or 'heavenly dance' again...). I re-read alot of my old boxtree gw books over summer. Sad and refreshing all at the same time.
If you are looking specifically for fantasy games, Hordes of The Things allows the use of any fantasy or science fantasy background up to the tech level of John Carter of Mars (radium rifles, air cars, and so on.)
This opens pretty much all of fantasy literature for your reading and gaming pleasure.
jonolikespie wrote: I can't speak for Battletech but I think Star Wars dwarfs pretty much anything out there.
Depends.
Given how Disney just dropped the entire EU, it is currently undergoing the biggest rewrite/retcon in the history of rewrites/retcons.
A lot of stuff you see in Star Wars games like X-Wing, for example the Crimson Empire stuff like red interceptors, Carnor Jax, Soontir Fel, E-Wings or TIE-Phantoms, etc.., guys like Dash Rendar or Mara Jade, Thrawn, etc, etc., just got effectively Disney-deleted. Anything not in the actual movies or a Disney series like Rebels basically has the status of fan-fiction atm.
jonolikespie wrote: I can't speak for Battletech but I think Star Wars dwarfs pretty much anything out there.
Depends.
Given how Disney just dropped the entire EU, it is currently undergoing the biggest rewrite/retcon in the history of rewrites/retcons.
A lot of stuff you see in Star Wars games like X-Wing, for example the Crimson Empire stuff like red interceptors, Carnor Jax, Soontir Fel, E-Wings or TIE-Phantoms, etc.., guys like Dash Rendar or Mara Jade, Thrawn, etc, etc., just got effectively Disney-deleted. Anything not in the actual movies or a Disney series like Rebels basically has the status of fan-fiction atm.
Not Disney - Lucas had already kicked the EU to the curb.
And spat on the corpse of the Original Universe with his revisions.
The Auld Grump - Han shot first!
*EDIT* Traveller has a long history - including one alternate timeline, and has had many wargames over the years.
If you want some great background material written specifically for a wargame, Warzone has a lot of material available online for free. AT-43 also had some great background, but it didn't get very far. DZC looks promising so far, and the fluff is well written.
Star Wars, Star Trek, and the other big media series are great, too, if you are into them.
It's happening at some point. Knight Models are working on a Supers game that in theory will encompass the DC and Marvel characters (whether that's officially or just a 'these systems are totally not compatible wink wink' setup). They've got a head start on the minis, so the range should be there by the time the game hits.
At which point, Avengers vs Justice League is a thing that will be happening on my table.
That's the best thing I've heard all week.
I will say that PP is putting out some great books. They're attracting great writers from outside their fold. The Butcher novel written by Dan Well is amazing and Mr. Wells has a long history of writing psycho very well. Into the Storm is a great intro into Warmachine's world. Written by NYT Bestselling author, Larry Corriea. Great stuff. NQ magazine always has detailed fluff.
I am all about the fluff, apart from the obvious star wars and star trek games, the only other background that I actually took to was Battletech, there really is a lot to it.
Warmachine has the depth of background. They present a lot of their continuing fluff as fiction, so it doesn't always seem as large, but if you look into the non-fiction style fluff, and especially if you get into the Role Playing Game, there is an enormous amount of depth to it.
And of you'd like to read some novels- definitely check out the one about the Butcher. It is brilliant.
Zatsuku wrote: One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
Battletech has more background to it than any other fictional wargame I can think if.
odinsgrandson wrote: Warmachine has the depth of background. They present a lot of their continuing fluff as fiction, so it doesn't always seem as large, but if you look into the non-fiction style fluff, and especially if you get into the Role Playing Game, there is an enormous amount of depth to it.
And of you'd like to read some novels- definitely check out the one about the Butcher. It is brilliant.
The original fluff bible they wrote was supposed to be a couple of hundred pages. 800 pages later the guy writing it was asking if he could keep adding to it.
The Hordes RPG got so big with the amount of fluff they squeezed in that they had to just cut out all the stuff for the faction they thought suited it the least then released that faction as a source book a month later. It is still a massive book.
Zatsuku wrote: One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
Battletech has more background to it than any other fictional wargame I can think if.
Zatsuku wrote: One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
Battletech has more background to it than any other fictional wargame I can think if.
Again - Lord of the Rings.
Huh?
What is the point of your post? I didn't know this was a fiction pissing match, lol.
