Just curious...

Anyone in the base? Anyone in the middle? Frankly the vitriol, hate, disgust, and opt-out venom is based wholly in what appears to be an "inside job." Inside Jobs always promise success in the "Yes Echo Chambers" where no one disagrees with the direction or development.

Those asking for patience, or considering WFRP 3e wholly on good faith/will/altruistic feelings, don't get the passion many have for WFRP. 1e aside, 2e was a solid release. Many, many, many people from the base and middle playtested WFRP 2e. And many, many, many people have heavily invested in WFRP 2e.

Will I consider the WFRP 3e on it's merits? Probably not. Price. Direction of the game. There's more.

Really FFG. A waste of capital.

BTW... lest we forget, or over value the vitriol, hate and venom, this debate should be a real concern for FFG.

My prediction is a critical fail. Paizo's guts, through Eric Mona, proves that supporting abandoned editions leads to rabid and loyal customers. Pathfinder is proving to be a huge success. And if you weren't aware of it, Paizo's playtests with the free, open, public Alpha and Beta editions were a resounding success... and GenCon is proving it it the lines.

FFG, like WotC before them, will regret this investment because they lost the base, and that will shy away a lot of the middle.

In closing... a laugh: http://xkcd.com/386/

ELECTOR COUNT: Anyone in the base? Anyone in the middle? ... Those asking for patience, or considering WFRP 3e wholly on good faith/will/altruistic feelings, don't get the passion many have for WFRP. 1e aside, 2e was a solid release. Many, many, many people from the base and middle playtested WFRP 2e. And many, many, many people have heavily invested in WFRP 2e.

What are the characteristics someone should have if they're part of this base you're talking about? Do you consider me personally to be part of the base? I've been playing WFRP for 20 years. I've been a very loyal customer through two editions. I design fan-books and other unofficial supplements and have my own WFRP fansite. I'm as invested in this game as a player can be. You think I don't understand the passion that players have for WFRP?

But I'm sure that I'm not part of this supposed "base" of yours simply because I like what I've seen so far from WFRP3.

So who's left in the base, if not someone like me? Is WFRP3 loathing a requirement?

ELECTOR COUNT: Really FFG. A waste of capital.

BTW... lest we forget, or over value the vitriol, hate and venom, this debate should be a real concern for FFG.

Almost certainly, the decision to cancel V2 would have rested with Games Workshop. FFG might be getting the blame for something they didn't decide.

ELECTOR COUNT: My prediction is a critical fail. Paizo's guts, through Eric Mona, proves that supporting abandoned editions leads to rabid and loyal customers. Pathfinder is proving to be a huge success. And if you weren't aware of it, Paizo's playtests with the free, open, public Alpha and Beta editions were a resounding success... and GenCon is proving it it the lines.

The lesson about Pathfinder is that D&D is big enough that it can cancel one edition and there are still enough players for it that other companies can take the reins and do very well. WFRP certainly isn't that big, and never has been.

Runefang have confirmed that he is one of the playtesters in this thread.

He is a WFRP veteran, and seem to be positive on how WRFP3 turned out.

Her is the link, but warning. Much anti WFRP3 here:

http://forum.strike-to-stun.net/viewtopic.php?t=2729&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

Dirach said:

Not much different from here, then.

/M

MagnusSeter said:

This forum is a bit more optimistic, but it was interesting to see how Runfangs view calmed it a bit over at STS.

Yep, and he claimed it would be no problem to run Power Behind the Throne using 3rd edition. That should be written in large capital letters on the box!

Me and my group playtested some elements of the game.

jadrax said:

You evil person!

/M

Well, here we are just 3 short years later and with the 'final' product (of 2012). Where are we?

Elector Count said:

I still don't get the vitriol. I don't get all the 1e and 2e die hards who actually think it's a good system. It's a mediocre system with some ok elements. I wish people who flamed 3e so much would be honest about that. Careers are ok but eventually get in the way, combat is just a boring drag, etc. I started with WFRP1e when it came out and I've collected it enthusiastically over the years (and I mean *collected* - I have just about every product ever published) and enjoyed playing it a lot. But at least I don't fool myself into thinking 1e and 2e some brilliant systems (I've played with both house rules and using other systems like GURPS - personally I think GURPS is a great match for the warhammer world).

But neither is WFRP3e a great system. I was excited when it was announced. I bought it up. I didn't feel betrayed (cos you know, it's only a game, how on earth could I be *betrayed*??). But I'm disappointed with the overall execution. Like previous editions, there are some good rules in 3e, but there are *lots* of problems - the core mechanic seems grossly overpowered for one, too many cards for another.

