Varnias Tybalt said:

Totally agree, the news seems to focus on tools that help build up for role playing and less for something else. I was a little perplexed when i first heard the news, but the seminar vids have been quite enlightning on the matter and I'm looking very forward to this.

Blue Wizard said:

I think the most important factor with a change like this is the 'feel' of the game. Who are the characters and what do they do? So far I haven't seen anything to suggest that you can't take a v2 adventure and convert it to v3, or vice versa. The only thing you'd need to change are NPC stats, which were never a problem for me. If that's the case then I think v3 material may be of some use to v2 players.

I'll have to try converting something from one system to another some day, since I've never done it before. I suppose one could continue using the percentile dice and charts in WFRP2 if they wanted to for things like birth location, mutations, etc. I wonder if it would be easy to use all of the careers from the WFRP2, you just wouldn't have a card for some of them. It will be hard to tell until the game comes out. And then there are spells. I don't think I've heard much about the magic system...anybody know?

donbaloo said:

I think they're looking at what happened with D&D 4e, and counting on it to turn out like that - that despite the outcry, enough people are still buying into it to make it successful. But there are two huge differences here - the price point and popularity. The only book needed to play D&D 4e for everyone but the GM is the PH. Which is a far cry from $100. And WFRP isn't nearly as popular as D&D.

kristof65 said:

4 people want to play WH 3, they chip in $25 each and voila!

The point of the cards is that there only needs to be one basic book, so everybody has what they need at theyr fingertips. No need to buy 4 boxes as that would be overkill.

And really, I bet that the books in the box also will be availeble induvidually not long after. Remember that the for D&D 4th ed, the Boxed set was the first thing you could preorder.

KjetilKverndokken said:

RE: Splitting game -

Yeah, I see this suggestion a lot when people object to the price of something. Easy to suggest, but how many people actually do it? And how many friendships survive when a fallout happens over who owns it?

RE: Books available seperately -

After viewing the seminars, I'm not so sure. It's unclear if the cards merely reproduce info in the books, or if the cards themselves are necessary to use the books. If the books aren't that usable without the cards, then there is no point in selling the books by themselves. Like I mentioned in another thread, though - I expect at some point you'll see some sort of "player pack" at a reduced price (and without as much in it)

kristof65 said:

In the seminar there is a part where Jay said that the cards contain information from the books, that they are there to ease bookkeeping, you dont have to flick through the pages if you want to know info that is on a card. He mentions when he talks about the effect cards like (blind, wound etc) that in time if you memorized it you don't even need cards and that they only function as a game aid.

KjetilKverndokken said:

And if 100 people chip in $25 you have $2500. The trick in both cases is to find people willing to contribute. This concept has been discussed several times and if your one of the lucky few GM's who's players will stump up some money good for you. But I think have established that the norm is for the GM to pay the bulk of the costs. Bottom line ask the Players do you want to try WFRPv3? The answer may well be yeah ok give it a go. If you ask the Players do you want to try WFRPv3 at the cost of $25 each? The answer in most groups will probabley be no way.

Foolishboy said:

I think that it has also been established that the GM will also spend far more than $100 on the first few books - the core, the bestiary, the magic book etc. Certainly I expect the price tag to be a barrier to sales, but not as much as people seem to think.

In regards to splitting costs on the box Kristof, I agree that its not likely to happen for most groups. But at the same time, I don't see how WFRP v3 will be any different than most other RPGs out there. Perhaps I'm an outlier but in all my years of roleplaying, wherein I've been the GM 95% of the time, I've pretty regularly absorbed the entry cost for our entire groups gaming. Every edition of D&D that came out, one player (me) covered the buy in for the coreset. In many cases, I also covered the other players's costs for extra handbooks as gifts. My group would probably be happy enough to just pass one book around for an eternity rather than shell out their own cash for books, much to my frustration sometimes. But I digress.

My point is that I really don't see WFRP v3 as being very much different from a lot of the other games we've gotten interested in. The most recent iteration of D&D has $105 buy in. That's what every DM will spend just to get in and run it for his group. No splitting the costs there either, typically. So that's just my point of view. When I saw the price of a hundred dollars for 4 players, it really didn't even raise any flags, as that's what I'm accustomed to seeing. Even WFRP v2 was very similar in buyin cost for me and perhaps a bit more even, as I initially sprung for 2 corebooks, knowing no one else in my group would buy one.

Varnias Tybalt said:

You do realise there is nothing at all to suggest that these pointless new mechanics won't get in the way of the Role Playing part and everything to suggest that it will.