As much of a Tolkein fanboy as I am, and as many wide vistas of Middle-Earth as there are, I think the problem is that a lot of those went unexplored, mentioned in passing. Even with first-age Silmarillion material. Tolkien put in a lot of acreage and a long timeline, but he just didn't have the time to flesh them out, IMO. If more M-E history had the treatment of the tale of Túrin Turambar, for instance, it might be a different matter.
Mind you, if other authors had fleshed it out in the manner of BL authors, Brian Herbert, or folk playing in RE Howard's Hyborian sandbox, maybe it's a blessing.
The original fluff bible (for Iron Kingdoms) they wrote was supposed to be a couple of hundred pages. 800 pages later the guy writing it was asking if he could keep adding to it.
The Hordes RPG got so big with the amount of fluff they squeezed in that they had to just cut out all the stuff for the faction they thought suited it the least then released that faction as a source book a month later. It is still a massive book.
If you go onto the Privateer Press forums, look for posts by Doug Seacat (the guy in charge of their fluff bible). He often goes on and reveals the fluff that didn't make it into the core books (I remember a post from ages ago about all of the Iosan gods that died- years later, that fluff showed up in the Retribution of Scyrah book).
There's a lot to it.
Also, I've been playing with an Iron Kingdoms group for a good long while, and I'm pretty amazed at how often the fluff makes sense. Far too often, when I'm reading official fluff, I find that the economics or politics of a setting don't make sense.
(Like in D&D where everyone thinks that spells are for adventurers, rather than using endless flasks to irrigate dry areas, create food spells to replace farming, or teleportation circles as public transportation. Or Harry Potter where time travel is seen as a way to double up on your class schedule, rather than the practically infinite list of better uses).
Zatsuku wrote: One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
Battletech has more background to it than any other fictional wargame I can think if.
Again - Lord of the Rings.
Huh?
What is the point of your post? I didn't know this was a fiction pissing match, lol.
Yeah, it is to you anyway. LOTR started off as a set of novels with a bunch of notes published to kind of make another one.
It's a fine recommendation, but also with a lot of its existence outside the realm of wargaming. If you fail to see that and yet keep pushing it, then you are also starting a pissing match regardless of what you think your intentions are.
No one's saying that LOTR doesn't have an expansive background. However, I'm willing to put Battletech and LOTR on similar footing in terms of their use as wargaming backgrounds. And Battletech clearly gains the lead for being made first to be a wargaming background.
Vertrucio wrote: Yeah, it is to you anyway. LOTR started off as a set of novels with a bunch of notes published to kind of make another one.
It's a fine recommendation, but also with a lot of its existence outside the realm of wargaming. If you fail to see that and yet keep pushing it, then you are also starting a pissing match regardless of what you think your intentions are.
No one's saying that LOTR doesn't have an expansive background. However, I'm willing to put Battletech and LOTR on similar footing in terms of their use as wargaming backgrounds. And Battletech clearly gains the lead for being made first to be a wargaming background.
I think that it is more accurate to say that Middle Earth was a bunch of notes that Tolkien used to write some novels....
He put a lot more work into the background of his setting than he did actually writing stories set in it.
What he actually enjoyed, I think, was creating the background. (Sort of like a DM that spends years writing his game setting, but only runs a couple of games each year....) The novels were more to justify the work that he had put into the setting.
A lot of it was never really meant for public consumption - his work on languages, for example.
Battletech has a background created primarily for gaming.
The background of the Battletech universe is actually a whole lot more logical than the technology that it supports. (Sorry, but battle mechs are a really, bloody awful design for a war machine. Let's put the pilot in the least armored part of the vehicle, and then make that the first part to clear the horizon....)
Love the background, lukewarm about the game.
Traveller, likewise, benefits from a setting intended for gaming - whether you are going with the shattered Imperium or ignoring it. (I will admit it - I liked Traveller: the New Era. The tech design rules were the best part of the game, making it possible to create your own setting, from the tech up.
Star Fleet Battles has a fair amount of background and story development. And, while certain things are definitely taken from Star Trek (like several alien races, weapons, and ships), the game's story definitely diverges into something that makes a better setting for a game than regular Star Trek. Many new races never seen on Star Trek (like the Lyrans, Hydrans, Andromedans, etc.), loads of new weapons and technology, and of course literally thousands of different ships (I think the game system has something like 2500-3000 different ships from about 50 different races), plus many many scenarios to play, all have a background story to them. There is also a lot of story material outside of this, mainly short stories that appear in "Captain's Log", a publication of Amarillo Design Bureau (the makers of SFB).
