I've been playing RPGs for nearly 20 years now. I guess i'm what you call old school. I've played through an entire gaming store worth of RPGs and even created one or two homebrew systems. I'm reacting to the recent announcement of 3rd edition Warhammer in this post. theres alot of talk going on this forum and RPG.net about this game. now, I havent playtested this game, I havent seen it, havent read any books included with it or anything of that sort. I've just diligently read much of what has already been said about it thus far. so I'll just dive into my rant:

I think old school RPG players will be repulsed by this game. I think it will seem gamist, board-gamey and 'immature' for the older/experienced crowd. I always viewed WFRP and its counterpart Dark Heresy as 'mature' RPGs and somewhat of a counter-culture to Dungeons and Dragons, espescially D&D 4e. once you get into action cards, party sheets and dice pools, you really take a turn into boardgame/cardgame land. sure, it can still be a roleplaying game, but you're really limiting the creativity of the players by forcing them to act only in accordance with thier actions cards or at-will powers. just because you tell a little story along the way doesnt make it a true RPG. now the RPG world is changing, i'll admit. other games like Magic the Gathering and World of Warcraft have all had an impact on RPGs and the demographic who play them. I understand FFG's need to create a new game for a new generation but I find it hard to imagine anyone over the age of 25 really enjoying this game. it almost seems more like a beer & pretzels kind of game. get together, pick some characters, kill some orcs, have a laugh then go home. now, of course we still have WFRP 2e for those of us whiners who just cant adapt to the 'new rpg' environment that D&D 4e is trying to create. but seriously, what is all this chicken-**** quasi-RPG nonsense really about? its more like Gauntlet Legends nowadays. I have my blue attack and my green attack, you have your blue defense and green defense. come on now.

I may give this game a chance, but the more I hear the more it sounds like less of an RPG and more of a boardgame. its like saying that Twilight Imperium is an RPG because you're telling the story of a galactic war.

someone prove me wrong.

You're not the only one. Check out this thread, which covers just about every fact and opinion and rumor:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=149&efcid=3&efidt=176741

From what I've seen on a number of forums, I think that you're wrong. Now, I might be wrong in turn, but here's the impression I've gotten of the nature of the game:

It isn't a boardgame. The cards don't limit your actions any more than a reference table in a book does. Looking up the crit table to find out if someone's head landed 2D6 feet away or just exploded in a bloody mess didn't limit roleplaying, neither will the cards.

The cards aren't there to limit your options. Instead they are there because the results of a test are more complicated than they were for previous editions. In 1/2 ed, a result was a single point on a axis from really bad to really good. In 3ed, you might get a really good result combined with complications. For example, I think the possible results for a simple ranged attack look something like this:

* You miss, you hit, you get a critical hit (+2 damage)

* You get a free manoeuvre

* You suffer a free attack from a nearby enemy

These three results can all result from a single dice roll - so you could get a critical hit, but still suffer a free attack from the enemy. Or miss, but get a free manoeuvre.

The important point is that the nature of what you do at the table hasn't changed much. Your PCs will still be playing the same kinds of adventures - investigating cults, exploring the sewers, defending (or robbing) coaches etc. What's changed is the nature of the dice you roll and the possible outcomes of tests.

Recall your last WFRP session. Now imagine the same session, but replace the edition with 3rd. The only necessary difference (I think) is that instead of rolling a D100 you roll a dice pool, with more variable results.

Fair points. But these meta-descriptors still sound an awful lot like "deal 2[W] damage and shift your enemy 1 square". Sure, in D&D the players are still 'doing the same things' they've always done. they go adventuring, they locate the XP generator, sorry I mean dungeon and they quash the plans of the evil wizard. When the cards start to dictate the action or even results, you're no longer in control. I had no problem coming up with complications for my adventure to add to a PCs success. "you impale the goblin on your sword, but cannot immediatly pull it out. you must spend a half-action to free your blade or switch weapons." 3rd edition seems targetted towards 12 year olds who couldnt be bothered to come up with such things on thier own.

a real test of this game will be revealed by its handling of experience or rewards. if this game starts to award experience weighted towards combat, its a good indicator that this is more of a party/battle/action game and not really a roleplaying game. I suppose I may have to accept that this game will be more of a romp than an epic tale. I even read somewhere that although Fantasy Flight is following the D&D 4e trend, they went a step further with the dice and actions cards to discourage 'piracy' and illegal downloading of PDFs.

Good stuff, mac21.

macd21 said: These three results can all result from a single dice roll - so you could get a critical hit, but still suffer a free attack from the enemy. Or miss, but get a free manoeuvre.

