Gamers and change

[YorkNecromancer]

I've been mulling a discussion point over in my head for the last few days, and I'm just curious what people think.

So, as we know, roughly every five years, we get a new edition of 40K. GW have pretty much stated that this is their cycle, and I can imagine this going on, frankly, forever. Every five years, change, and people for the most part embrace it. New rules may be despised ("I hate flyers, they're broken!") or loved ("Snap shots are a really good idea."), but, by and large, the changes are accepted by the community.

However, changes to the fluff are almost always met with derision, score, and unabashed hatred. As many of you know, I'm keen for female Space Marines (as are several other people I know), but many people here have said they don't want them, specifically because it completely contradicts the established fluff. Likewise, when the Storm Talon was released, there were many people complaining that it contradicted the fluff because it had never been mentioned before.

Now, this isn't exclusively a gaming thing: I've seen/had plenty of discussions with people regarding things like comics, RPGs, and all manner of glorious nerdery where an element of the background material was changed, and people didn't just get angry - they lost their minds with pure nerd rage ("What? You want to play Vampire: The Masquerade only the vampires can walk about in daylight, because it makes them more intimidating and less like serial killers with allergies? YOU'RE INSANE!!!")

So I suppose my question is why? Why are people so accepting of rules changes and the like (despite the occasional complaint) yet so resistant to fluff changes - especially minor ones that wouldn't affect the in-game universe in any real way.

Is this just a nerd/geek thing? Does it affect everyone in the community? Are there some fluff changes we will accept and some we won't, regardless of how much sense they make? What drives this need for things to always be the same forever?

[Kirsten]

I personally am always fine with change so long as the change makes sense and is good. I apply this to everything, so where a lot of my friends hate films changing points from a book it is based on, I don't mind at all, so long as the change is still good in itself. I didn't like the change in the film version of I am Legend for example because it completely spoilt the point of the book and changed the ending to something very generic. Fluff is the same, I didn't like the change to the space marine order of new initiate training, now starting in the devastators, because that just doesn't make sense to me. but if they changed some other aspect of marines that is fine so long as the change is reasonable and cool.

[Wolfshade]

Gamers accept that changes to the rules will continually occur, from the additional things in White Dwarf, to the new codex/army book so the new incarnation of the ruleset has been generally an accepted thing. The fundamental game remains the same, the dice, the distances the mechanics, these are by and large seen as itterative. Indeed a number of 6th stuff looks back and updates 2nd stuff.

When it comes to the fluff though it is the stone in which the game is built. Throughout the changes in the rules the lore is constant and it is when people that mess with it that people become very upset. Look at Squats, they are gone yet people still hark back to them. Indeed they even get cheeky mention in some books. But the lore is a bit like a baby, we look after it and see it grow and we end up being invested in it.

In wider society we accept that laws change and are tweaked as new situations arise and new things occur and we see that as progress, but the story behind the law, our history we defend so when someone suggests that King John wasn't the tyrant he was been villified to be we are highly skeptical and resistant to change. It is part of our sense of identity, even if it is wrong, and in a similiar way so is the gaming lore.

A constant lore is the thread that keeps things together, if 40k suddenly radically re-designed the Space Marine so it wasn't recognisable there would be outcry as we know what they look like and should look like and if they don't then they won't be marines. If you see my meaning.

[Mr Mystery]

Depends entirely upon the change.

The background is mutable. Going back to Rogue Trader days, Marines weren't the Marines we know today.

But your example of female Marines? What does that actually add to anything? To me, it would just be change for change's sake, which is rarely for the better.

Overall, I'm an adaptive person. Professionally, I have to be to do my job to the high standard I expect of myself.

If they want to change the background, it has to be for a good reason. It's the setting that keeps me (and looking at Black Library sales, many others) hooked. Now, whether a change for good reason is done well, totally different matter. But just to say something like 'oh yeah, now there's female Marines. Because' is unnecessary.

[Wildeybeast]

Tyrant seems a rather harsh. No more so than any other medieval king. Incompetent, most definitely, but not a tyrant.

[Denzark]

I think Wolfy has it, you invest in the fluff mentally, and a change has to be for a specific reason. I don't just mean things that die out of common use such as Greater Barking Toads of Catachan for example - that sort of thing, although what got me into this game, I can acknowledge ain't grimdark enough.

But the bad old 360 degree retcon had better be for a mahoosively good reason or it will be subject to significant derision, or even hatred of the author (Mr Ward anyone?)

Also the change to rules for what seems like economic real-life reasons, is what I dislike the most. The allies chart is an example: Space Marines shouldn't ally with non-imperial forces except in extremis - and they will probably try and backstab them at the end of the successful battle. Allies gave the game a boost in flexibility of listing, but also allows WAAC types to come up with team-ups that (should) only exist in the very worst of illiterate fanfic.

[eldargal]

Female Marines are unnecessary if you are a male with an abundance of role models tailored to appeal to you.:p Not saying I necessarily want that change myself, I mean I have a female Space Marine force just to upset people, but calling it unnecessary is a bit condescending. Especially when there are plenty of ways to introduce female Marines in an interesting way. Have them be an experiment by Fabius Bile that turned against Chaos and sparked a huge rift in the Inquisition for example about whether they should be accepted.

As to the change issue though, gamers are, in general the most hidebound and conservative demographic outside of religious conservatives when it comes to their areas of interest. You only have to look at the reaction to every GW release ever (bar Dark Eldar). 90% of the complaints stem purely from resistance of change, the remaining ten percent stem from subjective issues or genuine problems.

