Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Get a licence for, and design, a Doctor Who game. Thanks OP .

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.

nareik wrote:
Get a licence for, and design, a Doctor Who game. Thanks OP .

http://doctorwhominiaturesgame.com/

Next

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.

 BuFFo wrote:

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.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:

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.

Judge Dredd from warlord games has a ton of background if your into comic books and movies.

Batman miniature game also has a bunch of background with the comic and movies.

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.

 jonolikespie wrote:

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).

 BuFFo wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 BuFFo wrote:

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.

Its not one of those. Lord of the rings.

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.

The Auld Grump

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).

Runequest.

The First two versions, or the Versions done after Runequest III by Avalon Hill.

Basically those set in Glorantha.

They have vastly more depth and breadth than 40K.

The same can be said for Empires of the Petal Throne.

Or Traveller.

MB

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.

What actually is depth in terms of the fluff to back up a game?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What actually is depth in terms of the fluff to back up a game?

I think he meant the idea of consistency in the storyline, and then evolution, of the games background.

That's how I read and posted to it.

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.

M.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 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?