I've thought a little about if you can get multiple results from the same card. I'm not sure you can.

Since there's a 1-hammer result "You hit the target for normal damage" and a 3-hammer result "You hit the target for +2 damage" it might be that you can only take one of them, since they overlap. However, maybe you can apply 4 rolled hammers to attack twice (with one of those attacks at +2 damage).

If you roll enough hammers to trigger effect A and enough eagles to trigger effect B, are they played in the order they're presented on the card, or does the player choose?

I think the 'bad' symbols are Chaos stars, or maybe skulls? I wonder if those trump all other rolls. But since they're at the bottom of the card, if you take all effects from top to bottom, then you might get in a decent attack but still end up with a nasty counter-attack coming your way.

Lot of neat possibilites there, but it seems like it could be really slow to resolve rolls that trigger lots of effects. This makes me think that you only get one result per roll, but I've got no real idea how you'd go about choosing which symbols get used and which don't.

vyrago said:

You're getting the wrong impression. And listening to us speculate about the dice mechanics isn't going to help.

Did you read The Facts About WFRP3 thread? That's the place to start.

It looks like a board game. It's an RPG, and it looks like a **** fine one to me. It might not be your thing, but it's not what you're thinking it is.

If it matters to you, I'm a 20+ year WFRPer and I love both of the earlier editions. If you don't like what you see, I understand because it doesn't look like an RPG to me, either. Somehow, it is.

vyrago said:

If you chose to add such complications to your games, that's your perogative, but that kind of thing annoys many players. And I'm not talking about 12 year olds.

IMO, the cards no more dictate the results than previous editions did, they just add more variables to the results. If you want to add in more complications (such as a sword being stuck in a goblin's head) then you are still free to do so.

Sounds to me, based on your theories and idea, like the system is overly complex and you need to cards or you are lost. Like doing Calculus without a calculator.

Adding fortunes or banes on rolls is a GM/Player effect, not something the dice should dictate. While it may be a RPG, part of the selling point seems to be "the dice help tell the story" and to me that does not just equate results for hit and damage and manuvers or what not, but perhaps when encounters occur, how foes react, and other generally GM/Player controlled aspects.

Im just skeptical and still in the court of sure we could create a new edition, but do we have to?

vyrago said:

Those are kind of meta-descriptors, too -- half-action, switch weapon (which would involve a free action). See what I mean? You're using rules and game terminology to help tell a story.

Same thing in WFRP3. And you'll be using most of the same terms from earlier editions. (Probably not half-actions, though.) Attributes are almost all the same. Skills look like they're about the same, and used in very much the same way. You have careers and gradually get better in them. The GM is in control of the story, from everything that I've seen.

Peacekeeper_b said:

You should be able to record all of the information from the cards onto paper, no problem. The cards are a convenience. That's all they can be in this kind of game. You probably could play it without the cards, but I'll bet it would be really slow and inconvenient. Yeah, it's a marketing strategy but it might also be a great idea for gaming.

I think the intent was not that they wanted to build a complex game just for the sake of complexity. I think they wanted to do more than the previous editions and that's necessarily going to be a more complex game. I think they looked at cards and tokens as a way to keep the complexity manageable.

The dice don't seem to dictate anything story-wise. They seem to help, but never force. Apparently you can ignore the story-affecting results if you want.

PEACEKEEPER_B: Im just skeptical and still in the court of sure we could create a new edition, but do we have to?

It seems the best thing that dedicated V2 players can look forward to is mining V3 for its good ideas and rocking out with WFRP2.3 editions.

Sounds to me, based on your theories and idea, like the system is overly complex and you need to cards or you are lost. Like doing Calculus without a calculator.

Yes, I'd say that without the cards or some form of table, you'd be lost. The point of the cards is that they allow greater complexity without slowing down the game. There are already plenty of games that are far more complex that this. Many are very enjoyable, but gameplay can sometimes slow down to the extent that it becomes boring. Additional complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it doesn't kill the game. The cards are intended to stop that from happening.

Adding fortunes or banes on rolls is a GM/Player effect, not something the dice should dictate.

No. Dice rolls determine certain results for your actions. 1ed and 2ed had a single result from a dice roll, 3ed will have multiple results, for a greater number of possible outcomes. If your group likes to add improv results not covered by the diceroll, so be it - it wasn't something in the RAW for 2ed, it won't be something in the RAW of 3ed, but if you could do it with the former you can do it for the latter.

