D&D Core books don't exactly include a setting. Points of light is a concept, not a setting. I have the core 4e books and there is no default 'setting' in them. I tend to use a homebrew setting for D&D, so its no big deal. I quit playing because of the mechanics, not the presence or lack of a setting.

D&D is a "general fantasy rpg" since the beginning. It never included a setting. Of course it has some default gods from i.e. Greyhawk, so you has something to begin with. But the "points of light" is just a buzzword for a concept, not a setting. Also, as I pointed out earlier somewhere, most of you plays fantasy rpgs in PoL style since the beginning - especially if you play Warhammer. Nothing new under the sun.

Sorry but D&D 4e does have a default setting. You may not like that it's not fleshed out like other settings, but it does describe, as some have stated, a generic fantasy world including prices for goods and services, religion, where the races come from, etc. That is a setting. It is all you need to play.

This is why WFRP and D&D are my two favourite RPGs - one with a deep, immersive setting and light rules, the other with a generic, simplistic setting and complex rules. Depending on my mood I can indulge in some pies and mutation fun with WFRP, or some tactical monster bashing with D&D.

Going back to the title of the thread, I think the price is fair, considering the components and apparent quality, but I don't know how fair it will look to those unfortunate enough to have been hit by the recession. I know that if I'd lost my job I'd be looking for a single, chunky rulebook at no more than £20.

Retina said:

No, it's not a setting. It is what is called the implied setting. There's a difference.

macd21 said:

Um, you might want to check your logic there. You're trying to say it's not a setting because it's a setting?

For the record, an implied setting is still a setting, hence the word setting .

But none of this matters as I'm not buying this heresy of a product.

I call semantics! And just to make this post long enough to qualify, I also call shennanigans!

Retina said:

No, it's not. Nor is it simply semantics. DnD 4ed implies there is a setting, but there isn't one. Hence implied setting.

macd21 said:

I don't have the D&D 4e books to look, nor do I have the WFRP 3e rules to look at. But comparing D&D 3.5e core set with WFRP 2e core rules, and they both very much have the same things, which can be construed as a setting.

Character races? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

Character Types? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

Type of Equipment? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

Notes on religion and gods to worship? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

Monsters to fight? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

Sample Adventure? WFRP- Check, D&D-Check

World Map? WFRP- Check, D&D- nope.

So wow, WFRP has a world map, and D&D doesn't. But basically, they both have a setting. Sure, WFRP's is a little more in-depth than D&Ds, but when you come down to it, both are implied. In either case, the GM still has to do a LOT of work to bring the setting to life. Now, it's possible 4e dropped a couple of those things. But basically, if an RPG has a sample adventure and all of the stuff above, it has a setting. It may not be a big setting, but even a tavern in a village of 30 people is a setting. I will agree that the Warhammer world is probably one of the most detailed settings out there by the time you add up all the books - I'm not even sure Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk are as detailed, though they are close.

Now, before continuing the argument over setting, think about RPG rules in general, and what can you actually get away with a rule set not having in order to be playable. Can't play with out some sort of character building rules. Hard to play with out some sort of skill or attribute mechanic. Hard to play without some sort of combat mechanic. Hard to play without some sort of mechanic for creating challenges for the player to face (IE, Monsters, NPCs, etc) But any system that has those four, is quite playable without a setting, provided the GM is willing to provide one. And I'd say about half the GMs out there are willing to so, and some, like myself, prefer their own settings over someone elses. The only examples I can think of for an RPG set without a setting are the original Traveller Little Black Books and possibly the D&D 3/3.5e SRD.

kristof65 said:

No. You left out the fact that WFRP has an actual chapter on the setting. In addition your check list ignores the quantity and quality of the information on each section.

I'm not saying that a setting is required for the game. DnD is a ruleset, not a game setting. Third edition DnD didn't really have any more setting material than 4th does - they claimed that it was set in Greyhawk, but didn't actually provide any real information on what Greyhawk was. 4ed just did away with that and ignored setting altogether.

No, I acknowledged that WFRP has more info - though not in my checklist. My point was that there is setting info in both. Both are "implied" settings, because to truly be a complete setting, it would need to have everything defined - every person, creature, landmass, city, village, etc that GM could possibly need.

I will happily acknowledge that WFRP's core book has more setting info in it than D&Ds 4e core books. But I will not acknowledge that the D&D books don't have setting at all - because in order to make D&D work with my own settings, I've had to deal with removing or modifying their setting info, just like I've had to do that with WFRP.

And if you insist on using the semantics of implied, then I'll insist that WFRP's setting is implied, too, because it's far from complete.

kristof65 said:

I don't think you know what a 'setting' is.

kristof65 said:

4th edition has no setting. It has no cities, no nations, no cultures, and no map. It names gods, but describes no religions. It names several dead empires, but none living nor does it give the history of the empires. It has no dating system and names no dynasty nor local rulers. That's not a setting. That's a few historical details to be inserted into another setting.

