Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

Picture 4

Make of those what you will. The 'miniatures' are going to be fuel for the fires of hate, but there is a character sheet there.

thanks for posting those!

Is this an RPG?

It looks a bit like a boardgame (the layout reminding me a bit of Talisman). The artwork smacks of the PC / online game and the whole set up reminds me of Everway or TORG.

Wierd.

The art really does look a like the MMO, which is not a bad thing really.

PHOTO 3: If I didn't know this was a new edition, I might think that's just a good-looking WFRP2 character sheet. The Basic Skills layout looks very familiar. We're down to six (count 'em) Characteristics - Strength, Toughness, Agility, Intelligence, Willpower, Fellowship. WS and BS are most certainly now Basic Skills. Still, very much in the WFRP family.

DagobahDave said:

How can you read that? It's just white smears on a brown background.

Very impressive!

It's not too hard to make out, now that I know what I'm looking at. Easy Peasy.

E

The character standees are for point reference use only. No need for maps or miniatures. This is straight from Jay at the WFRP 3E Seminar at GenCon.

PointyEaredBastard said:

Huh? No need for maps? How does that work?

It is far more impressive in person...Trust me. This game is a high quality product. The seminar showed some new artwork used for the game and it is gorgeous.

ejacobs said:

Once you know what to look for, it is much easier, yes.

But seeing it in the first place is a challenge.

It's an rpg just like 1st and 2nd edition. This is not a game like D&D 4E. I'm sure you can use battle maps if you want, but they are completely optional. This is old fashioned use your imagination style roleplaying.

CRasterImage said:

It helps that they're already familiar from the earlier editions. The Basic Skills even seem to have the same three-level scheme. I hope they've dropped the idea of rolling against half of your basic ability rating when using an untrained skill, and that each level of 'skill mastery' provides a bonus ("+1 die/+2 dice/+3 dice"), rather than following V2's scheme of "taken/+10%/+20%". Fingers crossed.

I can guess at what some of the other boxes are for on the character sheet. There seems to be a Stress Tracker on the lower left. There's a section for Money (Gold, Silver, Brass/Copper?); above that would probably be Ammo, Armament, Armour, Weapons -- but I can't make out the words exactly. There's a full column for what looks like general Trappings.

The stuff on the right side is tougher to figure out, except for the Character Name, Race, (Gender? Distinguishing Marks?). Some of that section looks like it might be for spells, blessings or combat stuff. It's too blurry and I've run out of scrying juice. There might be a section in the centre-right that has to do with action cards (Tactics? Reputation?).

CRasterImage said:

Both previous editions of WFRP are minis-optional. They combat systems are tactical enough that you can run them on a grid with minis, but you're never required to. Those games can play just as well (and for some, better) without using miniatures and maps for combat.

It's pretty tough to design an RPG that forces you to use minis. (D&D4E almost succeeds, but I know that it's possible to play it strictly in the mind's eye.) With RPGs, at any point, as easy changing your mind, you can have an entire combat scene quickly sketched out onto a piece of scratch paper, just making marks to keep track of where the opponents are. But even easier than that is when a GM does a good job of describing the scene to the players, making spot judgments when it matters if you're within range for what the characters want to do.

WFRP3 looks to me like it totally supports that kind of freeform play. For instance, the "failed real bad" dice result for the Ranged Shot action card indicates that an opponent within short range can engage you (in combat, I presume), so long as they're not already engaged. The term "short range" doesn't have a number attached (although "short range" might have a specific meaning in the game -- be it 3 yards, 5 yards, or whatever). But I think it's a good sign because it might provide some flexibility and ease of use for the GM who wants to run combat purely by verbal description.

PointyEaredBastard said:

Ah, I understand what you mean now. "Battle Maps" Not maps in general.

I thought you were saying that the entire description of the world would be communicated verbally.

So, you are saying that WFR3 doesn't take position into account during combat? People can't block enemy movement, flank enemies, or test for LOS on ranged attacks?

I actually like that part.

Tactics are fun...

CRasterImage said:

All of that stuff is still important, even when combat is purely imagined. I think most GMs probably use scratch paper and draw out a little map, even if they don't use minis. The GM and the players can use the rules (and a healthy dose of common sense) determine if it's possible to attack someone from behind, or if there's a danger of shooting one of your buddies accidentally because he's in your line of fire. It's possible to convey all of that stuff without any maps or minis at all, but you won't have to.

DagobahDave said:

That's good. Though I don't know that and RPG said you "had to" use minis and battlemaps. It was mostly just a question of how much do you enjoy aesthetics vs how much cash you were willing to spend on your hobby.

Looking over the character sheet photo again, there's a nice big section for career stuff. It looks like there's a section for Career Completed Advances (maybe) and Next/New Career Advances (maybemaybe), and Career Entries & Exits (likely).

I like the idea of next advances, which suggests that you're working on some specific abilities rather than ending up with 100xp at the end of a game session and taking any advance that looks good.