Take Lizardmen. A week ago people were 'gosh I hope Slann aren't so OP'. Now we know they aren't OP and everyone is screaming about nerfs.:rolleyes:

[Psychosplodge]

I like what I know, and know what I like.

I'm still here because of the lore. It's what has kept me interested in this hobby. If it wasn't for the black library churning out pulp fiction to fill the gaps between when other series I'm reading have new books my interest would have probably atrophied by now.

So when they start changing big chunks of it (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

[eldargal]

There isn't much that needs changing in 40k anyway, what 40k needs is expanding and I don't mean pushing the story forward I mean fleshing out the galaxy. Black Library does this and the new supplements too, but I think GW need to back off from the 'end times' thing and flesh out the rest of the millennium more.

[Denzark]

There is a lot between Heresy and where we are. I would like to see a big publicised campaign where the results affect the balance of power fluff. That would be a good change and even if GW didn't like the result if gives them tons of ground to bring it back to balance.

[eldargal]

A few global campaigns set in M32-40 fleshing out some brand new sectors of the galaxy in a binding sense would be brilliant.

[Denzark]

That's a rog...

[Wolfshade]

Warhammer 50k: Beyond the Throne

[YorkNecromancer]

What does that actually add to anything? To me, it would just be change for change's sake, which is rarely for the better.

I suppose this is the crux of my question - you say "what does it add?"; I ask "what does it take away?" That core question of how do we as gamers lose out because of the change? If we don't lose anything, why not embrace the change?

And I'm not talking about female marines specifically (because I don't want another combative thread! :)) but any example - Squats, Imperial Beastmen, etc... could all be examples. What do we gain from the change? What do we lose? I mean, it's not like the changes are even that severe; the Heresy isn't going away, Space Marines will still have GIANT shoulder pads, etc... Why are these ideas deemed "too goofy" for a setting that includes ideas as ridiculous as chainswords?

Why don't we question the assumption that change is "rarely for the better"? Take the Jokearo. Stupid idea - space orangutans with giant flamerthrowing power rings. It's the silliest thing in 40K. Yet reintroduced as a small flavourful element it hasn't done any harm because honestly, why would it? Why this fear of change? (And not you personally, just within the community).

I suppose I don't mind because I'm not worried that 40K is capable of changing unrecognisably; I don't feel I have anything to "lose". I wonder if other people feel similarly or differently to that?


specially when there are plenty of ways to introduce female Marines in an interesting way. Have them be an experiment by Fabius Bile that turned against Chaos and sparked a huge rift in the Inquisition for example about whether they should be accepted.

I quite like the idea that you could reintroduce the backstory that there were always female marines, but the Imperial Creed had them redacted from the Imperial Record after the end of the Heresy because, well, it's a massive patriarchal institution and wanted to keep women "in their place"; lest we forget, the Imperial Creed was written by a Chaos Primarch - a group of men not exactly known as a bastions of mental stability. Those two [redacted] chapters that have no detail? Those are the female chapters. That whole "only men can support the biological changes"? Imperial Propaganda. Just have a handwave where "Oh yeah, those female chapters? They were in the Warp the whole time." (which, let's be fair, Chaos has previous history of doing to Space Marines *coughPrimarchscough*)

Retconning fluff in a way that is respectful of the setting isn't especially hard.


A few global campaigns set in M32-40 fleshing out some brand new sectors of the galaxy in a binding sense would be brilliant.

They do have the new "Warzone" series of books due out...

[Nabterayl]

I think what it takes away is a person's mastery of the dataset. Whether that's a bad thing, though, depends on how you approach the dataset in the first place.

Some people look at fictional universes like history - when you "discover" a new fact that challenges or outright contradicts a previously established fact or its implications, you adjust your models accordingly. Nobody is bothered by some historical sources saying that Sparta was full of pederasty and others saying that it was conspicuously devoid of it. The sources from which we derive our real-world historical facts are totally allowed to flat-out contradict each other, and only children think otherwise. People who treat fictional universes essentially as fictional history, I think, will tend to embrace changes, retcons, and outright contradictions.

Other people think that viewing a fictional universe as fictional history is daft, or else they simply don't get off on applying historiographical-type thinking to their fictional universes. They simply want a set of facts to master, because they enjoy mastering facts. They don't mind new facts (that's more facts to master!), but they do mind new facts being added to the data set that challenge either the previous facts or the implications thereof, because that implies that the author(s) of the new facts did not engage in the same fact-mastering project as the fan. That implies a lack of authorial respect for the fact-mastering approach (maybe not outright disrespect, but clearly the author(s) did not think it was the best way to approach the material). It also - perhaps most important of all - undercuts the viability of the fact-mastering approach period. If there are too many contradictions then you have to take a historical approach. It inevitably tends towards the message that the game cannot be played the way they want to play it - that their approach is wrong.

[YorkNecromancer]

They simply want a set of facts to master, because they enjoy mastering facts. They don't mind new facts (that's more facts to master!), but they do mind new facts being added to the data set that challenge either the previous facts or the implications thereof, because that implies that the author(s) of the new facts did not engage in the same fact-mastering project as the fan. That implies a lack of authorial respect for the fact-mastering approach (maybe not outright disrespect, but clearly the author(s) did not think it was the best way to approach the material). It also - perhaps most important of all - undercuts the viability of the fact-mastering approach period. If there are too many contradictions then you have to take a historical approach. It inevitably tends towards the message that the game cannot be played the way they want to play it - that their approach is wrong.

I hadn't even considered that; I think you've probably hit the nail on the head.