Steerpike said:

Steerpike said:

Do you? Perhaps my wording is a ltitle rough because I was trying to make the point that the definition of setting is pretty minimilist in and of itself, but the fact is that setting is merely "the locale and/or period in which the action of a play, story, film, etc, takes place." To add "implied" as a modifier is just downright stupid, and I was attempting to make that point without outright saying so - but since I've been called on it, I will.

D&D has a setting, no matter how minimilist. It's a fantasy world where magic, creatures like elves and dragons exist. WFRP has a much more defined setting. That's the difference, the amount of setting. Thats it. Adding "implied" to the description of one and not the other is just a way of trying to establish a difference between the two games for the purpose of justifying something.

But we're way off track of the thread here, and I'm done with this tangent.

Back to the price point. The price point seems fair for the listed contents and quality. But then again, the price of a new Mercedes is pretty fair for the engineering and quality that goes into it, plus the prestige of the name. Yet there are a lot more people driving Toyota's and Honda's than Mercedes*. With a near $100 price point to get started, compared to the competition, it appears to me that WFRP 3e is setting itself up to be the Mercedes of RPGs - which may or may not work.

*I'm aware that this anaolgy may not work in other parts of the world. But in the US, Mercedes is typically a higher end automobile, while Toyota and Honda run the gamut from inexpensive to lower luxury. If you aren't in the US, subsititute appropriate car makers.

A few points on the main subject

1) $100 is reasonable for four books, lots of dice, and a whole bunch of cards.

2) It is, on the other hand, a lot of money to shell out to find out if you want to play the game. Gamers are a very conservative lot. Look at D&D. It's always been one of the worst games available mechanically and it always had been and still is the market leader, staying ahead based on brand recognition and player loyalty. The fact is that a lot of gamers, for reasons rational and irrational, are going to be leery of a 3rd edition that has serious mechanical changes. They're right when they say 2nd edition, which really was a cleaned up and improved 1st edition, is a pretty good game. I say it with them. It does have flaws and I'm not blind to them, but that doesn't mean 3rd edition won't have equally bad or worse flaws. They are entirely justified in wanting to know how good 3rd edition will be without spending $100 (or however much it is in their home town) to find out what it's like. 2nd edition was released as a single main book (which will be about 1/2 to 2/3 the amount of book text, not counting what's on the cards, of 3rd edition) for substantially less money and so it was less of a commitment to buy the book and find out that mail armour was actually good protection, plate armour rocked, firearms hurt, magic came in colours, naked dwarves who got shot had better get used to bleeding, and a host of other good features.

3) I'm sure that essential components of the game can't be downloaded as pirated PDFs probably isn't coincidental. RPG revenues aren't hot to begin with and I know enough gamers that download rule books that piracy has to be taking a bite out of revenues. The other side of the coin is FFGs boardgame background which makes them a good grasp of what can be done using cards and specialty dice.

I think Cynical Cat is spot on. The fact is that $100 for all the parts and pieces does indeed actually seem to represent a reasonable value overall. People are just comparing the $40-$60 price of the books, when WH3e gives a lot more 'stuff' for the rest of that money (good or bad).

The 'big' issue is that it is a big commitment to find out if you even *like* the game. You can't (as of now) just go buy a single Player's book and get the basics of how to play. That is the true detriment to the $100 price point.

I would like to point out to those comparing prices with other RPGs that they are comparing post-release values. Sure, you can buy copies of older RPGs for prices like $20-$40. However, it is rare that you can do so right at release time. And that is what we are seeing here. Prices fall after a game has been in circulation for a time, both through used copies and a natural price decline over time. In addition, FFG already said that things like dice will be able to be bought separately. I wouldn't be surprised if they released a "Player's Set" that included all the player-necessary items from the main box, or at least those pieces will probably be able to be ordered separately at a later date. Yes, the initial release box set is a lot to shell out at one time. If it is too much for you, then perhaps you should not buy it at release and wait a few months. See if FFG allows the purchase of the books/components separately at a later date. I expect they will, if nothing else than as a means for people to replace lost/damaged components. Buying them piecemeal may spread the cost out over time, but will increase the overall cost. It always does.

Another comparison to D&D. Sure, a DM *could* try to run a game by only buying the DMG (although at least 1 player would need to buy a Player's book). However, most DMs buy the Player's book (so they themselves can occasionally play, as well as familiarizing themselves with what the PCs can do, etc). Assume its a new DM, they also need to buy dice to use. Also, spells for spellcasters have so much information that they are put into their own books. Well, a DM needs to know how spells work if he is to have any spell-casting PC or NPCs, so he'll need to buy those. So, an initial DM actually ends up buying pretty much everything that is being included in the WH3e box set anyway. It has always been more expensive to be a GM than a player.

So, what people are really complaining about is the price point if someone just wants to be a Player, rather than a GM. In this I agree, although it seems like an awful lot of the stuff in the box is actually for the players (the puzzle-tracks, career cards, 3 of the 4 books, dice, etc). Again, though, I expect that after initial release FFG will either come out with a slightly smaller 'player set', or potential players can just order individual parts/books separately.

dvang said:

I agree with your post above.

