Mortal Realms - setting or story?

[Greyshadow]

In a recent video by renowned historian Jordan Sorcery, Jordan noted the following during his deep dive into the development of Warhammer 7th edition:

'There was always a tension between the visions of the Old World as being either a STORY or a SETTING. In one version, the world develops and big changes have consequences going forward; in the other, things never change and move forward.' 'But over time it became clear that it was a losing fight and that the Old World was considered by those above our pay grade to be a setting.' - Graham McNeill, former design studio member.

I often see players keen for narrative development make critical posts noting that happened in Ghur after the launch of 3rd edition. I have also seen comment by no less than The Bard being  highly critical of the Warhammer world being treated as a story because the magic is writing the story yourself through your games.

My reflections are that Age of Sigmar has been intentionally designed to satisfy both these camps. During the lead in and launch of a new edition, the STORY is progresses. New opportunities for units and whole armies are created. Then, during the life cycle of the edition, the game becomes a SETTING. Is the lack of story between editions intended to give the players the chance to tell their own memorable story through their battles and adventures?

Edited March 10 by Greyshadow

[RexHavoc]

When I was a lot, lot younger I questioned why warhammer was a setting. I wanted to see the story progress. I was used to things like Lord of the Rings, where we saw characters go through events and arrive at the end of the quest and saw how the world was reshaped.

But as I got older I realised I liked the games as a setting, it made sense. I could shape my own story. I could even add in my own elements from other stories. It didn't need a story, it just needed a setting, I could do the rest.

The issue I have with them treating the mortal realms as a story now, is that it never really goes anywhere that a 'real' story would it never flows like a a fantasy tale. It feels more like they have a handful of plot points they need to get to on a whiteboard and someone in the office just fills in the gaps with the details, often with a scrabble bag of which forces to include to boost model sales.

They can't ever endanger a character or force that has a model/model range, so no real conflict can ever be brought in to the stories without the status quo being reset (or at least only setting up the next edition status quo)

I love the AoS campaign books, but I do wish they were smaller in scale sometimes and focused more on a singular campaign/war/story with more generic 'no-name' heroes so we could have some real high fantasy adventure brought to the game.

[Davariel]

I agree with what RexHavoc said. Personally I think AoS tries to have it both ways in terms of being a setting or a story, and the results are often mixed.

As a story, there's clearly a serious amount of effort that goes into the campaign books and short stories. There are some genuinely big story developments, and major events do take place - but beyond introducing a new army or new model, there isn't always much follow up, or serious consequences. Rather than an organic story that develops naturally and lets events build upon each other, a lot of the time it feels like AoS has a slightly scattershot approach to storytelling - plot threads are introduced out of nowhere, abruptly resolved, or left hanging, and then the story swerves towards the next army release/new edition anyway.

That sounded a bit more cynical than I intended (and I do like a lot of the AoS narrative!), but sometimes it feels like a lot happens, but nothing really changes.

Obviously that's important because AoS isn't just a story, and you've got people spending time and money building armies to use in the setting (RIP the stuff I bought to make a themed Har Kuron force, haha). But I think AoS is missing something in its approach as a setting too, The focus is often on the same cast of named characters, and what's going on at the highest level between them and their armies and cities. I love how much room AoS leaves for you to sketch out your own corner of the realms, but it's also so big that I think any force of "your dudes" can feel slightly disconnected from the broader setting.

[JackStreicher]

AoS is both. If they manage to write Characters that are not completely and utterly stupid or irrational those Campaign Books would be great. However the Dawnbringer books were quite bad.
Characters making the most stupid of decisions (caution in a world of magical beasts that want to kill you 24/7!? NOT WITH ME CHARGE!!!!), all humans being super open to joining any cult that pops up. And yeah we have to include ALL them named Characters and force them into the story, it's VERY LIKELY that they will encounter just about everyone in realms with almost infinite size.

I'd prefer another Malign Portents Campaign over the whole Dawnbringer Series.

Edited March 11 by JackStreicher

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

10 hours ago, RexHavoc said:

But as I got older I realised I liked the games as a setting, it made sense. I could shape my own story. I could even add in my own elements from other stories. It didn't need a story, it just needed a setting, I could do the rest.

