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.

The same could be said of 2e - why bother making a second edition?

Saying that you can perform the same kinds of actions in 3 as you could 2 doesn't mean there haven't been changes. There quite obviously have. The question is whether those changes are improvements or not. Someone can climb a wall in 2e and 3e, but you roll different dice, have different options and have different outcomes. Which results in a better play experience? We won't know for sure until the game is released and the fanbase has a chance to try it out.

I don’t understand why people are so up in arms I play/played first edition WHFRP and yeah it’s a good game and a nice world, but it’s far from perfect. I think it’s good for a designer to want to update things and stamp their own mark on the product.

Yes the cost is fairly high when compare to other rpgs, but it seems to contain a fairly expansive list of items and when you compare it to some of the larger board games or games that require multiple books to run the divide is not so big.

People winged and moaned about 4e, but 1000’s of people still bought and are playing it at this very moment and so it will be with WFRP 3e.

DagobahDave said:

I'm not really confidant it won't end up like that. As i've said before, using dice as skill pips means changing by just one die is a massive difference. So for balance sake each career would have to produce a character with the same die values for each characteristic. There's no way Str1 can balance against PCs with Str4 due to the reliance on specialist dice with a small chance of rolling successes.

I find most D&D characters start the game virtually identical within their class because the players always min max the stats (and 4th simply encourages this). Miraculously all wizards have pretty much the same stats.

D&D also gives all the special attack and ability cards to the PCs. NPCs have a very tiny range of things to do. My lvl 8 Shaman has something like 10 or more ability cards unique to him.

Or are you just trying to get me to make fun of D&D4th ed?

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

Well, I see what you mean, but the coin has two sides. I tried playing Dark Heresy with a group of players who didn't have much experience with roleplaying. They did pretty well overall but they often struggled with coming up with imaginery descriptions for their actions and I think a system like this would have given them that little extra help needed. As for old rpg veterans like us I think it would be easy enough to just ignore the specifics of the dots and just see how many you get. For me personally, it seems like a good mechanic to add some extra flavour.

The biggest reason that I'm positively inclined towards V3 is actually FFGs track record. I've been playing their games for many years before they acquired the GW license and I think they turn out top-notch products. What I've seen so far of V3 certainly looks interesting, but it's mainly my faith in FFG that keeps me from (hopefully) unnecessary worrying.

I completly agree with Vyrago.

The 3ed seems to try to reach the kiddies that play WAR and dont have a clue what real roleplay is. In a roleplay the players and the Gm tell the story together, not the dice. And actualy i dont see something realy narrativ in "you deal +2 damage" or "you gain an extra manoevre".

What i see is, that WHFRPG is getting into a new direction because now its more economic.

Yes i admit, a lot of the ideas in the new edition might be realy good and fun, but this ist not why FFG changed it. Everytime economy gets involved into something, the spirit gets lost and the price goes up.

And there is mor to criticise. The point with the cards... soon you ll have so many cards, you ll just lose the oversight.

The tokens... why tokens??? to justify a higer price (look at the quality of the tokens, the production cost is 1 cent per token, but they sell them for 30 cent)

it maybe a new game, and it may be fun and modern, but its a spiritless something that wants to pull out the money of your pockets (yes i know, every company wants that, but i dont want it in that way).

vyrago said:

How do you suggest anyone do that when the game isn't even out yet?

the more I read just puts me off all the more, plus the price, to put down that sort of cash all in one go for something you may not like is going to be hard for some.

then we have this new system, wtf? what was it? over 30 dice? no thanks % works just fine. so after all this time FFG feel the need to change the system, who told them the old one was not working?

plus as one parting shot, some of the best games I've run/played in had very few (one or 2 in 4 hours) or no dice rolling, we ROLE played for hours,

FFG at this point it looks (to me and this is only my 2 pence worth) to have got it wrong, I so hope I'm the one who is wrong but the shite i'm reading about this ROLL PLAYING BOARD GAME is doing nothing to impress so far bar the artwork.

good luck FFG lets hope you have not dropped this very costly ball!

HELLEBORE: There's no way Str1 can balance against PCs with Str4 due to the reliance on specialist dice with a small chance of rolling successes.

When you're reverse-engineering a game system based on fragmentary information, the words "there's no way" should never be used! Help us figure out how they solved it, not how they put up with it.

I've told you how I think they solved it, by thinking it's ok for the game design to be that way.

Hellebore

I agree with most

Dont worry; im sure we can convert any new material to 2nd ed

Im a worried because adding more junkloads of dice & cards donsent make a good rpg... (still need more info from FFG) saw one screen shot from gencon with 20 dice on the slide... ouch throw in cards in cards. (all of which i can see getting lost behind a couch) I get the feeling its WFRP - JR Ed and the cost....

FFG's handeling of the V3 realese has been poor (Cannot understand why they didnt release the full vid from Jay's presentation)

VonMoose said:

That's the DYI-spirit I like to see in roleplayers!

So what if the next edition will be in a new type of format? If there new things are released for it, just convert it to the edition you like the most and be happy about it. Instead of moaning and bashing and acting like it's the end of the world like some here have done.

Varnias Tybalt said:

You have obviously never been in a debate before. We are under no obligation to prove you incorrect, the burden of proof is on you to prove your case.

MILLANDSON said:

Have you ever been in a debate before?

vyrago has put forward his opinion and then thrown down the challenge of proving him wrong, opening the forum to present counter arguments.