Now mind one thing here: these game settings have all been created with different philosophies in mind.
- Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 follow a philosophy of keeping things messy. What this means is that they let a lot of loose ends stay loose (even when they don't have any plans on the matter). Eventually, they come back to them (like re-introducing the C'Tan).
They also like to keep things fairly open for players to play in- so there are untold millions of worlds in the Imperium, and even the ones we know about aren't fully fleshed out. This helps players feel like they aren't changing the setting when they have 'epic' world-shattering events- because you can shatter quite a few worlds without altering the setting.
GW generally favors rule of cool above all else, and are prone to exaggerating circumstances as far as they can. Often, the different writers don't agree on how much exaggeration is appropriate (hence the arguments about marine height).
- Privateer Press has quite a bit of detail about their setting- we even have a good idea of the day to day living in the various countries in the Iron Kingdoms. This extends to what the political outlook is like from Marienburge, the view from Horgenhold, or the punishment for public drunkeness in Caspia.
Also of note, the iron kingdoms tend to make economic sense.
- Battletech is designed by people who know how technology changes politics and war. It is interesting to see the power shift between the different nations, as the greater technological advancements improve on earlier designs.
Yeah, giant robots don't make good sense, but once you accept that one, they've got some good stories about the balance of power.
- Tolkien put a lot of work into his world, and I give him credit for being first. He really showed us all how to do it, and put an enormous number of hours into crafting his setting.
Mind, I have always felt like the Hobbit took place in a different Middle Earth than the Lord of the Rings -because of this, I was pleased to see the film's transportation of the Hobbit into a more Lord of the Rings type setting. But after that, it's very consistent.
Now, Middle Earth, like Gotham City and the Federation, was not made for a game, and has some troubles when transported into a game setting (Tolkien's elves have balance issues with other races- so OP).
BattleTech uses 'big, stompy robots' because the game designers were inspired by and had a passion for the 'big, stompy robots' featured in the anime of the day (e.g., Macross, Dougram, etc). If it hadn't been for the 'big, stompy robots' then BattleTech might not exist.
That being said, even though I prefer my 'big, stompy robots' more along the line of those found in Armored Trooper VOTOMS I'm glad that the designers' passion gave us a top notch sci-fi setting like BattleTech.
Battletech is a given, because they've built up the background for decades and there is relatively few retcons (there are a few, but it is very minor stuff).
The Iron Kingdoms (Warmachine/Hordes from PP) I would say is practially there now. Excepting the storyline in the WM/H books, there is the old D20 3.5 stuff - thousands of pages of very meaty sourcebooks - and the new IK books, that are also packed with information. Their bookline is also shaping up. Also few if any retcons.
Warzone had a bunch of background from the Mutant Chronicles RPG and the old game sourcebooks.
Anything based on popular fiction (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc) has a scope WH/40k can only dream of. Lotr is to some extent the exception here - there are a lot of blank spaces that simply won't be filled in...unless you count the old MERP material, which isn't exactly canon. But LotR is an exception in many ways - Tolkien's world was built in a way few if any other fictional universes can match.
Zatsuku wrote: One of the reasons it took me a while to start trying other games over Warhammer Fantasy and 40k was that I loved the huge breadth of background. I've always been able to read a novel, or some wiki entry or have a long discussion about backstory if I didn't have anything to paint or didn't have anyone to play with at the time. To me the background of a game is an intrinsic part of the hobby that is mini wargaming. Warmachine and Hordes are getting there, there is a lot to the setting and they've even started releasing short stories and novels, and I do enjoy it a lot. But I am wondering if other games I haven't noticed have such breadth of background?
Yes, there are many. The problem you have is that you were pushed in and sold the idea that Warhammer HAS a deep background. It does not in its current form. Its evolved into a hot steamy pile of gak, with no reeling in the tears.
The original concept was excellent. The RPG fit in seamlessly, then 4th and consecutive evolutions of it cut and shaved too much, added too little, and eventually we come up with some pile of manue that lived on its laurals of how great it once was.
GW is more into making money then a quality product that evolves and lasts. You'll see more as this hot mess gets wiped out and people up there double back.... er..... yeah, THIS is 40K in Fantasy..... that this is evolving into.
