What do people actually want out of the new fluff?

[RuleBritannia]

I definitely have opinions on this, but I am more interested in other people's opinions.  Do people want alt history going back to the point of difference?  The technological background or the great men and women who have shaped history and the destiny of nations?  Do people care about the kind of government each nation has, the structure of it's military?  Do they want grimdark or shades of grey?  A neutral 3rd party omniscient narrator, a series of historical accounts woven together?  Very dry or narrative heavy?  In jokes and puns or taken seriously?

[Fracas]

Yes
Alternate history due to introduction of new technology but retain the core basis for each nation, ie why a Frenchman remains a Frenchman.

[Covertwalrus]

 Three things I think need to be done with the DW fluff if it's going to wORK _

 1. Clear points of demarcation from our history, namely defining the events that shaped the timeline that exists. Whether anything is retained from the Spartan rules or not,  the differences from our timeline need to be underlined.

 2. Abundant clarity of the already existing diversity and social differences in the timeline if that is retained; There was a looooong thread on one of the FB pages form a group decrying the lack of this in the game, and pointing to that lack of inclusiveness as being the sole reason for DW's collapse.; I just re-read my copy of "Hurricane Season" a couple of days before and was surprised to learn that all the female, Asian and POC commanders I'd read about didn't actually exist, so as I say, emphasis needs to be added.

 3. Less moral ambiguity. Look at WH40K for a minute- Yes, there are some arguments on this but on the whole, there are some clearly defined lines of which factions are more dedicated to working towards more greatly accepted as positive goals, and who has aims that are at best self-serving and detrimental towards others.

[erloas]

I'm  tired of GrimDark.  Not only is it overdone, but it tends to give you no where to go and really starts to strain suspension of disbelief after a while.
As a case in point, 40k.  There was never anything about the story that drew me in, even when I was playing I could hardly care because they had completely lost any sense of believability in the setting.  But more so than that, of the people I know that like the 40k fluff about all they ever talk about is the Horus Heresy.  The most interesting and engaging part of the setting was 10k years before the current timeline.  When GW wanted to "expand" and do things a little differently they didn't take the timeline forward, they went backwards.  They wrote themselves into a corner where "forward" doesn't actually seem to be an option.

What I want is a setting that makes sense and works.  That doesn't mean realistic, I'm very happy with many settings with supernatural or completely sci-fi based things going on, but they have to be consistent to themselves.  They have to be set up in such a way that if it were true then the entire population of the planet/setting would not be dead in a very short period of time.

I want this to be a human based setting.  Even if there is an alien presence or supernatural forces/powers they should be an influence on some events rather than some omnipresent entity behind everything good or bad that is going on.  They can be part of the story, but the story isn't about them.

Take all sides of humanity into account.  There is good and bad, there is bad that comes from good and good that comes from bad.  There are voices of moderation as well as of extremes.  Make the settings and the people nuanced, give them depth.  Despair stops meaning anything when there is no hope.  There is joy in victory even if it isn't the end of war.

As mentioned above, make it very clear where real world and the game have diverged.  Give some reasonable reasons why and how things are different because of it.  Don't just hand-wave large portions of history because they are difficult, put some effort into it, make it at least somewhat believable. 

Diversity *should* be easy, you've got the entire world to work with, which is of course self-defined as everyone is there and involved.  Write from multiple view points, don't have "these are the good guys and these are the bad guys."

Put some originality into it.  It is of course hard to be totally original, but the main characters and leaders of each nation shouldn't just be a re-skin of the various tropes out there.  I shouldn't read about a character and be able to say to someone new to the setting "this guy is exactly like X from setting Y, but with a different name."

It is ok to have a little fun with things too.  We don't need Deadpool but an acknowledgement of the MST3K mantra should be there.

[RuleBritannia]

How much detail is needed for the military organisation?

[Covertwalrus]

How much detail is needed for the military organisation?

 Enough to justify the operating rules in the system, and enough to make each force seem to be unique over and above that, and not much more. the rundown in the 2.5 rules background about how things were organized, e.g., the Britannian formation of one force with three divisions ( Air, land and sea ), the Prussian Navy and Army and the Teutonic knights, and so forth was more than adequate I feel.

[erloas]

So I was thinking about the diversity issue and the issues surrounding the American Civil War and how to get avoid it.  I was thinking if they picked, or created, an African leader to unify the continent at the same time many of the other areas under colonial rule were breaking free that could address both.  With a unified Africa (maybe 2-3 countries, maybe all the real countries and entering into an EU sort of thing) that would remove the source of slaves in the first place and as a byproduct would change the nature of the American Civil War.  And with that you also don't have to remove people of African descent from the USA (or whatever it is in this setting) but they would migrate naturally.

[RuleBritannia]

So I was thinking about the diversity issue and the issues surrounding the American Civil War and how to get avoid it.  I was thinking if they picked, or created, an African leader to unify the continent at the same time many of the other areas under colonial rule were breaking free that could address both.  With a unified Africa (maybe 2-3 countries, maybe all the real countries and entering into an EU sort of thing) that would remove the source of slaves in the first place and as a byproduct would change the nature of the American Civil War.  And with that you also don't have to remove people of African descent from the USA (or whatever it is in this setting) but they would migrate naturally.

The logic of DWars classic was that with Industrialisation happening earlier you need wage slaves not actual slaves.

[erloas]

I got that, but it seemed more like a hand-wave reason rather than a well thought out one.  After all the same work can be done by low paid workers as slaves. You could have a slave work a factory just as easily as a field.  And the work they did is still being done, well some of it at least, some crops are harvested with machines but some are still done by hand depending on what it is.  If you've got the supply then someone will profit from it. 
But it also gives Africa a point to be it's own player on the world stage and gives a very clear and overt break from real life history.

[RuleBritannia]

The historical evidence suggests that waged workers were more effective doing manual labour than slaves.  As handwaves go it is supported by historical example.

[Fracas]

The historical evidence suggests that waged workers were more effective doing manual labour than slaves.  As handwaves go it is supported by historical example.

Agreed


Regarding military organizations
I want enough to build a fluffy force

[RuleBritannia]

Regarding military organizations
I want enough to build a fluffy force

Have you read the alliance books for Firestorm?  The background material had three different fleet patterns for each faction with the fluff to justify them.  I personally liked that model.

[Fracas]

Yes
Except they seem kinda generic

[Covertwalrus]

 Said this before, but worth repeating; To my mind, the best backgrounds are those that inspire the player to come up with scenarios; History of conflict between factions, the areas under dispute and what each side has gained and lost from them over time, the political needs for each faction involved in the area due to that history, and the sort of situations that arise from all that in action.

[RuleBritannia]

How much fantasy can people take?  How much grim dark?  Which perspective on the faction should be written, neutral 3rd party omniscient narrator, a positive spin from their own faction or a negative approach from a rival?  Should there by mysteries?