Understanding the Old World setting - when did it go south for you?

[Rick]

I think that, maybe around 5th?, GW started doing the annual campaigns booklets which affected more and more of the Old World as they grew more popular and which, in turn, moved the chronology forward. Cause and effect: without the campaigns bringing in more players and groups, Warhammer might not be as popular as it is today, but the downside is that GW felt the need to acknowledge the campaigns and the players so put the campaign results in as a new series of events. In some ways they may well have been busy painting themselves into a corner, but they only have themselves to blame if they couldn't foresee the consequences of their own actions.

[HerbertTarkel]

5th or more like late 6th? I don’t remember them until the campaigns which were supposed to affect the timelines started happening. Of course, they almost never did anything to the timeline 

[fred]

This is a very interesting discussion - personally I'm both very much removed from the Old World setting, but also own and play several armies based on it.

I started out back in WFB 2nd days, when the setting was broad brush, and had interesting and unique ideas like Lustiria and Slaan. But also had staples of fantasy like Orcs and Elves. This all worked fine with the hodge podge of AD&D, LoTR (books) and whatever else we threw in to our games.

I did play a fair bit of WHFRP a few years later, and liked that take on the Old World.

Then skip forward about 15 years and I got back into gaming via Warmaster - which had lots of armies based on the Old World - but (at least from my perspective) I didn't need any great reason for them to fight against each other. And we added on variants of our own anyway.

Some of my gaming group of been GW players since the 80s and have been hugely into WFB and 40k and are really into some parts of the lore (I think largely from 30+ years ago).

What is interesting in the above is that it seems when GW started putting together big campaigns to generate interest and get all the different factions and races involved this is when it started to go wrong for a lot of people. Feels they perhaps missed a trick here of having things happen at different points in the history of the Old World, and having some stuff that was of less global impact. If you look at historical gaming, people play games from all different periods, some of which have much bigger world impacts than others.

But also as you go further back in history historical players are quite happy to fight two highly implausible sides against each other. Feels GW could have had campaigns that cover some factions, and just let the players have free form battles as well, without everything having to key to the same tight timeline.

And with historical gaming there are periods and geographies that allow much looser interpretations of history as too most people their knowledge is quite low (eg Back of Beyond in the 1920s) or the war was so vast there are plenty of options that aren't just the key battles (and even the key battles can get morphed to be playable).

I think my conclusion is GW needed to look at history to leave some space for interpretation, look at wider gaming to see everything doesn't need to be prescribed, and even look at their own back catalogue to see how they started.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

Never been as invested in the old world as I was in 40k for a while. The time which in my mind represents the most fun version of the Old World must be 4th/5th. The most dreadful idea they ever got for either Warhammer or 40k was 'advancing the timeline'.

[Diablo Jon]

It started going south when it stopped being funny, not using Gary Chalk didn't help either.



I've still got me badge and I even bave regular like.

To be a pendent Orcs Drift wasn't set in the Old World they moved it to the New World becuase the setting of Ramalja didn't fit the lore that had already beem written about the Old World. So does Orcs Drift count as part of the Old World setting any more than Lustria or Cathay?

[Diablo Jon]

About the time this dropped to accommodate Warhammer tournament play that started GW down the endless madness of trying to constantly balance a fantasy game system, to make it fair for competition gaming, rather than narrative gaming.

[Ady]

For me it was the introduction of Named characters .

I don't mean the odd one with previous scenario packs (I.E. Kremlo the Slann, The lichemaster and the like)
I mean the ones that came around 4th ed WHFB and around there.

At the time I wasn't sure why, but I gradually realised it was because the "official" setting had lost the feeling of making your own stories, and more like you were playing a part in someone else's stories.

[HerbertTarkel]

“Herohammer” reached peak insanity during 5th edition. Among my gaming group, we placed our own limitations on using them too often - they could change the game completely by themselves. One man or elf army.

[Lost Egg]

Every army had to have a special character. I know its 40k but I remember Jervis in one battle report saying his ork army was always led by Ghazghkull...err...then something is kinda wrong Jervis...

[Elbows]

Ah, the old "Why is Guilliman leading these two tactical squads in a 500 point game..." conundrum.

While I don't play The Old World, I have seen several channels doing a voluntary "low fantasy" version, which appears to be some kind of limit on monsters and wizards, which is kinda cool.

In my game, which we're playing in the old Warhammer Fantasy world, there is the concept of "Legendary Heroes" (which would represent your named heroes in the setting, I suppose), but they're randomly generated as a victory reward and you only get them for one game.  It should strike a nice balance.

[Lost Egg]

In my game, which we're playing in the old Warhammer Fantasy world, there is the concept of "Legendary Heroes" (which would represent your named heroes in the setting, I suppose), but they're randomly generated as a victory reward and you only get them for one game.  It should strike a nice balance.

I like that idea, kinda like a guest spot on a sit com or something.

[punkrabbitt]

At the time I wasn't sure why, but I gradually realised it was because the "official" setting had lost the feeling of making your own stories, and more like you were playing a part in someone else's stories.

^ ^ ^ This!

[HerbertTarkel]

Every army had to have a special character. I know its 40k but I remember Jervis in one battle report saying his ork army was always led by Ghazghkull...err...then something is kinda wrong Jervis...

Thou shalt not besmirch the memory of Jervis Johanssen!!! He was one of the best ones. Ghazghkull? As an Ork player, it was whatever? A cool character - with Makari the Standard Grot? Hells yah.

You’re lost, egg man! 

[darthfozzywig]

I still re-read the Orfeo trilogy and all the Jack Yeovil books every few years. The Orfeo books, Zaragoz especially, are a great window into how chaos corrupts from within, unsettling and a little bit ‘off’. The Yeovil books are a great, gothic romps with a razor edge. Faves are Drachenfels and Beasts in Velvet. Fantastic stuff and my high point for Warhammer lore. Having said that, I can find something to love in every edition. Even AoS has its charms and has carved out its own weird lore almost from scratch. I’ve become quite fond of it!

Same. Zaragoz and Drachenfels are really good stories even if you don’t care for Warhammer. Those and The Enemy Within campaign for WFRP are my Old World.

[Lost Egg]

Thou shalt not besmirch the memory of Jervis Johanssen!!! He was one of the best ones. Ghazghkull? As an Ork player, it was whatever? A cool character - with Makari the Standard Grot? Hells yah.

You’re lost, egg man!