 

I used to be very much in this camp. I pretty much tuned out all the stuff going on with the named heroes. But then they started making named hero models that were too lush to ignore! 

I still don't pay a great deal of attention to the big narrative stuff... but I do read up on the bits that involve my chosen faction's heroes (or villains, that should really be!) 

 

[Beliman]

To me, it’s not about Setting vs Story. It’s about World Building (aka, Setting) and different narrative arcs for players to jump in.

At this moment, we have a mix of everything:

So, when we play games, we are using our own dudes (aka, GHB). Sadly, it’s irrelevant because GHB is not compatible with the Story, and we are going to see Teclis, Nagash and all this characters on the table without any mention on the Lore (aka, Age of Sigmar Narrative). That’s the way AoS is made.

The Age of Sigmar Narrative uses every conflict, source of power and factions to advance the world (the Realms itself and all the civilizations there). Shysh Nadir, the Necroquake, Spiral Crux, etc... are the direct results of all the narrative arc. But AoS is made as an ongoing story, that means that past events are just made to be remembered, not played (anyone plays with Malign Portents?) and become a part of the background.

But that doesn't invalidate the opportunity to play with our own dudes. we still have a relevant GHB.

Another thing to talk about is the quality of the story and how players interact with it: Campaign books vs GHB vs Scale of the setting. 

Edited March 11 by Beliman

[Greyshadow]

I’ve been disappointed by the Dawnbringer books too if I am honest. I’ve been happy with the prose and there have been some great scenes but there has been just too much padding. (I did really enjoyed Broken Realms). I do think the idea of a zoomed in story about the birth of a new city was a good idea. Think the execution has been a bit lacking.

Edited March 11 by Greyshadow

[EccentricCircle]

I enjoyed broken realms a lot. Found Malign portents a little skimpy. I've not read dawnbringers. I couldn't afford that many books, either in terms of money or shelf space so prioritised collecting warcry and soulbound. 

I think it manages to be both, but how well it dies that varies. I prefer the large scale stuff to be a setting, and story to mostly stay at the scale of the black library novels or our own campaigns. I don't think they've done a bad job of balancing it, no worse than 40k or wfb. AoS being so vug helps in that respect. But I do agree that the bug earth shattering events don't ever really fulfil their promise...

 

[Sarouan]

Mortal Realms are currently definitely both. Warhammer Battle - aka The Old World - was too in its time, for the same reason and it's not just a question of "those above our pay grades". It's also a question of what's existing already in the background.

When you build a new universe, you're not in the same state than when you already have a whole universe with decades of stories / background behind you. In the first case, you have to build a story to create engagement, because otherwise there's no substance to fight for. In the second case, when you have so much susbtance already, you have the risk of getting your existing fanbase for the said substance to get angry when things change - so you don't have the same drive to build a changing story.

That's why books / events like Dawnbringers or Soulwar are important, even if they're not always world-breaking events (like Morathi becoming a goddess, it's quite shaking for her faction at its core). They give more substance to this still relatively young setting. And it gives a pivotal reason for the new editions as well.

Warhammer Battle stagnated in the end because the background was already dense at that time and existing fanbase wasn't really asking for change. And when GW actually tried to move forward at that time...remember Storm of Chaos ? Well, to me, that's more the explanation of why they instead went on keeping things as they are until End Times.

[Mcm6495]

For my part, I look forward to the battletome of the slaves of darkness in the fourth edition to see if the civil war between Belakor and Archaon has advanced and I would also be interested in how the skaven uprising of the Slaves of Darkness has affected them.

[Greyshadow]

One of my favourite things about Age of Sigmar is the rolling timeline. I love that my first battles took place in Ghur about twenty five years after the Realmgate Wars. The Necroquake occurred in the middle of one of my campaigns. My current army features the son of one my earlier generals. I really enjoy taking the advancing story and asking ‘how would this affect my army?’  Currently, my frontier settlement is receiving new materiel from Excelsis and is drilling soldiers in the new tactics and techniques from the Vedra Reformation. I am still telling my own story but it sits inside the larger story. I think GW are doing a fantastic job of balancing these competing ideas.