While it may be a RPG, part of the selling point seems to be "the dice help tell the story" and to me that does not just equate results for hit and damage and manuvers or what not, but perhaps when encounters occur, how foes react, and other generally GM/Player controlled aspects.

"The dice help tell the story" thing seems to be just a case of bad marketing on FFG's part. What they mean is that you can, if you so choose, look at the results on the dice and concoct a story around it. This isn't much different from any RPG with dice (I got a 20 to hit!!! My axe slashes into the monster's hide, spilling his guts onto the floor), but 3ed adds the fact that you can tell what factors influenced the results. For example, Grognar the trollslayer charges the enemy recklessly over dangerous terrain. He rolls his ability dice (2 successes), his reckless dice (1 chaos symbol) and two misfortune dice (1 chaos symbol). Result: a basic hit, but the enemy gets a free attack on him. Looking at the dice, the player desides that Grognars mad charge through the bushes caused him to trip and stumble into the Orc leaving him vulnerable to it's blade, but he manages to maintain enough control to connect his axe to the greenskin's thigh. Had the reckless dice been a success instead of a chaos symbol, he would have scored a critical hit. He could have then described Grognards reckless leap through the bushes, catching the Orc by surprise and smashing his skull in.

DagobahDave said:

A fact that will impact play, if and I stress the "if" you need to use cards and all the other Board Game stuff it will cause issues, Players will mess about with the bits and bobs rather than play.

One of my concerns is that if each player has to set his board with the appropriate card before he acts it may create a much more turn based game rather than the free flowing game play I am used to. In my current games the Initiative Order is barely used except in combat, just because the Dwarf has a low Agility does not mean he waits for everyone to speak before him.

Another concern is the cards, apparently you have cards for skills and talents so you don't have to keep looking them up all the time- well I don't keep looking them up, I have read the rule book, I have a memory, on the plus side if the cards just reiterate info from the books I'll never need to use them.

The picture dice are going to cause me problems, basically because I have a mathematical mind, I will automatically begin working out the chances of rolling whatever needs to be rolled. This probability OCD of mine is why I like percentile systems the maths is already done so I don't spend my time calculating.

Yet another worry is this "the dice tell the story and add narrative". I don't understand how the dice tell the story and more importantly the GM should tell the story and the Players should affect the story. One of the ideas I have seen posted is that you roll the dice and they tell you what happened somehow (I'm not clear on how this works) but that worries me, because under the current system the GM and Players improvise a story and incorperate their interpretations of the dice rolls, which generally means that the effects of the dice are not all important, sure they determine combat but they do not dictate play, the Players and GM decide what happens. If the dice dictate play then instead of improvising a story based on the Players imagination I'm worried that the dice will be like a random script generator and the Players choices will become irrelevant.

This game may be very good and I will probably try it, but if I find myself sat round a table with all the cards and stuff in front of us, playing in a rigid turn order with every action requiring a dice roll then I think FFG will lose me because no matter what spin people try to put on it that will be a Board Game not an rpg. While I try to remain open minded I am just not sure if FFG can deliver.

macd21 said:

What'll be interesting is if the game has a solid way to follow up on those story-based effects. Like in the OP's example, will the GM be able to easily make a spot call such as, "Your enraged Dwarf's mace strikes so deep into the Goblin's chest that you need to take a half action to pull it out or switch weapons." The GM could have a "weapon stuck" card to hand out for those occasions.

But you don't even need it. You're the GM. If you want to invent some system-appropriate tweak, there's nothing that could possibly stop you. It just won't look as nice, but that can't possibly be a complaint if you're looking for rich roleplaying and don't care about the visuals on the cards at all.

Foolishboy said:

Maybe. My players doodle and strum their guitars during play. No matter what's around us, the game's happening in our heads. I can't see that it would hurt to have a bunch of lush Warhammer imagery in front of us at all times, and having the full details of almost any action we want to take placed right in front of us so we rarely have to reach for a book.

But if your players start getting rough with the pieces, you just go, "HEY. I paid A HUNDRED DOLLARS for this stuff. Take it easy." Bad joke, but somebody's gonna end up saying it for real some day.

Yet another worry is this "the dice tell the story and add narrative". I don't understand how the dice tell the story and more importantly the GM should tell the story and the Players should affect the story. One of the ideas I have seen posted is that you roll the dice and they tell you what happened somehow (I'm not clear on how this works) but that worries me, because under the current system the GM and Players improvise a story and incorperate their interpretations of the dice rolls, which generally means that the effects of the dice are not all important, sure they determine combat but they do not dictate play, the Players and GM decide what happens. If the dice dictate play then instead of improvising a story based on the Players imagination I'm worried that the dice will be like a random script generator and the Players choices will become irrelevant.

