If WH40K got the Bioware Treatment...

[king.com]

I got super excited about this thread, then it turned into 40K canon debate and I remember why I stay the hell away from any 40K 'fluff' thread. In the grim darkness of the far future there is only sperging.

I think what many people dont realise is that the 40K universe and its narrative is really, really, REALLY dumb. Mind-numbingly terrible in fact but theres enough really interesting concepts, character and events that people latch onto these ideas and explore them. When added to the collective body of what 40K is, it becomes terrible again but people are able to interpret the setting based on the sheer scale of it that you can do and enjoy what you want from it.

[Cheesegear]

As king.com so accurately pointed out, and as I've tried to change the subject several times, at this point we're not even remotely talking about electronic games, so, back to the Fluff thread!

Back on topic;
I've given my thoughts several times on the matter. A 40K game should not attempt to be like Mass Effect, or even Space Marine. Scratch that 3PS nonsense. Either attempt to be a squad-based top-down RPG like Baldur's Gate, or perhaps more recently Dragon Age.

I also see huge potential for an RPG-FPS (Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.), where you probably could play as a solo Space Marine, or something.

[Grif]

As king.com so accurately pointed out, and as I've tried to change the subject several times, at this point we're not even remotely talking about electronic games, so, back to the Fluff thread!

Back on topic;
I've given my thoughts several times on the matter. A 40K game should not attempt to be like Mass Effect, or even Space Marine. Scratch that 3PS nonsense. Either attempt to be a squad-based top-down RPG like Baldur's Gate, or perhaps more recently Dragon Age.

I also see huge potential for an RPG-FPS (Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.), where you probably could play as a solo Space Marine, or something.

I want a 40k RTS game that is like Men of War, rather than the butchered RTS that was Dawn of War II and to a certain extent, Dawn of War. You just don't get the scale of things in those game.

If you must know, Men of War has absolutely no problem (mostly) of letting your poor soldiers get steamrolled by an invincible tank. Screw game balance, reality takes precedence. That is something I find lacking in DoW. I mean, c'mon: Baneblades shouldn't be taken down by squads of guardsmen or some hero unit.

[Carry2]

The Tau have kind of fallen off the spotlight of late, but what the most prevalent portrayal I've encountered of the Tau is that while life in their empire may look ideal, and its citizens may even consider it to be so, when you peel back the glossy finish, they probably don't look that different from what humanity was like during it's opening stages of colonization. The inquisition is still there, just without the idiots who failed subtlety 101. All other ideals are supressed, in particular religions (Which is doubly bad considering worship of the emperor is the only thing keeping humanity going)...
...As silly as it sounds, humanity putting it's collective fingers in its years and yelling, "LA LA LA GODS DON'T EXIST" seemed to be working.

Well, yes. But the so-called "Emperor's truth" wasn't specifically directed at worship of chaos, it was a blanket prohibition on all religion- "man will be free when the last stone from the last church is cast down upon the last priest"- precisely because the Emperor had seen so many of the religions he'd founded twisted to serving chaos over the centuries. (It's also hard to prove that, e.g, improvements in living standards weren't what got khorne and co. riled up, rather than, e.g, the specific rationalisations employed for mass violence.) So, either way, the Tau are probably doing humanity a favour.

Uh... The only habitable places in the warp (and that's stretching the definition of habitable to the point of transparency) are places infested with Chaos Marines, and those only exist because the Marines amuse the Chaos Gods. Direct exposure to the warp would rip a normal human's mind into tiny bits.

*shrugs* Well, on the basis of my limited reading, there seem to be plenty of daemon worlds out there that have large populations of barbarians and/or beastmen/mutants/cultists/captives, besides the feudal elite of chaos SM and scads of daemons. I can only suggest that the sources are confused on this point. Pleasant? No. But it's not in the chaos gods' interests to wipe out humanity any more than it's in a butcher's interests to wipe out their herd. Which is pretty much the same attitude the Imperium takes to their people farms.

I think what many people dont realise is that the 40K universe and its narrative is really, really, REALLY dumb.

