I loved the old dwarf lore, slayers, gotrek, bugman, ungrim, kazador etc. but we all know how it ened. (On a personal note I liked the way End Times ended, was a great story and Gotrek comes out the winner cleaning house in the warp). Like Tremendous said, I don't want a new dwarf bartender hero, sad gruff kings who pine about the old days, seekers who go around in drunken death seeking glory. It's been done, and done well. Let's not make a thin blooded revamp of GW's fluff.
The latest issue of the Scroll is released! Check it out!
I particularly liked GW's dwarf, Empire, and Bretonnian lore. It was gritty, well-grounded and had enough detail to make it more than believable. And how can anyone deny that the maps and artwork that GW included in its rules and army books were not absolutely first-rate in quality and production. For all one can criticize GW for various things, you cannot deny that their rulebooks, supplements, and army books were beautifully produced.
In addition, GW also added to its Old Worlde a homage to the Shire, in The MOOT. It was things like the Moot that for me really gave the world a real flavor and a real grounding. Now of course The Moot was an obvious copy of The Shire, but even so GW gave Halflings a new and unique lore which did set it apart from Tolkien's classic Hobbits.
One thing I don't understand is the line of thinking that some have where they feel that if their favorite faction wasn't doing earth-shattering and amazing things to affect the world at every turn, that somehow that made the lore "weak".
Case in point, the Ogre Kingdoms. Their faction lore is largely one of survival and fighting back desperately against opposition on all sides. Why is that kind of lore considered "weak" because they are "only" surviving? I thought that one of the key elements to a fantasy world was realism and events backing up that realism? I think that Ogre Kingdoms is one of the best lores there is for a faction, precisely BECAUSE it is about survival.
I don't need my favorite factions taking part in every Grand Council that decides the fate of the world, or facing down the main villain of the story. I don't think that mere survival equals weak lore. And by the same token, over the top hyper-heroic involvement in every aspect of a world doesn't necessarily equal strong lore. You need a blending of both elements that balance it without going too far in one direction or another.
As far as things like controversial The End Times - I do not understand why players have this rigid dynamic in their heads that ONE piece of lore they don't care for ruins the ENTIRE history of the Old Worlde. Our gaming group doesn't particularly care for The End Times. And so we simply ignore it!! Why is that so hard??? I have never understood this helplessness to have to follow "official cannon". I just don't get it. We simply play 8th Edition in suspension, as if the world is continuing indefinitely! We don't even look at The End Times supplements, in fact I don't own any of them because I don't like them. The same goes for GW's constant threat of Chaos. I think that in this regard GW went too far with its constant Chaos attacking cities that caused nearly 100% casualties to a city and caused an entire part of the world to need hundreds of years of recovery, and to have those one after the other was overkill. Their world was plenty gritty enough without having the constant Chaos stuff all the time. And so our gaming group ignores the over the top chaos stuff as well.
But those are only two elements in GW's lore out of many elements. And we love the rest of the elements.
The rest of GW's lore is absolutely fantastic.There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!
Indeed and he's reached a (sort of)conclusion to his theory on which he started this thread.
Maybe it's time to close this thread before too many arguments come of it regarding the lore and whether or not it should be faux-Old World? (Which, imo, it definitely should be it's own thing)
Thread closed per lawgnome