No, you still improv the story the same way as before. It's just that now the system can give you some additional inspiration, if you want it to. As in the example I gave above - the dice roll resulted in Grognar hitting the orc, but suffering a free attack in return. Now, the player and GM could describe this anyway they wanted to, rationalising the results as they see fit. But with the 3ed system you can see exactly how the choices you made impacted the results. In this case, Grognar suffered the free attack because of his recklessness and the fact that he was moving through difficult terrain. The player could choose to take that into account when describing what happened - or not. It's a factor that some people will like and use, others ignore.

macd21 said:

Please tell me that just speculation on how the story dice may work.

macd21 said:

I think mac's saying that those effects -- the words I've highlighted in the quote -- those are the kinds of story-based effects that the dice should give you. It's nothing more than flavor (well, difficult terrain might have a mechanical effect, but let's skip it for now).

I'm not sure they're entirely story-based, but at least two people from the GenCon seminar mentioned this aspect of the dice.

I think this narrarative dice issue is going to cause problems for some. new players will probably love it, as it 'spices up' otherwise mundane dice rolling. but creative roleplayers will start to see the same results over and over and wish for something more. sure, as a GM when I adjudicate a complication it seems arbitrary and unfair to some. when the dice adjudicate a complication the player can't feel picked on or whine about fairness, cuz the dice said so. what starts to happen is that everything boils down to a few key decisions which correspond to meta-game choices leaving little room for creativity or DM fudging. from what I gather, you chose a combat manuever and a stance to go with it with each combing to dictate which dice from each type are rolled to produce some effect. Lets use the example given above of the dwarf trollslayer and the orc. lets assume the dangerous terrain is a shallow swamp and the player says he wants to wade into the swamp and taunt the orc into joining him in the mire and would like to prepare a savage blow for him when he takes the challenge. how would 3e handle that? I suspect there is no action card for taunt, nor any for readying an action to be used later. im betting its all self contained within your turn and you can do about 7 different things either cautiously or recklessly. Im gonna guess Charge,Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Manuever, Cast Spell, Use Item and Dodge.

vyrago said:

It's hard to say yet without seeing more of the cards, but I seriously doubt they are as limited as you imagine. The above example would be resolved much as it would in 2ed. In 2ed, I might have the Dwarf make a Fel roll if I thought the Orc was reluctant to engage him in melee for some reason, otherwise I'd just have the Orc charge. With 3ed it would be pretty much the same thing. The Dwarf would roll his Fel, possibly with some negative and/or positive dice based on the circumstances.

VYRAGO: I think this narrarative dice issue is going to cause problems for some. new players will probably love it, as it 'spices up' otherwise mundane dice rolling. but creative roleplayers will start to see the same results over and over and wish for something more.

Bear in mind that I only know what I've picked up from the internets. This is what I've put together so far, for what it's worth.

Think of any action you might roll for, whether it's a combat action, lockpicking or a drinking contest. Each situation should be unique, because you're roleplaying. Each lock is different -- the lighting, the amount of time you have, the picks in your kit might not be good for this one. Whatever. You've roleplayed your way to this point, now it's time to roll. The dice add some story element. Hourglass=Time was a factor. Comet=Faith was a factor. Sun=Smarts were a factor.

Succeed or fail, you would have some story element to work with. It's totally random, so you should ignore it if it doesn't help. But if it does help the story, then that drives the next action, maybe in a significant way.

It's going to be different every time, because each situation will be different. No two locks are the same. Now, no two swings of the axe have to be the same. That's pretty cool, I think. It only becomes repetitive if the GM keeps putting the characters into the same situations all the time, right? The game can't make you a good GM, but it sure looks like it's trying to give you every advantage.

VYRAGO: lets assume the dangerous terrain is a shallow swamp and the player says he wants to wade into the swamp and taunt the orc into joining him in the mire and would like to prepare a savage blow for him when he takes the challenge. how would 3e handle that? I suspect there is no action card for taunt...

I don't know how much you can get done on your turn, or how many actions you can take or anything, but I think this is how it's going to go down:

Taunt should be covered by the skill Intimidate. (Or maybe it's its own action. If not, I've created the first house rule for V3. Use Intimidate.) That skill is actually listed for the Troll Slayer.