So if WFRP3e stops being published this year, there's no way I'd bother returning to 2e or 1e rules. Warhammer was never about the rules, it was about the world. That's what I have enjoyed so much and will continue to enjoy.

I was a playtester.

Not of the original, core rules, but for just about everything else that came out after the core set.

I loved the game then and I love it now.

I gave lots of critical feedback (there was some really messy stuff in there), which, thankfully were fixed in the final product. Not everything, I guess, based on the reactions on this forum.

My angle on playtesting feedback: I'm a player and GM who hates overly complicated rules and railroading. I love atmosphere and character development. I guess that I wasn't the best choice for a playtester because I don't have a nearly autistic-like obsession over RPGs (rules, mechanics and Lore) like some of the haters seem to have.

My friends, who've all played RPGs for the past 15 years (including all editions of WFRP) still feel that this system is the very best we've ever encountered. That may change once we try the Star Wars game, which apparently is a bit more streamlined.

Final Comment: I genuinely dislike the anger and vitriol of online communities about these products which are made for our entertainment. Life is too short to be ANGRY about games.

I also truly despise internet nerds telling me how I should be having fun. Or that I'm wrong because I have fun with a particular game system.

To the OP: you're one of THEM. Those gamers who really comes across as snide and smug because of your personal choice in gaming. Your sense of entitlement makes me want to puke.

Merry Christmas!

Why get your hackles up over a thread that's over 3 years old? The v3 edition war is over; it's time to turn swords into ploushares and kill people with those instead.

Necrozius said:

The funny thing is, I'm generally bored by rules and I love atmosphere and character development, and yet nothing at all about WFRP3 appeals to me. I accept the arguments in its favour and understand the reasoning behind some of the praise, but I've consistently been left thinking, so what? I think it generally does what it says on the tin, which is great, but ultimately it's not objectively better than many other systems, and for the style of play environment I'm used to (sitting around on comfy chairs or beds in student flats) it's not terribly practical.

The game doesn't deserve to be hated, because it's not a bad game. The thing is, it's nothing particularly special either. It's just another game, with some pros and some cons, which matter more or less to different people depending on circumstances.

Oh, and there are far too many cards and tokens.

Cheers

Sparrow

So, I've been playing 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for three years now. And I'll continue so. I'm looking forward to "The Enemy Within" and the formation of our third party of heroes. My group likes the flavour of the world and the components and easy to learn rules of the whole edition. And I like the really cool and informative rulebooks from the sets. I don't have to read thousands of pages of detailed information. Even the short one-sheet adventures are good.

Same as MaSc.

While it is fiddly, it is very easy to custom fit.

The narrative approach and general rules set please my players and I and really support the story, in our experience. We are very happy with it.

My group is also very happy with the rules of this system, specially the dice mechanics. Some of my friends have actually used the dice mechanics to run narrative RPG scenarios set in "real world", one in Medieval Italy, the other in modern Afghanistan.

The result in both cases was very good, and we also brought some new people into the hobby. These people had not played RPGs before, and found the dice mechanics no trouble at all.

Again, just our experience.

It's true that the amount of cards is a bit excessive, but there's no need to use all of them if you don't want to.

My group has nothing but love for WFRP3. We've been playing it since it came out, on and off with other GMs in our group running a variety of games, and are getting back to it today with our first session from TEW. I played 1st edition when it initially came out and prefer WFRP3 to it by a wide margin.

Mark

Necrozius said:

Pretty much ditto with everything that N said here, to include playtesting after the initial Core Set release. I was the first to sign up and run the demo when the Core Set was "pre-released" to game stores. I played both 1st and second editions and loved them. I like 3rd edition WFRP more than either of those previous editions, as both a GM and a player (although I mostly GM). It is definitely more evocative of a "story" RPG than a "number-crunching" game which the previous editions favored. I dislike pure story RPGs are being too loose and nebulous. WFRP3 has a great mix of structure, yet free-flowing cinematics and ability for the GM to manipulate the game to fit the story.

All that said, even if I didn't like the game overall, I don't see the point of going onto forums and ranting about the game over and over. For example, I thought that FFG made a major mistake re-tooling their Star Wars KCG to be 1vs1 competitive. I thought it would be much better done as a co-op card game. After a few rational posts related to that, I merely stopped visiting those forums as it held no interest to me any more. There was no constructive reason for me to start posting rants about whether or not they destroyed the game. Simply, it no longer appealed to me, but that does not mean it doesn't appeal to others.