You are looking for Infinity, Battletech, Star Trek/ Starfleet Battles, Shadowrun, Deadlands, Privateer Press's Warmachine/ Hordes, Traveller, Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, Heroquest/ Warhammer Quest, and maybe Malfaux, if they were not such .... not nice peoples.
I for one have Star Mogul as my old go to, because I've played it for a LONG time, and if I were so to choose, I could easily write an encyclopedia series of material on the systems I've played the game in... There is another called " Freebooters fate" which is a pirate game, which has n=been around for quite awhile, THEN there is an old school favorite, that has gone through iterations, called Strange Aeons, which is Cthuhlu based, that one, along with the UFX line, and others out there have excellent quality that you can play a tabletop version of Secret Wars in if you wanted to.
Buttery Commissar wrote: How's Malifaux holding up? That seemed to have some very solid and expansive world building.
I really like Malifaux's background (excluding adapted IP's like Star Wars, it is my favorite of any game I've come across). But, if you're looking for depth, it isn't there yet. It is steadily expanding, and they actually advance the plot for those of us who appreciate that, but they've been around less than a decade, so it's hard to match up with some of these games that have been going for 20+ years already.
In that case does 40k really have 'depth' or is most of the stuff pumped out by BL derivative, unrelated to any overarching narrative and contradictory with a lot of other written works (especially from older editions)?
40k doesn't really have an overarching narrative in the sense that the heresy novels do. I've always seen it as just a setting in which narratives take place. A galaxy at war is the perfect backdrop to be able to create a justification for any conflicts between factions, which is why the story has never progressed. It's interesting that a new series will be set in the 32nd millennium, so more background to the background...
jonolikespie wrote: Sadly a lot of the 40k novels don't add much, they are just bolter porn (even the HH series is no bogged down with filler stories that don't advance the overarching plot and the HH is now seen as a setting not a story).
And really how much of the fluff in the rulebooks and codexes over the last 3 editions has been new and how much of it has just been rewriting old stuff?
40k has a TON of material to read, but sadly there is little depth to it outside a couple of their better writers.
And after having been made privy to a conversation between a game dev and a GW executive, it seems they are intent on distancing themselves from Abnett's work as much as possible. An imperium full of civilians is not a good concept,apparently.
I actually think Battletech has more story and history than Warhammer (Fantasy or 40k) has ever had. Yes, Battletech was inspired by Macross (to the point they ripped off some of the robots); but overall, they created their own unique history for the factions, people, and robots. The only reason Battletech has been less accepted is the poor support for miniatures (poor detailing, non-standard sizing amongst models, ect) and the poor marketing. I really love battletech and it's companion mechwarrior (rules are much simplier but not too simple) but hardly anyone plays it and when asked about it most say Battle what. I think there are dozens of novels now for it, yet hardly anyone knows about it.
One only has to check the new Btech KS to see that there are a lot of people that love that background and that want to be able to run Stompy Robots around the universe.
I've a ton of Btech stuff but if I had to measure my enjoyment of the line in number of games played I'd be sorely disappointed.
Coming to 40K after Btech has always made the statement that GW created the best background for their games fell flat.
jonolikespie wrote: Sadly a lot of the 40k novels don't add much, they are just bolter porn (even the HH series is no bogged down with filler stories that don't advance the overarching plot and the HH is now seen as a setting not a story).
And really how much of the fluff in the rulebooks and codexes over the last 3 editions has been new and how much of it has just been rewriting old stuff?
40k has a TON of material to read, but sadly there is little depth to it outside a couple of their better writers.
And after having been made privy to a conversation between a game dev and a GW executive, it seems they are intent on distancing themselves from Abnett's work as much as possible. An imperium full of civilians is not a good concept,apparently.
Wait WHAT?
Do you have a link?
A quote?
A brief paraphrasing of what you heard?
His Inquisition work was what added depth to and fleshed out the setting for me. I don't find it hard to believe they don't want to write about civies since they don't make models for them but it's still a dumb choice that sounds like it will reduce the fluff into a caricature of itself.
Grot 6 wrote: and maybe Malfaux, if they were not such .... not nice peoples.
What's wrong with Wyrd?
Wyrd are pretty well known for maintaining positive relationships with the community, and the only Wyrd employee I've personally met (Justin Gibbs, the lead designer of Malifaux) was extremely friendly and gracious with his time and thoughts on the game.
