Talk:Advancing the Storyline

From 1d4chan

Isn't this page more than a little biased? I have seen no such backlash against metaplots as the page claims, and even if 40k is viewed as a setting instead of a story in itself, there is no logical reason to simply have it stop at 999.M41- if they can extend it backwards into the Horus Heresy like they are now, then they can extend it forward just as easily.

It can also be argued that there IS a main story- the decline of the Imperium and the impending final battle against Chaos. On top of that, an emergent narrative like Captain Tycho's (as described in Your dudes is now impossible because such a narrative would have the potential to make significant changes in the background fluff. If one stagnates, so will the other. Even the big galaxy works against this- its sheer size only serves to make your dudes even more small and insignificant by comparison.

In conclusion, the page should have a arguments for moving the story forward as well as arguments against it.--Newerfag (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There certainly was backlash against the metaplot with the Old World of Darkness because it placed limitations on what STs and PCs could do. That said, I agree that this page is biased (I tried to give some of the motivation for why people might want the setting to move forward with the sentence summarizing the perpetual state of the universe, but the "static" position is still more strongly represented), and I like your arguments in favor of moving the setting forward. I'm wary of turning an article into an argument, but go for it. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
And now I have added those counter-arguments to the page. I have no interest in starting a flamewar, but at the very least the other side of the story ought to be represented.--Newerfag (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

I have noticed one anon consistently adding pro-xenos faction bias into the article where it is not necessary to do so.While his zeal is commendable, it adds nothing to the article and only comes off as complaining about GW favoritism (which is already addressed in a far more objective manner).Let's keep it civil here, shall we?--Newerfag (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Imperium; Protagonists in Name Only[edit]

While it is unlikely to impossible that Games Workshop will advance the story, the bias towards the Imperium is getting ridiculous. Games Workshop doesn't have to wipe out humanity, or even the Imperium, to please the people (like me) who are sick of GW's continual Imperial favoritism. They could facture it into pieces, reducing it to a couple of dozen systems or something. As for alternate protagonists; if they wanted to go that route, the Eldar and the Tau would be good choices, just as long as they don't go overboard with them like they did with the Imperium. In fact, for those who don't know, back in the days of 3rd edition, many people thought the Eldar were the protagonists of 40k. They were less racist and evil than the Imperium and they were dying out, which won them some sympathy. How did Games Workshop respond to this? Instead of going with it and/or making the Imperium nicer, they tried to make the Eldar look like jerks; making them even more callous, manipulative and introducing that "kill 100,000 humans to save one Eldar" schtick (which is meaningless because not all Eldar are like that and the Imperium would do the same in the Eldar's position). All just to try and push the Imperium down people's throats.

In closing, they could just reduce the size and number of people in the Imperium dramtically (by at least HALF), or make Eldar or Tau the new protagonists (they're also the most popular non-Imperium factions).

They could. But they won't. There's too few of you and you don't spend enough money for them to care about your opinions. This page is meant to be an objective summary, stating the facts and nothing else. It's painful to hear that GW couldn't care less about your opinion, but the only way to change that is to go spread the word to other people to make them buy xenos army- then MAYBE GW would throw you a bone. But trying to tell 1d4chan what it already knows accomplishes nothing except for making you look like a whiny bitch. Besides, when they build the whole setting out of grimdark, why should they bother making ANYBODY sympathetic? The whole point is that the entire galaxy is full of idiots, jerks, and assholes- for all their Greater Good, the Tau are just the Crusade-era Imperium with more subtle ways of controlling their population.
They probably made the changes to the Eldar because they were never meant to be sympathetic in the first place, and even mentioning that they should have made the Imperium "nicer" shows that you completely miss the point of grimdark. At the end of the day, they market the Imperium because it sells, and your preferences don't mean anything compared to the millions of Imperium buyers. (And for the record, Eldar and Tau are only popular because they have better codexes than everyone else. The moment a newer, better one comes out, their "fans" will abandon them for it.)--Newerfag (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See, I don't think that the problem is inherently with the Imperium. They just don't want to progress it any further - they don't want the Eldar to be wiped out, the Tau to be eaten, the Necrons to be reunited, Chaos to win, the main bulk of the Tyranids to arrive... they don't want to make major changes to the status quo of any race, and it shouldn't be assumed that it's because "hurr durr don't want to scare away Space Marine kiddies". According to their writers, at least, the end of the 40k timeline has deliberately been picked to be when "Abaddon's about to win and everything's going to collapse", so if they moved any further in the timeline, there would be... well, no story, because the Imperium would have fallen, Chaos would have won, et cetera et cetera.

I dunno. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across here. I just think that this page is too focussed on both why they SHOULD do it, and how "the only reason they're not doing it is because muh child-money", and kind of... rejects the idea that there could be legitimate narrative reasons for not wanting to continue it? I dunno. Whatever. -Soundifex (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because the Imperium falls doesn't mean the story is automatically over- again, look at Warmahordes and Battletech, which have killed off major factions and done just fine for it. What I've been doing is looking at the more pragmatic reasons they might have had for not advancing the story (which are the things that more fa/tg/uys don't realize and are more likely to care about). If you think you can add some of these reasons to the page, go ahead and do so. Overall, I want to allow both sides of the issue to be out there- when I first saw this article, it seemed like its only purpose was to tell people who wanted the story to advance to shut up and stop whining while ignoring the rationale behind why those narrative reasons exist in the first place. I'm currently rewriting it now, so look at the article again if you can. --Newerfag (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms[edit]

The Realms have had multiple apocalypses that corresponded to edition rules changes, with many changes that were more significant to both story and gameplay than the 40k transition to 8th edition. Several storylines, such as the freeing of the goddess Waukeen from Graz'zt are canonically attributed to player-character actions. The setting is the most dynamic of any in official D&D. even with the approvals and censures that have been needed for it to be so.