It always struck me that you had to read 40K as a series of self-contradicting pieces, on account of well, when I started, 1st edition 40K was nothing but self-contradicting pieces! Every individual author just did what they liked, and no-one cared because it wasn't what it is today. (Read http://www.blacklibrary.com/warhammer-40000/Space-Marine.html if you don't believe me! :))

I wonder if that need to be "master of facts" isn't an intellectual straightjacket that should be discouraged? It seems to somewhat suppress creativity to me. Either that, or to change the kind of facts - to encourage learning about the metanarrative of the game's development, rather than the narrative of the game universe. As it says about the old "Space Marine" novel I linked to above:


Although the temptation was great to rewrite significant portions of this book to make it conform to current background, as a curiosity piece, an historical snapshot of the Warhammer 40,000 universe circa the early 1990s, this book is invaluable.

I wonder how many people who are against change would have made the choice to rewrite the book to conform to current fluff?

[eldargal]

I've thought about that too, having the later rulers of the Imperium effectively ignoring the Emperors wishes re: women defending the IoM. But then I would also prefer to keep institutional sexism out of the IoM and put it down to individual planets in the fundamentally Feudal IoM. The fewer excuses for gamer geeks to use Imperial patriarchy as an excuse for whatever bullsh!t the better.

[Denzark]

I suppose this is the crux of my question - you say "what does it add?"; I ask "what does it take away?" That core question of how do we as gamers lose out because of the change? If we don't lose anything, why not embrace the change?

Is the cup half empty or is it half full? Change for change's sake is as rubbish as nonsensical retconning. You could ask 'what does it take away?' about anything and somebody would say I is their particular interest.

And I'm not talking about female marines specifically (because I don't want another combative thread! :)) good! but any example - Squats, Imperial Beastmen, etc... could all be examples. What do we gain from the change? What do we lose? I mean, it's not like the changes are even that severe; the Heresy isn't going away, Space Marines will still have GIANT shoulder pads, etc... Why are these ideas deemed "too goofy" for a setting that includes ideas as ridiculous as chainswords?

Because as mentioned above, there is an emotional investment of long held beliefs. People don't want un-needed change.

Why don't we question the assumption that change is "rarely for the better"? Take the Jokearo. Stupid idea - space orangutans with giant flamerthrowing power rings. It's the silliest thing in 40K. Yet reintroduced as a small flavourful element it hasn't done any harm because honestly, why would it? Why this fear of change? (And not you personally, just within the community).

Is it an assumption? Are you making a subsequent assumption that all assumptions are bad? As one of Michael Gove's kids, you tell me about how good change for change's sake is! (sorry to drop him in on hols btw). Can I reiterate it is not a fear of change - it is a dislike of it. Orks changed from Madboyz and shokk attack guns that took 3 hours to fire and roll all the tables for, to what they are now. So why could Squats not have been redone in a 'good' way?

I suppose I don't mind because I'm not worried that 40K is capable of changing unrecognisably; I don't feel I have anything to "lose". I wonder if other people feel similarly or differently to that?

Probably - as before - emotional investment.



I quite like the idea that you could reintroduce the backstory that there were always female marines, but the Imperial Creed had them redacted from the Imperial Record after the end of the Heresy because, well, it's a massive patriarchal institution and wanted to keep women "in their place"; lest we forget, the Imperial Creed was written by a Chaos Primarch - a group of men not exactly known as a bastions of mental stability. Those two [redacted] chapters that have no detail? Those are the female chapters. That whole "only men can support the biological changes"? Imperial Propaganda. Just have a handwave where "Oh yeah, those female chapters? They were in the Warp the whole time." (which, let's be fair, Chaos has previous history of doing to Space Marines *coughPrimarchscough*)

I thought you didn't want to get into this...

Retconning fluff in a way that is respectful of the setting isn't especially hard.

Shouldn't be, but GW has a very bad track record. Anyone here remember GK lubing up with bits of dead SoB?



They do have the new "Warzone" series of books due out...

YN its all about the emotional attachment. You could open a debate about the irrationality of a loyalty or buy in to something, it is probably akin to a sports fan's belief in their team. Changing 40K fluff would probably be like changing the Bible for Christians - before anyone picks me up on it, I know loads of peeps who take 40K more seriously than what they do religion, I don't say this to be my usual provocative self.

[Psychosplodge]

I disagree Nab.
Some facts in history are fixed. The contradictions are wrong. SO a new Fact isn't a fact it's nonsense.

For example the order of rulers of your country, it's fixed it doesn't change. Somebody suggesting actually Bob Smith from Kentucky was really the eighth president, isn't imparting new information, he's wrong.
Now in 40k we'll take York's example, we have 10k years of space marines only being male. We can't just change it because. It's established fixed fact, for all the none gaming rights or wrongs of it, it's what we have in the lore of this game.

I understand your point with sparta where you only have secondary or tertiary sources and then you're left with trying to work out the truth of it, but when we've got established fact from supposedly primary sources we can't just change them?

[eldargal]

But our knowledge of history has only become that absolute through centuries of careful, rigorous examination of many contradictory documents and even in England we have kings we know to be mythological but were once thought to be real. The IoM knowledge is much more fractured than ours.

Well, we also had 10k years of no dreadknights, wraithknights, GK Paladins, Helbrutes, Contemptor dreadnoughts etc. etc. The safest thing to assume with 40k is that the picture we have is a flawed, in-universe view not an omniscient out-of-universe view because there are just too many contradictions. Aaron Dembski-Bowden ha actually said this is one of the great strengths of 40k and I think he is right.