Oh, absolutely. It's a complete and utter mishmash of wildly incompatible sci-fi tropes, period aesthetics and metaphysical assumptions. Part of what I'm trying to emphasise here is that, given the baseline political/religious/economic assumptions in place, it's incredibly easy to tear the setting apart with even a modicum of imagination. And that wouldn't be a problem, except that GW are, naturally, committed to the idea of selling more plastic space-elves, for ever and ever, amen. So it will never happen.

[king.com]

If you must know, Men of War has absolutely no problem (mostly) of letting your poor soldiers get steamrolled by an invincible tank. Screw game balance, reality takes precedence. That is something I find lacking in DoW. I mean, c'mon: Baneblades shouldn't be taken down by squads of guardsmen or some hero unit.

Warhammer 40,000 was designed to be as realistic to warfare 38,000 years into the future as possible. The worlds greatest scientists developed a technological development model based upon current computing trends in the last 30 years to accurately map reality. The result is a bunch of conscripts flailing wildly with flashlights acting as the core of all human based military conflicts...



Anyway to the game....just make Dark Heresy. Its not hard to figure to out since it solves the major problems that exist with the 40K setting to any audience are:

1.No point of logical connection to reality.

Seriously, the 40K universe is nonsense and requires explanation on top of explanation to make any basis for reason. You run your character as a freshly acquired Acolyte and you can play the fish out of water having people explain ALL of this stuff to you if you need it. Alternatively the party you assemble can play the 'dont worry about it im a techpriest I'll do all this stuff' and cover you that way.


2. 40K has nothing to do with people and doesnt have a whole lot of 'storytelling'. (i.e. 40K is about super solders with massive necks fighting wierd british ork people and guys with plastic surgery gone wrong)

The perception of 40K is that its just violence and nothing more complicated about it. People dont do anything but act as the guys who die before the Space Marines can get introduced into the plot and fight wierd Orks and wierd magic mutant peopel who are dark coloured so they are the bad guys. Running a game about the Inquisitions work lets you demonstrate what that means to a human being and lets people actually put a face on the problem. Add some good old fashioned survival horror elements and you have a very easy method for letting people on why Chaos is bad in the setting.

Seriously all them military stuff is probably some of the worst, least interesting aspect of the setting. Hell an entire story arc dealing with local law enforcement and their relationship with the Arbites would function as a strong introduction to the setting. You then break that up with over-the-top planetary problems your sent to deal with to fulfill the contractally obligated "SPESS MUHREENZ" input and your good to go. Higher level party member could be one if you really need to stick one in the game.


3. The Universe is depressing, why do I want to be here?

Thats a tough sell as the ultimate outcome is you lose in one way or another, as a Space Marines you get to play the game about acting like a hero and saving some folk without any real compromise but the key to 40K is that ultimately, you lose. Space Marine the game actually did a good job setting the end of the game with Titus being hauled off by the Inquisition. Funnily enough most just took it as sequel bait when it very easily acts as the "You survived? Well sucks to be you" endings that makes 40K....well 40K.

That NEEDS to be in the game but appropriate setup needs to take place theres very little care about what happens to Titus to follow the example but you spend a good long 50 hour RPG with your character and your mix of loveable party members and NPCs you have worked really hard to protect and generally improve their situation and the game comes down to the vast majority of good people dead or dying to ensure someone you've never met or cared about survives. Running as an agent of Inquistion has you running those personal stories, that Arbitrator who made the call in the first place that something about his paygrade was out and about, or that Cleric getting fat off his congregation only to watch them fall apart from cultist influence is going to take one last crack at bringing down heresy.

Either Baldurs gate style or Mass Effect style you have the same options available to you. The Corruption/Purity slider is ultimately the best way to do it. Everyone knows what it means and what it does. Make it Corruption = power but mutates you and Purity is the hard choice that screws everyone over but protects you and once lost is hard to gain back. Sliders make sense, they can be implemented poorly or effectively they are not inherently bad.

[GolemsVoice]

I also see huge potential for an RPG-FPS (Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.), where you probably could play as a solo Space Marine, or something.

Dragon Age would be a good model, I think. You and your squad, a bunch of different abilites that can be used, all that jazz. Although I wouldn't mind if they emphasized the deadly nature of firefights some more, and added something like cover and so on. Maybe even the ability to play first person for a bit.