Also this is not a Traditional Roleplaying Game, its actualy what is usualy called an Indy Roleplaying Game, you know the you wear three hats and ballence a squid type...

http://www.weregeek.com/2008/12/05/

Lord_Boofhead said:

From the videos and the explanations it suggested the opposite to me.

kristof65 said:

Four people have paid the same amount of cash. Hence those four people own the game. It's that simple.

As for my own group this wouldn't be very difficult. We only play RPG's at one guy's apartment, so if we were to buy something collectively we'd leave the object in question at his place.

I guess friendship issues over collective owning bottles down to the maturity of the people in question...

Varnias Tybalt said:

So now my issue with the price has to do with having immature friends? Perhaps its more of a matter that Im in the military and my RPG friends ge stationed at different locations across the globe on a regular basis?

Nah, it must be that we are immature.

sepayne7l said:

Cause obviously if the mechanics get in the way of role playing the company will list that fact as a selling point.

Its called advertising and propaganda. They will tell you how great the game is even if they know its crap.

It may be great however, so I am not saying the system wont work.

Im just interested enough in 2E to argue against 3E.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I just responded to an argument about friendships getting ruined due to the fallout of buying something together with your friends. If a friendship consists of mature people, such situations shouldn't happen. Have I made myself clear?

Varnias Tybalt said:

jadrax said:

Really now?

Then I guess it would be inappropriate to inform you that I've bought stuff with friends several times before and our collective ownership of it has NEVER EVER proved to be a problem?

But that won't matter to you, because I live in "fantasy land". The only place in the universe where mature people exists, in contrast to "your" world where every friend, relative or associate acts like an immature child with possessive issues.

Sucks to be you mate. Might I suggest that you try getting better, more mature friends OR (in case you are one of these possessive, immature babies im refering to) just grow up?

Varnias Tybalt said:

jadrax said:

So now you're accusing people capable of joint enterprises to "act like robots"? Or is it that you're trying to say that in order to be a passionate and intersting person, you have to act like an immature c*nt as soon as you've bought something together with one of your friends because neither of you felt like forking out the whole amount of cash because the item in question would be used by everyone anyway?

Is that some darling inferiority complex I smell?

Oh, that's so cute!

Varnias Tybalt said:

You state that having any sort of disagreement is automatically acting immature, that is frankly, very weird.

Some people just don't grasp that putting a smiley right behind a personal insult doesn't automatically make it ironic of funny. Especially if it tend to repeat itself waaaaay too often...

jadrax said:

Yes, in a situation where each owner has paid THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT of cash for an item bought together, there really isn't much room for any sane disagreements over who owns the item in question. The only feasible disagreements that might arise would be the illogical and immature ones. How hard can that be to understand, really?

Im not oblivious to what you are refering to you know, im just saying that it's immature behavior while you try to defend it.

Reasons like: "Well, I paid for the gas and the car used to go and get the thing we bought together, therefore I should be the one who owns it the most." are just one of a myriad of examples typical of immature c*ntlike behaviour. Real grown-ups do not act like that, unless they are either really drunk/stoned or if they are childish people with possessive issues.

And frankly I don't keep such people around as friends. They can be any way they want, but if you act like that with me then im not gonna be able to be friends with you. That does not make me a "robot", nor does it objectively make me "less interesting" or objectively "less passionate" either, and it isn't any form of evidence of me not living in the real world either.

Now if you prefer to make more lenient compromises towars who you keep around as friends and not, then that's your prerogative. But it doesn't make you any better than anyone else, nor does it make you any less/more "robotic", "passionate" or "interesting". It just show that you might be able to put up with a certain amount of bull from the people you call your friends, for good or ill. The reasons why you do this are your own and they are just as valid as anyone elses.

Yet still you felt the urge of interjecting snippy remarks about how another guy handles his friendships and what criteria he has on his friends mature behavior. So yes, inferiority complex certainly comes to mind. And whether you known for it or not really doesn't make a difference. Josef Fritzl wasn't known for digging a cellar and locking up his daughter in it for years while he sexually abused her and even started a family of inbred kids with her until he was discovered either...

Gnutten said:

And some people just doesn't grasp the fact that im not here to try to impress or amuse the rest of you. Hopefully me saying so will have cleared all that "confusion" up...

Varnias Tybalt said:

My defence of the bahaviour is that yes my freinds are occasionally idiots, like every sane human being on earth occasionally is, but they are very much still my friends.