So really, we've had 10k years of not knowing about female Space Marines. Which could be because knowledge of them was being repressed, not that they didn't exist. to use an archaeological aphorism, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The only reason we don't know female Space Marines is because GW don't want to have them, and really I'm fine with that. But that doesn't mean that they could not be added to the game in an interesting fashion.

[Psychosplodge]

No mention of them, but not stating they don't exist? Space marines have specifically been stated to be male.

I'd quite happily remove dreadknights and wraithknights :D I really dislike the models.

[Denzark]

I've thought about that too, having the later rulers of the Imperium effectively ignoring the Emperors wishes re: women defending the IoM. But then I would also prefer to keep institutional sexism out of the IoM and put it down to individual planets in the fundamentally Feudal IoM. The fewer excuses for gamer geeks to use Imperial patriarchy as an excuse for whatever bullsh!t the better.

Again I don't want to start, but any 'interest group' could want something kept in or out of the fluff. People may want the institutional fascism kept out of the imperium or institutional xenocide. Where do you draw the line to keep everybody happy in a fictional setting?

[eldargal]

There is plenty of grimdark in the 40k universe without adding the crap we are still struggling with to the mix. Also, women are (more than) half the population, not an interest group. To quote Jane Espenson:

If we can’t write diversity into sci-fi, then what’s the point? You don’t create new worlds to give them all the same limits of the old ones.
The two World Wars were instrumental in womens suffrage because it forced society to utilise all its resources to survive. What would ten thousand years of perpetual warfare for the fate of the very species do? To just say 'nuh uh, girls aren't allowed' would be simplistic, offensive rubbish that does no justice to the complexities of the setting.

No mention of them, but not stating they don't exist? Space marines have specifically been stated to be male.


Whatever Imperial scribe writing the Index Astartes was wrong, jobs done. It isn't insurmountable is the point and could easily be done in an extremely interesting way. As I've said I'm not really in favour of it, I'd rather see SoB fleshed out more as they are MUCH more interesting than Marines.

[YorkNecromancer]

As one of Michael Gove's kids, you tell me about how good change for change's sake is! (sorry to drop him in on hols btw).

The Idiot, Gove (to give him his full title) has indeed made many appalling changes. However, consider:

1.) this is a false equivelancy as far as 40K goes; not one change to the 40K rules has affected anyone's chance of success in life - bar perhaps, Matt Ward's - wheras The Idiot, Gove's changes have caused real, tangible damage.
2.) Changes can change. They aren't permanent. If I thought for a moment that the changes The Idiot, Gove had wrought were permanent I'd quit teaching tomorrow. But they aren't; he's just a storm we're riding out. Any positive changes he's made will be kept and integrated, the bad ones will be forgotten. Which is what would happen with 40K. Take Squats - they get reintroduced as an Ally option, say. There's large outcry from fans because... hmmm. Let's say beards. So, the fans get angry, and don't buy Squats. Come 7th edition, Squats are gone again. No harm done. Changes aren't permanent in an ongoing work like 40K. Look at the guaranteed 6" charge range of 5th edition. :) It could come back for 7th edition, but probably won't.


Now in 40k we'll take York's example, we have 10k years of space marines only being male. We can't just change it because. It's established fixed fact, for all the none gaming rights or wrongs of it, it's what we have in the lore of this game.

Bit of a false equivelance. Historical knowledge is based on things that have been demonstrated to have occurred. 40K is pure fiction - a new element can be introduced at any time and the writers can claim it was "always there"; look at the Storm Talon, or the examples Eldargal quotes. You say "we can't change it because", when there's actual concrete cases of GW doing exactly that.


Where do you draw the line to keep everybody happy in a fictional setting?

I think it's a tricky one. To me, you have to keep a clear delineation between fictional and reality: e.g.: "Our game universe is fascist, but for the purposes of satire. As a company, we are not fascists".

It's strange - if they just outright said "We're doing this because the Imperium's a horrible culture that you're not meant to empathise with, agree with or like", I'd accept pretty much anything in-universe without complaint. If it's just down to the in-universe culture being horrible, and you're kind of making a point that the culture is reprehensible, then it's fine. If it's presented as scientifically true in-universe when it's clearly not, well... that's problematic.

White Wolf used to run smack into this problem all the time back in the late 90's. Their Black Dog line of RPGs for mature players dealt explicitly with topics like racism. How does an ST roleplay a racist character without being called a racist? She or he has to be very careful. It can be done, but you've got to be aware you're playing with fire.

Consider: http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Charnel_Houses_of_Europe:_The_Shoah

This is a tabletop RPG supplement where you play someone who died in the death camps of WW2. Now that is a DIFFICULT topic to broach right there. It's a very well-written supplement, and incredibly brave of the company, but all the same, when I first heard of it, I may have immediately thought

"Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Really?"

So it's possible to deal with very emotive, difficult issues in any medium, including gaming, but you've just got to be very, very careful.

[Denzark]

We have now gone off topic. Women may be half the demographic for planetary population but not half the demographic for 40K players - at least not that I have encountered at tournaments, GW stores or on forums like these.


If you would like to take a debate about whether or not a company delivering luxury hobby products in a fictional setting, ought to change that setting for any reason particularly because you contend it is not simply a moral thing to do, but would also potentially open new markets, happy to take to another thread.

Which I shall probably try and ignore purely in favour of maintaining the Pax Regina.

[Psychosplodge]

But we'd just established people treat it as a history?
But the point was people get angry at the change? Not whether GW has done it in the past. They got angry then, and would again. I was explaining why Yorks, not offering a challenge :D. People are creatures of habit.