[houlio]

As I also see huge potential for an RPG-FPS (Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.), where you probably could play as a solo Space Marine, or something.

I don't know how relevant it might be, but I've played a really strange French game, called E.Y.E Divine Cybermancy, which almost was this. I think; it was pretty hard to follow. I believe the gist of it was that you're "not a space marine," and you're sent down to an "abandoned" planet to weed out the remaining gang members and werewolves that sprang up from the not twisted-evil-metaphysical-mirror-of-reality. I believe in the end you have to purge your fellow brethren for disloyalty or something even. It kind of had a bad translation.

Anyways, I imagine a 40k game could easily move along similar lines. You're given a wide range of ways to tackle a problem. Do you run in, guns blazing and murder everybody? Do you you run in, giant hammer blazing and murder everyone? Do you hack into everyone's brains, destroy their weapons, and then murder everyone? It does not present "moral" choices, but it does give you a bunch of really cool tactical choices about how to handle a problem, like Deus Ex is famous for. In a similar vein, it could easily present moral dilemmas, where the player has do something they are not altogether comfortable doing, thus creating tension.

[Carry2]

Alright... so, would it be fair to say that the general concensus is an Inquisition-centric game would:

* Be a better fit for games involving casual NPC acquaintances, particularly with alien races.
* Allow the player more official leeway for questionable judgement calls.
* Afford better prospects for a long-term career path, going from community to system to empire-level responsibilities.


And the general template here would be the Dark Heresy system.

There's also been (from bluntpencil and possibly king.com) a suggested three-act-structure of:

* Act 1: Community-level policing duties, possible collusion with Arbites and low-ranking techpriests, etc.
* Act 2: System-level tactical deployments, questions of inequality and social strata, possible collusion with SM and IG, etc.
* Act 3: Galactic-level politics and grand strategy, possible treaty negotiations with less-overtly-rabid xenos and internal bureaucracy, etc.


Would this be more-or-less tolerable to the majority of posters? I'm asking in a purely speculative sense, since I don't want to sound like a broken record.

[bluntpencil]

As king.com so accurately pointed out, and as I've tried to change the subject several times, at this point we're not even remotely talking about electronic games, so, back to the Fluff thread!

Back on topic;
I've given my thoughts several times on the matter. A 40K game should not attempt to be like Mass Effect, or even Space Marine. Scratch that 3PS nonsense. Either attempt to be a squad-based top-down RPG like Baldur's Gate, or perhaps more recently Dragon Age.

I also see huge potential for an RPG-FPS (Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc.), where you probably could play as a solo Space Marine, or something.

I think we've just got to a point where we simply have different tastes in electronic RPGs. Personally, I liked the way Mass Effect's 3PS worked, but thought Dragon Age was a very poor rehash of Baldur's Gate 2.

Also, a main point for me in favour of the Mass Effect look (as opposed to the Baldur's Gate feel, which I did love!) is as follows:

Guns have a long range. To reflect this in a top-down game, you'd need to spend a lot of time zoomed right out, making the game ugly, or in cramped, close quarters. Of course, cramped close quarters is doable, but it limits the setting a lot, and prevents you from taking a sniper rifle without feeling screwed. Mechanically, forcing people indoors all the time, without long range firefights, will have odd repercussions: Melee will be more powerful. Shotguns will be more popular than boltguns and sniper rifles, even amongst the very wealthy.

This is very important, because, yes, you could switch to 1st person for your sniper shots, but, even then, you wouldn't know there was a target a mile off that you could shoot from a top-down perspective, so you would either be switching to 1st person scope view every 30 seconds, or would just use a shotgun like the game intended. Think 'Metal Gear Solid'. You rarely use the sniper rifle, and need told to use it by cut-scenes to use it against Sniper Wolf. In Mass Effect, being 3rd person shooter style, it's always at least an option.

Top-down also limits the environment, and makes it largely 2-dimensional. For example, the terrain could be nothing like Necromunda. You couldn't have someone up on a walkway firing down at someone on ground level, without it being very awkward to implement. 3rd (or first) person, allows for a more 3-dimensional environment that you would expect from the setting.