I only wanted to comment that FFG regularly publishes the rules of their games in PDF format in their website for free for their boardgames. Also, for the RPGs they publish, they have regularly published preview versions where you can play an introductory adventure and get the basics of the game.

I'm pretty sure that at this moment someone in Jay Little's team must be creating this sort of starting guide. In theory, you would need the special dice, but for a basic introductory adventure they may come up with some simple table to convert numerical dice into custom dice so you can use the"good ould dice of yore" (no problems for later sales here, as playing with the custom dice will be quicker and cooler than constantly checking the tables).

kristof65 said:

It's ok Mercedes are generally expensive most places. Sums WFRP3 up nicely and if the accessories (as the Player's Toolkit is) are boxed that will up their prices as well. As previously mentioned in this thread, in the UK boxed items are charged VAT(yeah the t stands for tax), that's why we cheered when rpg's switched to book format as opposed to box. This game is going to be expensive, perhaps good value for what you get, but still expensive. FFG have admitted the iconic Ratcatcher is in the toolkit, what other desirable characters are in that not the core set. Are we really talking about $130 as to what you pay to get the options you want.

To use the vs D&D argument. I didn't switch to 4th Ed as I had plenty of 3.5 stuff I was happy. I am happy with WFRP 2nd edition. I don't need a 3rd edition, certainly at that price. I don't want 4th Ed D&D or WFRP 3rd because of the investment required for them. This is the problem FFG have - existing players don't need a new edition (certainly not an expensive one). To me they are pitching more at newer players but it's still a big chunk of money, other companies can wave their products at those same potential buyers at much cheaper prices.

To go back to the the question at the start of this thread. Is the price crazy? I wasn't say crazy but I think they have made it difficult for themselves.

Cynical Cat said:

Completely agree with you there. It's a bit difficult to stick dice into a pdf. I own a few FFG boardgames, they definitely know their stuff re components. My other belief regards the dice system is to deliberately move away from the previous edition as that was designed by Chris Pramas and others of Green Ronin. They were still being credited on the FFG WFRP 2nd edition products

Cynical Cat said:

Really? Wow.

And I thought 3.5 was a major turn-off due to it's World of Warcraft:y game mechanics. Seems like they went all the way with 4th edition. Like they thought: "Hey, we all know that our players only likes to xp-grind characters into ridiculuous superheroes, so we needn't bother making up 'irrelevant crap' like a game world with nations, cities, ideologies, religions etc. etc. Just toss in monsters and magical weapons and let them roll dice all the time and they will be happy about it."

Varnias Tybalt said:

Actually, that's not the worst of it. Previous editions of D&D haven't included a setting so its really no loss. No the real suckage when it comes to the setting is how they raped the Realms into generic fantasy land to fit 4th edition. I flipped through the 4th edition FR sourcebook and it was a disgrace.

Cynical Cat said:

Realms? Oh that's the different dimensions and stuff right? Where every "realm" is inhabited by everything from mundane people to alien ilithids cruising around in ships that look like deep sea aquatic life.

I never did like that about DnD. The fact that they had to cram exactly EVERYTHING into a single game. I don't know why but I just find it absurd when players start rolling up half-elf, half-dragon-vampires with a grandmother from outer space, bastard PC's.

It's not that im very racist in general nor do I have anything against biracial children, but sometimes these "combinations" seem to cross borders of species rather than races. Pandas don't breed with kangaroo's, why then would elves prefer to spawn offspring with dragons? And why would said spawn of dragon and elf later prefer to go boinking a half-drow half-ilithid, just to produce an "elf-dragon-ilithid-drow kid"? Why would said.. "monstrosity" ever be the target of vampirism? I mean, if I were a vampire I'd probably be a bit selevtive over which prey I sink my teeth into, and a squid/dragon/pointy eared scum abomination does not sound very apetizing at all.

I can go with half-vampires. I can accept half-daemons (daemons have been known to like ****** people and spawn offspring anyway, often leading to the death of the human mother/victim). But there has to be some limitations, but I guess some people don't even like the sound of the word...

Varnias Tybalt said:

No, they left out the setting because that wasn't what they were selling. DnD is a ruleset which can be applied to numerous settings, or the DM can make up his own. Setting material in the core rules is wasted space, because the odds are the customer won't be using it. Nations, cities, ideologies, religions etc are covered in their setting books, which currently include the Forgotten Realms (which has always sucked, but people keep buying it) and Eberron (much better fantasy pulp world) and will include Dark Sun next year (one of the best fantasy settings ever created, for any game - which I'm sure they'll ruin with 4ed).

macd21 said:

I have affection for FR, didn't much like Eberron, and love Dark Sun but fear what 4th edition will do to it. Even the cover art is wretched. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4spot/2009August

macd21 said:

Still doesn't explain the "bastard" characters that tend to sneak in the game. Even the DnD miniatures have bastard species such as Lizardman/Ilithid and other species-transcending wierdness. (I actually have one of those in a cardboard box somewhere )