I thought they'd a;ready established There are no good guys?

[eldargal]

Who said anything about morality? The issue is how gamers react to change in relation to GW and we are discussing the pros and cons of change, nothing is off topic. The point to take from this is changes have to be examined on their merits, not that change is bad. As has been demonstrated 40k is always changing in one way or another, usually for the better. Stagnation is bad. In regards to the specific example of institutional sexism in the 40k universe, there really isn't any evidence for it beyond a lack of female high Lords but then our knowledge of the High Lords is minute to begin with. It isn't a matter of justifying changes with morality because I don't WANT those changes.

The Imperium of Man is, as it stands, an equal opportunity oppressor with a feudal structure that means some planets may oppress women, others draft them happily into the IG. We know there are some female planetary governors too. This is the way I want it to stay.


But we'd just established people treat it as a history?
People treat it as dogma, not as history. History is always changing, we are always finding new things and re-examining what we thought we knew. The line of Kings and Queens may not change but a lot of other things do.

[Denzark]

The Idiot, Gove (to give him his full title) has indeed made many appalling changes. However, consider:

1.) this is a false equivelancy as far as 40K goes; not one change to the 40K rules has affected anyone's chance of success in life - bar perhaps, Matt Ward's - wheras The Idiot, Gove's changes have caused real, tangible damage



I'm not sure we aren't talking semantics here - I am not attempting to either link change or lack thereof, to how much real life effect it has - so I don't think there is false equivalency. I threw that out there because you asked 'why don't we challenge the assumption that all change is bad'. If you do say 'the only bad change is that which causes negative life effects' then clearly it matters not one jot what they do with 40K.

But if you look at the context of the 'belief system' of those who have a genuine emotional investment over years even decades, then change that goes against what you have accepted, is bad of itself. Personally, change that is neither good nor bad (all ultramarines are now in green armour for example) is a complete waste of time, is nugatory and pointless, and should be dispensed with.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm pretty sure I've seen references to female highlords before, and only by mention of their name and position.
Possibly in the Ragnar series? if I was trying to guess where.

[eldargal]

I believe the head of the SoB is a High Lord/Lady, there may be mentions of others I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised. As I said evidence of institutional sexism in the IoM really is rare. Some worlds are, but some worlds aren't. The one example I can think of is there being very few IG Lord Generals that are female, but again that only reflects institutional sexism within the IG and comes from a fallible, in-universe source (Gaunt I think), not necessarily the Imperium as a whole.

[Dave Mcturk]

"So really, we've had 10k years of not knowing about female Space Marines. Which could be because knowledge of them was being repressed, not that they didn't exist. to use an archaeological aphorism, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "

i found it funny ... xx

slightly obvious torso changes, no helmets cos it spoils their hairdo... a bit of colour matching..
some make up and ... mb pretty flags and a bit more pastel shades...

anyone can make a counts as female marine... its not like they are running round like DE witches !

though a whole army of DE witches tooled up like marines would work for me !

[Denzark]

The issue is how gamers react to change in relation to GW and we are discussing the pros and cons of change, nothing is off topic.

Oh? I thought the question was specifically why do we embrace 5 yearly rules changes without Nerd Rage, but Fluff changes bring lynch mobs out? It seemed like we are about to digress into round 18 of the FSM debate, sorry if I read that wrong.

[eldargal]

It's all related to geeks and change.:) The FSM thing is a useful example, I'm certainly not arguing for it and I'm more interested in the institutional sexism example. It's actually interesting how socially progressive the IoM could be based on what we know.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree Nab.
Some facts in history are fixed. The contradictions are wrong. SO a new Fact isn't a fact it's nonsense.

For example the order of rulers of your country, it's fixed it doesn't change. Somebody suggesting actually Bob Smith from Kentucky was really the eighth president, isn't imparting new information, he's wrong.
Now in 40k we'll take York's example, we have 10k years of space marines only being male. We can't just change it because. It's established fixed fact, for all the none gaming rights or wrongs of it, it's what we have in the lore of this game.

I understand your point with sparta where you only have secondary or tertiary sources and then you're left with trying to work out the truth of it, but when we've got established fact from supposedly primary sources we can't just change them?
I disagree. There are no fixed facts in history, only conclusions as to which no persuasive counter-argument can be built upon the currently extant evidence. For instance, everybody agrees that George Washington was the first president of the United States, and you're quite right that (i) no primary evidence (that we know of) exists to suggest otherwise, and (ii) the thought of such primary evidence existing undiscovered is kind of laughable. But if such primary evidence did come to light, historians would certainly be open to revising the "fixed fact" that Washington was the first president of the United States. They wouldn't (or it would be bad historiography if they did) simply say, "Everybody knows that Washington was the first president of the United States, and not even a veritable mountain of newly discovered primary evidence can demonstrate otherwise."

From a certain point of view, that's what happens all the time in fictional universes. We discover new primary evidence, which appears to contradict the "fixed facts" of the history of that universe as we thought we knew it. When new primary evidence is "discovered" (i.e., is written), we simply have to deal with it, the same way we would have to deal with it if somebody suddenly discovered a hundred thousand letters written by a hundred thousand different Americans in 1790 talking about how Matthew Ward was president of the United States at the time.

[Denzark]

Certainly some planets are all hands to the pumps a la Cadia and Valhalla. Others probably go more down the line of awarding 'Order of the Heroic Imperial Mother' for popping 8 sprogs.