Maybe Grot 6 means that his problem with Malifaux is that each faction is just bad guys? That's true of a lot of games, but I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to prefer settings with a more defined good v. evil component.
NorseSig wrote: I actually think Battletech has more story and history than Warhammer (Fantasy or 40k) has ever had. Yes, Battletech was inspired by Macross (to the point they ripped off some of the robots); but overall, they created their own unique history for the factions, people, and robots. The only reason Battletech has been less accepted is the poor support for miniatures (poor detailing, non-standard sizing amongst models, ect) and the poor marketing. I really love battletech and it's companion mechwarrior (rules are much simplier but not too simple) but hardly anyone plays it and when asked about it most say Battle what. I think there are dozens of novels now for it, yet hardly anyone knows about it.
FASA didn't 'rip off' the anime artwork. They thought they had legally licensed the artwork, but founf out years later that the company they got the license from (Twentieth Century Imports) may not have been in the legal position to provide those rights (see the article HERE).
Also note that BattleTech is technically a board game. Miniatures are not a necessity to play BattleTech. Thus the miniature line was licensed to MiniFigs and Ral Partha, and since the size of the miniature didn't matter for game play purposes they were sculpted for what looked good for the model in question and not for a consistency of scale.
NorseSig wrote: I actually think Battletech has more story and history than Warhammer (Fantasy or 40k) has ever had. Yes, Battletech was inspired by Macross (to the point they ripped off some of the robots); but overall, they created their own unique history for the factions, people, and robots. The only reason Battletech has been less accepted is the poor support for miniatures (poor detailing, non-standard sizing amongst models, ect) and the poor marketing. I really love battletech and it's companion mechwarrior (rules are much simplier but not too simple) but hardly anyone plays it and when asked about it most say Battle what. I think there are dozens of novels now for it, yet hardly anyone knows about it.
I have a couple of shelves full of BattleTech stuff, but the miniatures, frankly, suck. I absolutely loved the BattleTech fiction in my youth, and there have been several awesome computer games. As Ghaz mentioned above, though, it's more of a boardgame than a wargame.
jonolikespie wrote: Sadly a lot of the 40k novels don't add much, they are just bolter porn (even the HH series is no bogged down with filler stories that don't advance the overarching plot and the HH is now seen as a setting not a story).
And really how much of the fluff in the rulebooks and codexes over the last 3 editions has been new and how much of it has just been rewriting old stuff?
40k has a TON of material to read, but sadly there is little depth to it outside a couple of their better writers.
And after having been made privy to a conversation between a game dev and a GW executive, it seems they are intent on distancing themselves from Abnett's work as much as possible. An imperium full of civilians is not a good concept,apparently.
That doesn't surprise me actually, Ian Watson was ostracised as well many years ago when his vision began to fall outside of the tightly controlled boundaries. And Abnett has always been the master of making imagination out of what has really become a very stagnant and fully defined setting.
Although I'm sure I read that Abnett was working on a new series as part of the 32nd millennium range?
Talys wrote: I have a couple of shelves full of BattleTech stuff, but the miniatures, frankly, suck. I absolutely loved the BattleTech fiction in my youth, and there have been several awesome computer games. As Ghaz mentioned above, though, it's more of a boardgame than a wargame.
Sadly, the minis do suck. There are some exceptions, but, and I say this as a 20+ year collector of Battletech, the minis are atrocious by contemporary standards and almost require a heavy dollop of nostalgia to find suitable.
However, regarding the board game/miniature game comment, the relatively new Alpha-Strike rule set for Battletech is trying very hard to be a Battletech miniatures game and is worth checking out.
There are even new plastic lance packs of `Mechs (4-mechs to a pack) that cost around US$15.00 after regular online discounting. The plastics aren't GW quality but they aren't horrible either and can be a cheap entry point into Alpha-Strike/Battletech.
Where would be a good entry point for Battletech fluff? I never got into it because I thought the robots (minis) looked silly. Also, where is there a plastic Battletech kit other than the starter? Do you mean the old 'clix?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Also, where is there a plastic Battletech kit other than the starter? Do you mean the old 'clix?
HERE are the previews of the first two Lance Packs and the schedule for the remaining six that Catalyst released for BattleTech, and no they're not 'clix'.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where would be a good entry point for Battletech fluff? I never got into it because I thought the robots (minis) looked silly. Also, where is there a plastic Battletech kit other than the starter? Do you mean the old 'clix?