[Beowulf DW]

If WH40K got the Bioware treatment...


...the game would end with a choice as to whether you wanted to control the Chaos (turning it into order), merge Chaos and Order (making everyone true neutral against their will), or destroy Chaos (also destroying the Warp in the process).


Yeah, I went there.

[Starbuck_II]

If WH40K got the Bioware treatment...


...the game would end with a choice as to whether you wanted to control the Chaos (turning it into order), merge Chaos and Order (making everyone true neutral against their will), or destroy Chaos (also destroying the Warp in the process).


Yeah, I went there.

And I would play that. It would be awesome as well.

[Carry2]

I think we've just got to a point where we simply have different tastes in electronic RPGs. Personally, I liked the way Mass Effect's 3PS worked, but thought Dragon Age was a very poor rehash of Baldur's Gate 2.

Also, a main point for me in favour of the Mass Effect look (as opposed to the Baldur's Gate feel, which I did love!) is as follows:

Guns have a long range. To reflect this in a top-down game, you'd need to spend a lot of time zoomed right out, making the game ugly, or in cramped, close quarters. Of course, cramped close quarters is doable, but it limits the setting a lot, and prevents you from taking a sniper rifle without feeling screwed...

I think a lot of this depends on the intended (localised) setting, scope of play, and intended range of characters.

* If this was intended as a hybrid grand-strategy title, a top-down perspective might meld better with RTS/4X-style resource gathering or planetary surveillance. Those might need dedicated UI screens regardless, though.

* If the game was set on an industrial hive world, then cramped urban environments are going to be fairly common (on the other hand, if the terrain gets wrecked, open ground becomes more common.) If it's a comparatively untamed wilderness, sniping becomes more viable (unless you're talking about mature forest.)

* An inquisition-centric game is probably not going to have weapon mechanics as it's first and foremost concern. Space Marines, from what I can gather, often prefer close melee. And the Imperial Guard isn't going to be concerned with individual engagements, but massive human wave attacks. (One of the most nonsensical aspect of the ME series is that shepherd's tiny band of misfits gets dispatched on errands that are much better handled by, say, actual armies.)

* If you're talking about a mixed blend of characters from different backgrounds (who are all inexplicably similar in power-level despite widely varying origin stories,) then you're probably best off taking a community-level-policing approach to the story. And again, the precise bullet-calibre with which you execute heretics and captive xenos is likely to be a side-problem at best. (Inquisitors, so far as I can tell, tend to favour small side-arms regardless.)

[bluntpencil]

Even with a Hive World, guns make 3rd or 1st person shooter style desirable, as opposed to top-down 3rd person. The terrain used in the ideal Necromunda game would be seen in a Hive World, people fighting from across multiple heights and levels on gangways, making height and depth an important factor, which is hard to take into account with any finesse from a top-down view.

Regarding small-sidearms being preferred: Maybe, that's true. But what if you want to fire a boltgun at long range? That's pretty standard.

[Carry2]

Even with a Hive World, guns make 3rd or 1st person shooter style desirable, as opposed to top-down 3rd person. The terrain used in the ideal Necromunda game would be seen in a Hive World, people fighting from across multiple heights and levels on gangways, making height and depth an important factor, which is hard to take into account with any finesse from a top-down view.

Regarding small-sidearms being preferred: Maybe, that's true. But what if you want to fire a boltgun at long range? That's pretty standard.

Maybe it is. But in the style of game that you're talking about- where there are lots of casual NPC acquaintances to cultivate, and you're delving into the duties of policing thoughtcrime within a local community riven by jealous passions and repressed ambitions, then weapons range and calibres are likely to be of only mild importance. This isn't Agon, this is Dogs in the Vineyard. All I'm saying is, don't sweat it.

[bluntpencil]

Maybe it is. But in the style of game that you're talking about- where there are lots of casual NPC acquaintances to cultivate, and you're delving into the duties of policing thoughtcrime within a local community riven by jealous passions and repressed ambitions, then weapons range and calibres are likely to be of only mild importance. This isn't Agon, this is Dogs in the Vineyard. All I'm saying is, don't sweat it.