[eldargal]

Certainly some planets are all hands to the pumps a la Cadia and Valhalla. Others probably go more down the line of awarding 'Order of the Heroic Imperial Mother' for popping 8 sprogs.
Yup, and that reflects the feudal nature of the IoM and that's how I want it to stay. The moment you start to veer down the monolithic 'this is how things are in the IoM' route you start to lose one of the really distinctive characteristics of the IoM which is how cosmopolitan it is. A million worlds all basically left alone so long as they pay their taxes. Some will be enlightened, some will be barbaric, most will be in between. There will be worlds like ours where certain groups are struggling against prejudice, there will be patriarchies and there will be matriarchies. That's why I don't think adding institutional sexism adds anything and in fact detracts from it.

[Denzark]

I agree. I think in hindsight I probably didn't clock all of your comment about IoM versus individual planets, hence me question - desole Ma'am.

[YorkNecromancer]

The moment you start to veer down the monolithic 'this is how things are in the IoM' route you start to lose one of the really distinctive characteristics of the IoM which is how cosmopolitan it is. A million worlds all basically left alone so long as they pay their taxes. Some will be enlightened, some will be barbaric, most will be in between. There will be worlds like ours where certain groups are struggling against prejudice, there will be patriarchies and there will be matriarchies. That's why I don't think adding institutional sexism adds anything and in fact detracts from it.

This entirely.

Talking of the cosmopolitan thing, you know the next scenery kit I'd like them to crank out?

Civilian cars, trucks and lorries.

Seriously, any WW2 modeller has access to scale model cars for dioramas. How come there's not even a picture of what a conventional Imperial World (as defined by the Dark Heresy RPG) civilian car looks like? Well, apart from

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul_gylyan.boielle/limo.jpg

Which, admittedly, look cool as hell.

It can't all be Chimerae and Rhinos? Where a porty little hatchback? Where's a wrecked Volvo equivelant? Cars are one of the most defining aspects of modern existence, where are the wrecked ones in 40K? :) That'd be a great scenery kit for modellers.

[Denzark]

That would be pretty cool, as would some random imperial citizens. That would chime in with Jervis yakking on about GM'd games in WD recently - scenario based.

But I suppose the STC fluff, whilst explaining why an entire Imperium has the same gear, precludes having much difference - so what would a civvy car look like - is there an STC for an imperial 'Volkswagen' equivalent for all the happy workers?

[Houghten]

The Dan Abnett books tend to mention this kind of stuff in passing (groundcars and cargo-8s) but I can't ever remember reading a detailed description of one...

[Necron2.0]

To me, the fervor that some drive themselves to over the "missing" female space marines is akin to someone arguing religiously that Samuel L. Jackson should not only be allowed to play, but indeed be forced to portray William Joseph Simmons (look him up) as some art-house statement on racial tollerance. It's a stunt. It's not accurate. It doesn't fit.


But your example of female Marines? What does that actually add to anything? To me, it would just be change for change's sake, which is rarely for the better.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. An example of this was the most recent remake of Battlestar Galactica, which next to nobody watched. Several characters were changed from males to females, and not only did it not add anything to the story, it actually diminished the characters.

Just to put this into perspective, why aren't people up in arms because there isn't a movie that has "Boudica" played by a dude?

[Nabterayl]

Reasonably sure that plenty of people watched the BSG remake (http://www.today.com/id/26396271/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/galactica-proves-ratings-system-dead/#.UfliONLVB8E), and I definitely disagree that making Boomer and Starbuck female diminished the characters. Did pretty well (http://www.metacritic.com/tv/battlestar-galactica-2003) critically despite that, if it did.

[Denzark]

Yeah, you don't get 4 seasons + feature length spin-offs for nobody watching.

[YorkNecromancer]

Yeah, you don't get 4 seasons + feature length spin-offs for nobody watching.

Firefly agrees with you. As do so many other excellent sci-fi series cancelled before their time. For a sci-fi show to last beyond one season is good. To go to five seasons is crazy successful. Especially when you have things like http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFireflyEffect working against you.


Just to put this into perspective, why aren't people up in arms because there isn't a movie that has "Boudica" played by a dude?

Cause we've got enough films where white guys do all the winning? On a less facetious point, can we not discuss the topic properly without these reductio ad absurdem fallacies?

As a side note, that reminds me of an argument about the BBC "Merlin" series, where people were arguing that it was "unrealistic" to have a black Guinevere. In a show where there are talking dragons, giant scorpions, goblins, skeletons, banshees, the Fisher King, magic dwarves, and magic, a person of colour is somehow the most unrealistic thing. What made it even worse was that these people were the same ones who argued that meritocracy was the best way forwards - that the best people should be chosen for the job in any other aspect of life. The producers of "Merlin" explicitly stated in interviews that they cast Angel Coulby because she was the best. I found the kerfuffle quite interesting for what it revealed about the unstated beliefs of the people arguing.

[Nabterayl]

All that said, I think we all agree that changing the lore of 40K for the sake of changing the lore of 40K is not something we want as consumers, whether we be of the data-mastering mindset, the fictional universe historian mindset, or something else. We're just disagreeing as to the details of what would hypothetically constitute change for change's sake.

[Necron2.0]

Reasonably sure that plenty of people watched the BSG remake (http://www.today.com/id/26396271/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/galactica-proves-ratings-system-dead/#.UfliONLVB8E), and I definitely disagree that making Boomer and Starbuck female diminished the characters. Did pretty well (http://www.metacritic.com/tv/battlestar-galactica-2003) critically despite that, if it did.

Ah yes, the ol' "everyone TiVoed it" dodge. That's why nobody pays attention to ratings anymore. Oh, wait ....