Michael A Stackpole's books are pretty good. Not as good as his Star Wars: X-wing series with Aaron Allston (I love those books), and the early ones like the Warrior Trilogy are a bit dated now, but worth a read. I haven't read all of the very many Battletech novels, but as one of the more senior writers in their stable Stackpole's novels seem to be the most important in the overarching story (Ghost War initiated the Dark Age sequence, for instance).
Mattlov wrote:Conan has more than LotR does. And is better written.
Now I know you're trolling!
Interesting and somewhat disheartening to hear about Dan Abnett. He's one out of about... how many was it... twoBL authors I trust, and I wonder what's to become of his Bequin trilogy.
jonolikespie wrote: Sadly a lot of the 40k novels don't add much, they are just bolter porn (even the HH series is no bogged down with filler stories that don't advance the overarching plot and the HH is now seen as a setting not a story).
And really how much of the fluff in the rulebooks and codexes over the last 3 editions has been new and how much of it has just been rewriting old stuff?
40k has a TON of material to read, but sadly there is little depth to it outside a couple of their better writers.
And after having been made privy to a conversation between a game dev and a GW executive, it seems they are intent on distancing themselves from Abnett's work as much as possible. An imperium full of civilians is not a good concept,apparently.
Wait WHAT?
Do you have a link?
A quote?
A brief paraphrasing of what you heard?
His Inquisition work was what added depth to and fleshed out the setting for me. I don't find it hard to believe they don't want to write about civies since they don't make models for them but it's still a dumb choice that sounds like it will reduce the fluff into a caricature of itself.
I agree with all you've said. I love his books and he spoiled W40K fiction for me. After reading the Tanith books, I just couldn't bear the stuff the others were putting out. You got a sense of the vastness, greatness of the galaxy, and dynamic changes in the universe as the story progressed. My friend works on Eternal Crusade, so he has regular meetings with GW, and when they get over to this side of the pond, they dine out. He was politely giving them gak over this decision. As for the internal politics of that decision, he couldn't tell me more because he was told to drop it.
Battletech might not have movies, but it can top that just with material from 1985-1990. Let alone the next 25 years.
And if you want a fantasy genre, Conan has more than LotR does. And is better written. And 62.374 times more entertaining.
99.99% of people have never heard of "battle tech".
99.99% of people have never heard of Warhammer40k, or if they have its "that thing my brother did when he was 12". If you actually meant "99.99% of gamers have never heard of Battletech, then you're just plain wrong altogether. There some guys down the club I go to play it regular, and not old fellas either
This is a ridiculous thread anyway, since there is barely a hint of originality in background of 40k in the first place. Just ram Dune, Foundation and Starship troopers together, sprinkle with some fantasy races and half-bake for 20 odd years, job done.
Mathieu Raymond wrote: As I keep telling my wife, ever since the Illiad and the Odyssey, everything feels pretty derivative.
Scratch marks on a cave wall were good enough for my ancestors and theyre good enough for me. Everything is just a blatant copy of Hero Ug and the Mighty Sky-fire in any case.
When I were a lad, we were lucky, lucky, mind you, if our father didn't cut off our hands, and the only time we saw a hand was once a year, on our birthday, when he'd let us look at them.
If you keep hammering on LOTR maybe should check the source material that Tolkien stole oops i mean was influenced by, the Nibelungen, Celtic, Norse, Greek, Roman, Egypt, Sumerian mythology.
When I were a lad, we were lucky, lucky, mind you, if our father didn't cut off our hands, and the only time we saw a hand was once a year, on our birthday, when he'd let us look at them.
Pictures...
Of hands...
Look at a hand?! What I would 'ave given to LOOK at a hand. We had to get up at 3am, have our entire arms chopped off, then stand with our backs turned while father described hands to us using a series of colourful euphemisms. Looking at hands, thats rare posh that.
Mattlov wrote:Conan has more than LotR does. And is better written.
Now I know you're trolling!
Interesting and somewhat disheartening to hear about Dan Abnett. He's one out of about... how many was it... twoBL authors I trust, and I wonder what's to become of his Bequin trilogy.
Actually, you'd be surprised how much quality Conan stories are out there. Robert E Howard was an awesome writer and the closest thing to a friend H.P. Lovecraft had. Seriously check it out.