So you'd make a skill test. Opposed test: your Intimidate vs. the Willpower. I don't know how opposed tests will be handled but I'm sure the game will have them. If the Orc wins the opposed test, your taunt fails. (Oh, and you rolled a Comet.) Something about faith, faith... You threw a religious symbol at the Orc and told him to come taste Ulric's wrath. But he laughed at you and threw back a rude gesture, then told you to come get some Waaaaah! if you really think you're so tough, manling.

Now let's say your taunt is successful and you rolled a Sun along with it. Smarts. Well, that's easy. You quite calmly point out to him that he's the smallest Goblin you've ever seen, and he loses his mind with rage. Here he comes!

VYRAGO: I suspect there is no action... for readying an action to be used later.

Seriously, after the awesome you just read, do you care? Okay, V2 has a Delayed Action. If there's any place for them in the V3 combat system, I'm sure they'll be there.

VYRAGO: im betting its all self contained within your turn and you can do about 7 different things either cautiously or recklessly. Im gonna guess Charge,Melee Attack, Ranged Attack, Manuever, Cast Spell, Use Item and Dodge.

There are also around 20 basic skills listed on the character sheet, so I'd expect to be able to do a lot more, as well. And there are ways to contribute some of your character's abilities to benefit the entire group using the adventuring-party cards, which are going to affect your character (and others) in ways that we haven't really seen yet.

I posted this in the rpg.net thread but since the subject of dice is being discussed a lot here I'll take the liberty of posting it here as well. Again it's from Erifnogard at rpg.net :

"I don't remember mentioning before that one of the neat effects of the dice is that because you get different color dice from different sources (blue for native ability, green for conservative stance, white for fortunate circumstance/tactics, etc) you can read your dice results with a bit of flavor text built in. For example, my priest chooses to conservatively heal the trollslayer and is in a nice clean inn with plenty of rest and food for both parties I would have my ability dice, a couple of which are swapped for conservative dice, and several fortune dice representing the favorable circumstances.

If I succeed, which dice I succeed on tells me a different story. If I succeed primarily on my conservative dice my cleric can snidely point out how lucky the party is that I insisted on getting the smelly dwarf to the inn so I could properly treat his wounds in a proper setting. If I primarily succeed on fortune, I can loudly sing the praises of the gods for favoring my endeavors so. Could I do these things anyway? Sure. The dice just give me a quick story to work with if I want it."

Basically it tells you what modifier or ability actually make you succeed or fail. Of course, you're completely free to ignore this extra spice, or just make up your own reasons. But I actually think that for a lot of people it'll be a cool little mechanic. The group I'm playing with usually don't have any trouble coming up with colourful descriptions for their actions, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't welcome some extra material to work with.

Or, if it's really not your cup of tea, you could ignore it completely; which is how V2 works at the moment. You just lump together all the modifiers and get a single result instead of seeing how the different modifiers actually interact and create a situation.

In any case I fail to see how people would feel limited by this system.

i think the limit is seen in the fact that the more things are codified, the less freedom you have to choose what happens. If the rules offer 5 pieces of official flavour text, then people stick with that. It's sort of funny but the more you help people the less they end up doing off their own bat.

Deal breakers for me are mechanical. Are PCs identical at chargen? Are all sword masters 3 dice WS and 2 dice Dodge? Do NPCs use the same actions as PCs? Ie the oft touted 'ranged shot' ability. Is that a PC only ability or is it just 'an ability' that anyone with a ranged weapon can use?

If the answer to first is yes OR the second no, then I won't be getting it. Individual characters and nonmook NPCs are the reason I got into WFRP in the first place. Without one or both I won't find anything interesting.

Hellebore

It wierd how all of the above explanations of how the system will work are just as much a work of theory and wishfulness as all the "doomsaying" "grognard" arguments on why the system wont work.

And even with the nice and elegant ways some of you have explained how you perceive the system working, my opinion is still the same. Its a system either designed to be expensive with cards, special dice and new updates to enhane your character packs or a system that got so complicated and confusing to play that the cards were added to be play aids as it was easier to design and add them then it was to go back to formula on the game.

Truth is, if what half what half you guys is saying (which, for the record is, "there isnt anything you couldnt do in 2E") is true, then you just proved that a new edition wasnt needed as its all Player/GM preference and you can add, omit or write any rule you want.

Im thankful for all the opinions, thoughts and arguments, but specialized dice, special cards and a fancy box are not enough for me to be tricked into buying a game, that mechanically at heart makes me sick.

Hellebore said:

Why would anyone design a big-name, big-budget, must-succeed game that would be full of such obviously poor design choices? I mean, those would be horrible choices. Awful.