As for how popular the show was:

http://entertainmentnow.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/sg1atlantisbsgeurekaratings-82208.jpg

As you can see, the new Galactica started strong on the curiosity factor, but was quickly stomped into the mud by a tired old show in it's seventh season. Sure, it was "critically acclaimed", but then again so is the "art" of Tracey Emin.

No, I wasn't a huge fan of the original BSG, but NuBSG was a crap show for a crap cable outlet - one that ran professional wrestling as "science fiction".


Yeah, you don't get 4 seasons + feature length spin-offs for nobody watching.

Sure you do, when it's on a channel that gives you "quality" entertainment such as "Mansquito" and "Sharknado."

[YorkNecromancer]

So... you're saying you personally didn't like it, and the statistics prove that you're empirically right not to?

Okay.

I did like it. I'm okay that other people didn't, including you. Because we all like different things. Also, I don't think you can suggest that "Sharknado" was anything other than what it claimed to be. I watched, like, thirty seconds and immediately knew two things: 1.) This film is stupid. 2.) This film is one my brother will love. Because my brother loves bad movies more than anything on Earth. He's watched "Hawk the Slayer", like a hundred times, and he still laughs. Has the original cinema poster for it on his wall. Framed. Seriously, no-one watched "Sharknado" expecting an Oscar winner, so it's kind of a strange thing to suggest that this is an indicator of poor quality - the trailers alone made it clear that it was going to be a bad film.

How about we agree that you hated new BSG, some of us liked it and neither of us is wrong for our opinions, and that's okay, because "subjective" and "objective" are two different things?

[Necron2.0]

Is this just a nerd/geek thing? Does it affect everyone in the community? Are there some fluff changes we will accept and some we won't, regardless of how much sense they make? What drives this need for things to always be the same forever?

To go back to this question, I don't think it's just a nerd thing. I remember when "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and "Xena" came out, there were people up in arms saying, "THAT'S NOT HERCULES!! THAT'S NOT ANCIENT GREECE!!!" Taking this as far afield from the nerdlinger realm as you can go, look at religion. People have been slaughtering each other for centuries over trivial differences in religious dogma.

I believe the reason nobody cares about rules changes overly much is because those are seen as procedural things. Fluff, however, is dogma, and we all loves us some dogma. You leave the dogma alone, you're good to go. Mess with it, however, and expect Jihad.

[YorkNecromancer]

"Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" is a useful example. As you say, the hardcore fans of Greek mythology were up in arms.

But: that series has a massively loyal fanbase to this day (to say nothing about just how beloved "Xena: Warrior Princess" is), and ran for years and years. I think what you say about dogma is fairly true. But as "Hercules" demonstrates, sometimes massive changes can create a huge fanbase and the complainers are ignored and forgotten. Success is its own justification. So that then posits a new question: is it better to pander to the dogmatics out of fear they will reject the product, or better to take a risk on change in the hopes of creating a new fanbase/building an existing one? Which is worse: losing fans, or failing to create new customers?

I suppose that ties in with GW's profits at the moment; most of the analysis seems to suggest that sales have stagnated somewhat currently and that the fanbase has plateaued. I wonder if GW were to make a concerted effort to diversify it's fan/customer base it might improve profits?

I do remember reading an excellent piece about the finances of the wrestling world circa 1998, just as wrestling was about to hit a massive boom period, where one of the businessmen who ran the company commented "We don't pander to the hardcore. They will always complain loudest, but they'll always stay - they self-identify as hardcore fans, so we don't need to work to keep them. We plan our business to draw in as many new fans as possible; the casual people who'll stay if what they see is fun."

Wrestling's always struck me as very similar to Warhammer (small, vocal, diehard fans; very niche product viewed with suspicion by the world at large; very masculine; etc...) and I wonder if there might not be useful parallels there...


I believe the reason nobody cares about rules changes overly much is because those are seen as procedural things.

I wonder if it's because abstracted numbers are less emotional (to most of us) than stories?

[eldargal]

Cause we've got enough films where white guys do all the winning? On a less facetious point, can we not discuss the topic properly without these reductio ad absurdem fallacies?
This. It is beyond tedious at this point and verging on the ****ing offensive.


I suppose that ties in with GW's profits at the moment; most of the analysis seems to suggest that sales have stagnated somewhat currently and that the fanbase has plateaued. I wonder if GW were to make a concerted effort to diversify it's fan/customer base it might improve profits?
Right, there is the whole, virtually untapped female geek demographic out there which is basically completely ignored by tabletop wargaming companies. GW aren't the worst by any means, Privateer Press ("Play like you've got a pair") and Kingdom Death (OMIGOSH NAKED PREGNANT SLAVE LADIES!) or Mantic (Females? Oh right, yeah we know about those...I think our trainsee sculptor is working on some. Women can scratch their knees without bending at their waist right?) are all actively ignoring a large potential market. If we take the recent US survey on wargamers as representative of the hobby as a whole for a moment, 3% of tabletop wargamers are women. Imagine if GW increased that to 15%, that's a lot of extra revenue and it wouldn't cost much. The building blocks are there in the background already.


I do remember reading an excellent piece about the finances of the wrestling world circa 1998, just as wrestling was about to hit a massive boom period, where one of the businessmen who ran the company commented "We don't pander to the hardcore. They will always complain loudest, but they'll always stay - they self-identify as hardcore fans, so we don't need to work to keep them. We plan our business to draw in as many new fans as possible; the casual people who'll stay if what they see is fun."
Right, like all those people that rant about every new GW release and say how GW is getting increasingly rubbish and their models more and more toylike yet they keep buying and keep ranting. It takes a LOT to drive away the hardcore fans, and making the game more diverse in terms of who it appeals to won't change that because it is never going to be actively hostile towards middle class white boys.