Battletech might not have movies, but it can top that just with material from 1985-1990. Let alone the next 25 years.
And if you want a fantasy genre, Conan has more than LotR does. And is better written. And 62.374 times more entertaining.
99.99% of people have never heard of "battle tech".
99.99% of people have never heard of Warhammer40k, or if they have its "that thing my brother did when he was 12". If you actually meant "99.99% of gamers have never heard of Battletech, then you're just plain wrong altogether. There some guys down the club I go to play it regular, and not old fellas either
This is a ridiculous thread anyway, since there is barely a hint of originality in background of 40k in the first place. Just ram Dune, Foundation and Starship troopers together, sprinkle with some fantasy races and half-bake for 20 odd years, job done.
You forgot Judge Dredd. (Though that was more noticeable in the Rogue Trader and in the Necromunda days.)
*EDIT* And the Arbites, of course.
Though it would not surprise me if there had been a time when more people had heard of Battletech through the MechWarrior computer games than had heard of the miniatures game.
Perhaps 40K background doesn't have depth, but what it had for a long time was a sandbox feel to it. I felt like I could make up my own stuff, insert it into existing over-arching story lines and it wouldn't step on anyone's toes. Heck, I could even make up whole new games and they could still fit into the 40K universe because it is so vast and sandbox-y.
With a game like Battletech, this gets a bit more difficult because it is so fleshed out. The main outlet is in Mercenary companies.
In Warmachine (and other Boutique named character driven games) it is almost impossible due to its Caster focus.
However, as was mentioned before, it is all a matter of preference in what you want out of the game. Each universe/background/fluff was made for different reasons.
Edit: I am not an expert on any of these games, so these perceptions maybe incorrect. I'm sure everyone will be glad to jump on me and correct me.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where would be a good entry point for Battletech fluff? I never got into it because I thought the robots (minis) looked silly. Also, where is there a plastic Battletech kit other than the starter? Do you mean the old 'clix?
Michael A Stackpole's books are pretty good. Not as good as his Star Wars: X-wing series with Aaron Allston (I love those books), and the early ones like the Warrior Trilogy are a bit dated now, but worth a read. I haven't read all of the very many Battletech novels, but as one of the more senior writers in their stable Stackpole's novels seem to be the most important in the overarching story (Ghost War initiated the Dark Age sequence, for instance).
To follow up on darrkespur's post Stackpole is a great suggestion. He has two main trilogies that set up two important timelines in Battletech's fictional universe, and choosing which one to read depends on which aspect of the game appeals to you.
The Warrior Trilogy is set in Battletech's 4th succession war (1980's era of the game) and deals with the 5 Successor Houses of the old Star League battling it out for control of the Inner Sphere. This is the gritty "Mad Max" era of Battletech where `Mechs are nearly priceless and new parts are hard to come by. This is my favorite era to play in, and is my suggestion for beginners because there are fewer weapons to learn and the combat is close and personal. Combats usually devolve into slugging matches as `Mechs punch and kick each other into scrap. The focus during this era was on single pilots or small companies of Mechwarriors who fought for honor and gold. Very much a King Arthur's Knights in spaaaaaace! situation.
The Kerensky Trilogy is set right before the Clan invasion of the Inner Sphere (early 1990's in terms of publishing) and introduces high technology human invaders who shake up the political framework of the Inner Sphere. These books set up the Clans both as playable factions and as antagonists for the Inner Sphere factions. This era of game play is faster, there are more brutal weapons that do more damage at longer ranges, arguably making the game more tactical. However, I find this era to be lacking in the "charm" of the Succession wars period because the Inner Sphere finally gets its manufacturing issues in order and `Mechs begin to be produced in larger numbers. The focus changes from individual warriors or small units of warriors to larger regiments of `Mechs and full-scale planetary invasions. This era has a more modern feel to it.
So how do you like your giant, killy robots? If you like them rusting and patched together with duct tape spit and a prayer try the Warrior Trilogy and if you like sleek warmachines blasting each other at range give the Kerensky trilogy a try.
Did Rifts or Shaowrun ever have proper wargames, or were they always just RPGs with the odd smattering of minis? I seem to recall both games having fairly fleshed out settings.
Easy E wrote: In Warmachine (and other Boutique named character driven games) it is almost impossible due to its Caster focus.
