RPG Campaign Idea: 80s Warhammer
As per my posts about Star Wars with only the first film as canon and Star Trek with only the pre-movie era as canon, and my earlier post abotu Warhammer canon, I'm pondering the logistics of a Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000 campaign in which the earlier 80s canon trumps the modern material.
In the case of Warhammer, the obvious difference areas are Lustria, Bretonnia and the east. Lustria is the South America analogue and in older editions a bigger deal was made about colonies in the new world next to Amazons and pygmy settlements. (It also presented a different power dynamic in the reptilian/amphibian natives.) The East of Cathay & Nippon gets occasionally name checked but older editions provided more rules governing warriors from that area. In both cases, a travel campaign going to one of those places could entail other plots on the way and has obvious historical analogues to inspire.
Bretonnia deserves it's own note because of how different it is. The France analogue, the modern edition gives it an Arthurian chivalric feel in contrast to the renaissance German-esque Empire next door. The earlier versions, however, had a more French revolution-eqsue vibe to them which both matches time time period of it's neighbour more and has a darker vibe that feels more Warhammer. I really like the idea of wigged fops attending secret Cult socieites; of peasant rebellions being hijacked by a Napoleon; of "man in the iron mask" style plots to restore the true king and not the Slaanesh-worship usurper. (It could be any Chaos god, in fact, since at this stage the major Chaos gods aren't hard codified and mostly exist as painting guides rather than background story) Even not playign it in 40K, I think a Three Musketeers Fantasy game has got legs.
In the case of 40K the differences aren't quite as extreme but they are there. 1st Edition features Slaan, Squats and Jokaero as major races while excluding the newer races of Necrons, Dark Eldar and Tau. I'm not mega-opposed to the Necrons (and the Tau and Dark Eldar are easy to ignroe) but I did use more of the older races in my own 40K game and it would be interesting to start from the premise that they are the major players. There's a lot of material in 1st Ed which shows more racial harmony and would make Squat/Eldar/Human team-ups more viable - something that traditional 40K roleplaying struggles with
More controversially, 1st Ed 40K does not feature any refereence to Chaos whatsoever - it's all introduced in Realms of Chaos, but the core book keeps mutants as genetic and warp entities as more alien than magical. That's a seriously huge edit and one I might struggle to wrap my head around but as an intellectual exercise it's fascinating to imagine how different the tone of 40K becomes if the threat of the Ruinous Powers is removed, or at least downplayed to expunge any Horus Heresy-esque mega-events.
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of any Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 fans out there.
In the case of Warhammer, the obvious difference areas are Lustria, Bretonnia and the east. Lustria is the South America analogue and in older editions a bigger deal was made about colonies in the new world next to Amazons and pygmy settlements. (It also presented a different power dynamic in the reptilian/amphibian natives.) The East of Cathay & Nippon gets occasionally name checked but older editions provided more rules governing warriors from that area. In both cases, a travel campaign going to one of those places could entail other plots on the way and has obvious historical analogues to inspire.
Bretonnia deserves it's own note because of how different it is. The France analogue, the modern edition gives it an Arthurian chivalric feel in contrast to the renaissance German-esque Empire next door. The earlier versions, however, had a more French revolution-eqsue vibe to them which both matches time time period of it's neighbour more and has a darker vibe that feels more Warhammer. I really like the idea of wigged fops attending secret Cult socieites; of peasant rebellions being hijacked by a Napoleon; of "man in the iron mask" style plots to restore the true king and not the Slaanesh-worship usurper. (It could be any Chaos god, in fact, since at this stage the major Chaos gods aren't hard codified and mostly exist as painting guides rather than background story) Even not playign it in 40K, I think a Three Musketeers Fantasy game has got legs.
In the case of 40K the differences aren't quite as extreme but they are there. 1st Edition features Slaan, Squats and Jokaero as major races while excluding the newer races of Necrons, Dark Eldar and Tau. I'm not mega-opposed to the Necrons (and the Tau and Dark Eldar are easy to ignroe) but I did use more of the older races in my own 40K game and it would be interesting to start from the premise that they are the major players. There's a lot of material in 1st Ed which shows more racial harmony and would make Squat/Eldar/Human team-ups more viable - something that traditional 40K roleplaying struggles with
More controversially, 1st Ed 40K does not feature any refereence to Chaos whatsoever - it's all introduced in Realms of Chaos, but the core book keeps mutants as genetic and warp entities as more alien than magical. That's a seriously huge edit and one I might struggle to wrap my head around but as an intellectual exercise it's fascinating to imagine how different the tone of 40K becomes if the threat of the Ruinous Powers is removed, or at least downplayed to expunge any Horus Heresy-esque mega-events.
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of any Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 fans out there.