[daboarder]

edit: taking my foot outta my mouth, move along folks

[eldargal]

No, no irony. In Western societies today white people are not subjected to any kind of significant racism let alone institutional racism. He also isn't decrying white people, he is decrying the fact that society overwhelming caters to them at the expense of others. But please let's not start on that subject again.

[daboarder]

off topic: eldargal you yourself has stated your a proponent for "racial quotas" in the workplace, that is by definition institutionalised racism (even though the direction depends on the race of the victim).

ANYWAY: lets not take this thread apart, moving on lets take that discussion somewhere else if we want to continue it (though to be honest I don't think I could be bothered)

[Psychosplodge]

I disagree. There are no fixed facts in history, only conclusions as to which no persuasive counter-argument can be built upon the currently extant evidence. For instance, everybody agrees that George Washington was the first president of the United States, and you're quite right that (i) no primary evidence (that we know of) exists to suggest otherwise, and (ii) the thought of such primary evidence existing undiscovered is kind of laughable. But if such primary evidence did come to light, historians would certainly be open to revising the "fixed fact" that Washington was the first president of the United States. They wouldn't (or it would be bad historiography if they did) simply say, "Everybody knows that Washington was the first president of the United States, and not even a veritable mountain of newly discovered primary evidence can demonstrate otherwise."

From a certain point of view, that's what happens all the time in fictional universes. We discover new primary evidence, which appears to contradict the "fixed facts" of the history of that universe as we thought we knew it. When new primary evidence is "discovered" (i.e., is written), we simply have to deal with it, the same way we would have to deal with it if somebody suddenly discovered a hundred thousand letters written by a hundred thousand different Americans in 1790 talking about how Matthew Ward was president of the United States at the time.

Fair enough I accept that. But I'd also suggest there's plenty of things in the 40k historical timeline that have the same sort of "evidence" supporting it as who the first president was.


All that said, I think we all agree that changing the lore of 40K for the sake of changing the lore of 40K is not something we want as consumers, whether we be of the data-mastering mindset, the fictional universe historian mindset, or something else. We're just disagreeing as to the details of what would hypothetically constitute change for change's sake.

That's not how the internet works :eek:

[Denzark]

EG - help me crunch in my head the numbers. How is it easy for GW to increase their demographic of female gamers to 15%? That is, on those figures, a 400% increase of females?

A 400% increase in female gamers represents extra revenue, sure. But to increase as a percentage of overall, that must mean the demographic reduces of the non-females, ie males. That reads to me that 12% of GW customers must turn from male to female - where does that 12% go?

A 400% increase of female gamers is a good thing. But as overall numbers of GW gamers can't go beyond 100% increasing the female proportion is not a good thing of itself.

Look, say GW uses 100000 as its 100% figure (just for ease of my cack maths). 3% = 3000. 15% = 15000. But the overall figures don't change from 100000 so they must have lost 12k male gamers to get to that point.

Where is the good in that?

Or, to not lose any customers, and reach a point where the female gamer demographic is 400% more than what it is now, must mean the overall demographic increases 400% as well - a hugely tough ask.

[eldargal]

'White Male' percentage of the pie decreases, size of pie increases, GW get more money. The number of white males buying doesn't decrease, the number of women buying increases. Not hard to figure out, the difficult bit is making it happen. I've started a topic on that.

[Wolfshade]

Might be easier for GW just to pay for the gender reassignemnt...

[eldargal]

Ok let me put it really simply:

There are 100 people who buy GW products, 3 of those identify as female, or 3%. Thanks to an effort by GW that number increases to 14 women or 15.5%. Total GW consumers is now 111 people. Result= more money for GW.

[Wolfshade]

But that is only 12%...

[eldargal]

Whatever, maths isn't my strong area.:p Point is the number of men buying doesn't decrease, the number of people overall buying increases, GW gets more money.

[Psychosplodge]

That's only 111 people you already have 3...

[eldargal]

Sod it, stupid typo. Yes it's 111 with 14 women not 114 grr.

[Wolfshade]

Not that any of that matters...

[Psychosplodge]

The overall point is sound though.

[eldargal]

Right, it's just an example. I think it is something attainable if GW wanted to put in the effort and for minimum cost. A bit of time from a customer relations person, a bit of effort and maybe a bit of expense in terms of freebies. But hell even taking a minimal approach even just approaching some of the female geek websites and saying 'We want to make our hobby more accessible to women, what's your advice and engaging in a dialogue with the community would do them a world of good.

[Wolfshade]

And of course ocould be replicated across different target audiences.

What I would love to see is a Robin Williams vs. Vin Deisel GW advert on the idiot box

[Psychosplodge]

Not even on tv, put it on youtube and watch it go viral...

[Wolfshade]

Of course suitable female celebrity female gamer could be used but I don't know of any.

[eldargal]

Felicia Day? Not sure if she is into tabletop stuff though (hur).

[Psychosplodge]

Oh I bet she would be, oh you mean gaming? dunno, should suggest she plays TB at bloodbowl on tabletop :D

[Necron2.0]

... can we not discuss the topic properly without these reductio ad absurdem fallacies?

Off topic: Point of order, argumentum ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) is not a fallacy. It is a valid logical deconstruction. In mathematics it is referred to as "proof by contradiction." Scientists and philosophers use it daily to divide truth from absurdity. What you're thinking of is the "Straw Man" fallacy, which hasn't shown itself here.

OK, carry on.