Aye, but the setting itself is AMAZING for roleplaying games.
I really like the Malifaux universe, but I agree that it's going to turn off some people who like that sandbox approach to world building. I think Infinity strikes a good balance of having a well constructed world that isn't just bat-crap insane and is still open enough for the people who want that out of their settings. I don't have time for RPGs these days, but I imagine the setting will be perfect for the RPG they just kickstarted.
Barzam wrote: Did Rifts or Shaowrun ever have proper wargames, or were they always just RPGs with the odd smattering of minis? I seem to recall both games having fairly fleshed out settings.
Never played Rifts, but Shadowrun had a skirmish game called DMZ (Downtown Militarized Zone) that could be a starting place for a war game. DMZ used map-sheets with dots for movement and positioning, so it wasn't a true war game.
Well, I'd say Shadowrun counts then. I think once your IP becomes a multi-media franchise, then you fall into the same category as Warhammer in terms of breadth of background.
So, Shadowrun has had:
-an RPG -multiple video games
-novels
-a miniature range
All it's really missing is either a cartoon or a movie.
Warzone/Mutant Chronicles definitely falls into this category as well. It had:
-an RPG -a video game
-a crappy movie
-board games
-a CCG -a miniature wargame
-a comic book
timetowaste85 wrote: Batman and Star Wars games (X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault, etc) have more source material than 40k could ever dream of. Heroclix as well, if you can handle their God-awful minis. And Star Trek. And Terminator. And Cthulhu Wars and related games. You have a ton of options that have deeper stories than 40k. Not to say 40k has bad background. They did Anakin's fall to the Sith in the Horus Heresy better than Lucas did in SW. They just happen to have a smaller amount of background than all of those other game options.
Most of Star Wars EU has been relegated to "Legends" and has lost it's canon status (thank goodness). D&D isn't normally thought of as a tabletop game, but there is Attack Wing as well as the D&D miniatures game, and there's a hell of a lot of background for D&D out there, including novels, etc.
There's actually a lot less of Tolkien than one might think in comparison to some of the others named, since it was (largely) written by the one man, rather than an endless stream of authors over several decades like Star Wars, D&D, Warhammer, Battletech, etc
Tolkien's Middle Earth oeuvre consists of five books published while he was alive plus another dozen or so published by his son using JRR's notes and unfinished work. Except for The Hobbit and the poetry book, these are not short books either.
Therefore there is a considerable amount of material covering the creation of Middle Earth and legends from early history leading gradually up to the War of the Ring.
What distinguishes Tolkien from say 40K is the amount of depth in the Middle Earth background, including a number of languages and scripts invented owing to his interest in pre-mediaeval literature and languages. Elvish for example is not a collection of random words grubbed up from dog latin and greek, like 40K's High Gothic, it is a complete though compact language with grammar and two different dialects.
I would suggest finding good rules and using Conan's setting, "The Hyborian era" - its pretty fantastic, and just perfect for finding tons of factions and armies waiting to clash- Conan himself need not be involved at all, even.
And after having been made privy to a conversation between a game dev and a GW executive, it seems they are intent on distancing themselves from Abnett's work as much as possible. An imperium full of civilians is not a good concept,apparently.
Which shows just how badly GW's understanding of what makes, or rather made, their fluff so interesting. The FFG40KRPGs work so well partly because they go beyond the shallow warporn and provide glimpses of the wider, and much more interesting, Imperium which is in many ways much more grim dark than what ever angst ridden Space Marine Y is doing to angst ridden Space Marine X in the derivative and shallow fluff that GW spews into the world these days.
I'm not a huge fan of Abnett but he is the only BL writer that I could tolerate.
Tolkien and Howard both had interesting settings that are philosophically very different, but both based greatly inspired by history and mythology. Moorcock also has very good fantasy settings and introduced the Multiverse concept IIRC. History really is a great source for any kind of fantasy wargame/rpg because you can just pick a time period you like, decide how real the mythology and superstitions of the era are and go from there. Greeks with legendary beasts? Renaissance Europe infiltrated by vampires warring with a materialist church that almost wiped them out? Wild west with ghosts and witches? Modern warfare against terrorism disguising a war against inhuman abominations (that have probably thoroughly infiltrated all sides)? It all works!
Although history itself is plenty interesting with tons of plot twists and colorful characters. With the bonus of learning the backstory actually means something!
.