The thing is, when we go 'Okay, right, it's not important' we're limiting the game. This is 2012. We can have good action (In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war) as well as character interaction.

You can do both, without impacting on each other. You can make the action awesome, as well as having an amazing story.

[Carry2]

The thing is, when we go 'Okay, right, it's not important' we're limiting the game. This is 2012. We can have good action (In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war) as well as character interaction.

You can do both, without impacting on each other.

Well, that leaves aside the question of budgetary constraints, and the question of conflicting demands from very different player-demographics, and the question of what kind of situational premise will plausibly imply both candid interrogations of local NPCs and epic military engagements.

Technically, yes, you can do both. But if you're asking for a reason to favour 3PS/first-person over top-down/isometric, I would say that, offhand, given the range of possibilities, you'll probably miss out on fewer opportunities if you assume top-down/isometric. (On the other other hand, if you *really* intend to make a game that's about face-to-face relationships and interview skills, first-person views allow for better portrayal of the nuances of body language and facial expression. So, your call.)

EDIT: Incidentally, now that I think of it, DitV is actually an excellent tabletop template for this sort of premise. You've got explicit mechanisms for dealing with corruption, demons, possessions, tying that in with the town's NPC motives and relationships which led to their going astray, and resolution mechanics that grade from 'friendly chat' to 'physical intimidation' to 'bullets and bloodshed'. Could be well worth looking into for mechanical inspiration.

EDIT EDIT: That, or possibly L.A. Noire?

[bluntpencil]

Well, that leaves aside the question of budgetary constraints, and the question of conflicting demands from very different player-demographics, and the question of what kind of situational premise will plausibly imply both candid interrogations of local NPCs and epic military engagements.

Technically, yes, you can do both. But if you're asking for a reason to favour 3PS/first-person over top-down/isometric, I would say that, offhand, given the range of possibilities, you'll probably miss out on fewer opportunities if you assume top-down/isometric. (On the other other hand, if you *really* intend to make a game that's about face-to-face relationships and interview skills, first-person views allow for better portrayal of the nuances of body language and facial expression. So, your call.)

EDIT: Incidentally, now that I think of it, DitV is actually an excellent tabletop template for this sort of premise. You've got explicit mechanisms for dealing with corruption, demons, possessions, tying that in with the town's NPC motives and relationships which led to their going astray, and resolution mechanics that grade from 'friendly chat' to 'physical intimidation' to 'bullets and bloodshed'. Could be well worth looking into for mechanical inspiration.

EDIT EDIT: That, or possibly L.A. Noire?

Both look like they have good ideas that could be used. I'm not a big fan of dice mechanics in computer games, though, just as I dislike porting a pen and paper RPG onto a computer. Sure, take the story, but take advantage of the electronic format.

[Carry2]

Both look like they have good ideas that could be used. I'm not a big fan of dice mechanics in computer games, though, just as I dislike porting a pen and paper RPG onto a computer. Sure, take the story, but take advantage of the electronic format.

Oh, the specific die size used probably isn't the most important thing to take away- it's more the session-prep-advice and reward-feedback mechanisms employed by RPGs that I find most interesting. (In the case of the planetary-defence against an insidious alien foe, I imagine an adaptation of Burning Empires could be golden.)

I was going to review this thread again and take stock of the various suggestions made, but this will have to wait until I have more free time. At present, I'm seeing the following-

* Planetary-defence situation, possibly involving space marines.
* Horus during the 30th millennium. (Galaxy level.)
* Free-roaming inquisitorial investigation. (Community level.)

I think each of these might require very different mechanical approaches. However, if you really did want 'Bioware-style' in the sense of picking up companions to romance, I'd re-iterate that the border-world assignment with tau and exodite eldar as xenos presences would be most fertile for the purpose (though I suppose you could toss in a little chaos for flavouring on the home team.)

The problem is that the thematic choices embedded in this situation are difficult to reconcile with your superiors' guaranteed approval. (I mean, if you wind up siding with the xenos' claims, you're unlikely to see a promotion anytime soon.)