That's how a debate goes, one side lays out an argument the other side makes a counter argument. If no counter argument is forthcoming then "silence denotes acceptance" comes into play. If nobody posts a counter argument vyrago wins the debate by default if nothing else.

VonMoose said:

This was a clever selling point of WFRPv2 they released supplements full of new information like Children of the Horned Rat. Which the pro-WFRPv1 fans found hard to resist and many changed edition in order to use the new material without having to rewrite it for WFRPV1. So if FFG want people to change to WFRPv3 a good idea would be sourcebooks covering new areas.

Foolishboy said:

**** right.

Putting the mechanics of WFRP3 to one side, I'm still interested in purchasing supplements that give new background information.

The cards, tokens, and sheets in this set are all things that have been missing from every RPG since they stopped doing really slick box sets.

What you dont realise is this whole time you have been playing 3.5 or countless other systems is that classes, feats, talents, weapons, edges, Disadvantages are all information that should have been on a card this whole time.

So you have a card that outlines the rules for making an attack, does that make it any easer of a "character choice" to resort to violence?

In Dark Heresy (and to an extent, WFRP 2.0), some combat has been as complicated as this:

PC wants to attack an Orc

PC has already suffered a critical hit from earlier (blood in his eyes), so he gets -10 to his attack roll

PC has higher ground than the Orc, so he gets +10 to his attack roll

PC is attacking defensively, incurring a -10 penalty to his attack roll

PC is standing in thigh deep snow, incurring another -10 penalty to his attack roll

The orc is being flanked by another PC, so the attacker gets a +10 bonus to his attack roll.

Half of those rules had to be checked out in the rulebook to make sure. Luckily, I made a quick reference table outlining these bonuses and penalties.

Even then, some quick math had to be done- at 11PM, already a bit drunk, this took a second or two to figure out. God forbid someone else mentioned another modifier we hadn't included yet.

If these new dice will make it as simple as adding a "danger die" to the attack dice pool for every complication or penalty mentioned above, it could potentially speed up gameplay quite a bit.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Because some of us have to work for a living and don't have the time to convert everything to a set of rules we're comfortable with. Especially when the rules changes are a extreme as they are in this case.

Some of us are also extremely grateful for pre-written adventures (even ones with as many problems as TTT) with pre-generated characters, at least as a framework to build on, because otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough time to prep everything before the next session.

So some of us are extremely disappointed that we won't be getting anything more in this vein, effectively curtailing our enjoyment of one of the finest RPGs available.

I think you guys are going about this the wrong way.

The way I see it, you roll a number of dice (in v2 a D100), with certain (mis)fortune dice added because of circumstances (in v2 a -10/+10 modifier), and you explain the result based on the outcome of the roll (meaning you don't just make stuff up (no pun intended) to say how you succeeded, since everything was there in the first place and was added to the roll).

So, in the end, if you roleplayed the barely success of a test in v2 (a role that would have been a total failure if it hadn't been for that +20 modifier), I see no reason why you can't do it now.

As for damage being greater with more hammers or eagles or whatever, no, that's not the narrative or RP aspect. That's LISTENING to the fans! Check the v2 board and you'll see lots of fans making up houserules that base damage on the degrees of success. They just made that official.

DagobahDave said:

DagobahDave said:

I hate that metalanguage. V1 had less than v2 and was better on that aspect for it.

If V3 can reduce the use of metalanguage around the table, I'll love it.

vyrago said:

What about "use skill", it's bound to be there, as in v2.

Use your Intimidate skill to taunt the fellah, and then delay an attack to gain initiative when he approaches.

I would be surprised if this isn't possible in V3.

Personnally, I like the idea of having multiple results related to which dice were used that mac21 described.

As GM, it will help me devise a good description that is actually tied to what mechanically happened. It makes my job easier.

(In my game, I like to go over results and add flavor and secondary effects using the DoS and DoF as guide. Only that way, fumbles only happen on a missed roll. If I had a fumble on a success, players will say I'm picking on them ! )

Poe said:

I agree. I actually do it already if, for example, someone barely makes a roll that I had given a +20% bonus to, I'll describe the favorable conditions as being the determining factor in the outcome. Having more "info" about what made the difference in the end is interesting for describing the action.

Foolishboy said:

Arguments are fine and dandy but in order to PROVE someone wrong you need... *drumroll* PROOF!

Since the game hasn't even been released yet and only a small portion of aspects and details that MIGHT be included in it (we have no idea what FFG might decide to include or scrap of the stuff revealed so far), it is IMPOSSIBLE to present anything in the form of proof.

While arguments do hold the ability to CONVINCE someone into changing opinion, arguments alone can never PROVE anyone wrong or right without proof.

If you're going to try correcting someone, do it right before writing...

ChaosChild said:

Are you implying that I and other DIY-enthusiasts DON'T work for a living?

Mind sharing what you base those assumptions on?

Like ny working person I assume you have spare time as well? (I mean you seem to have the time playing RPG's so it's logical to assume that you don't work 24/7).

It's all about prioritising your spare time, if you don't feel like doing the proper conversions then that's your perogative. And if you feel disappointed over the fact that someone else won't do that work for you, then that's your prerogative as well.

But there is a limit to how much moaning in disappointment a person can justifiably do, and that limit has been overstepped countless times in this particular forum...

As I understand it, there are those who have already seen this game in action at Gen Con and been to seminars held by FFG. I wont comment on the playtesters since I know they are bound by an NDA. but seriously, what is all the secrecy about?