I'm very disappointed overall.

If the game was still running by BI, I don't think they would have close the line at this stage (no point to say: "they have closed it even earlier"). I feel WFRP2 could have been developed a bit more.

Concerning the 3ed, I don't like the heroic turn out the game seem to take. Is there still going to have places for career such as the Bonepicker and the Dung Collector? After watching the videos, I doubt this "trashy" aspect will be as present as in WFRP2.

Like with D&D 4th, in this case, I think i'll wait to get WFRP4 or 5 before switching from one system to another. The industry seem to consider one line obsolete after 5 years or so. They seem to have no commitment toward a line and the players who have bought it.

The addition of the Wood Elf is great, but it could have been done as well in WFRP2 with a sourcebook dedicated to them.

If there's no Dung Collector, I'll just make one. The new system appears more granular and narrative oriented than the old one and I think I'll be happy to work with whatever aspects I don't like.

During most of the video I was pretty neutral, actually liked the idea of having a "party character", but when he started showing and explaining the dice pool it was "game over". No way that I am going to play with that.

BR Juergen

Having watched the webinars pushed me toward the "No" camp. Primarily the dice pools that did it. I'll still wait until it is actually released to make a final decision on it, but based on what I know now it is more likely than not I will not buy the game. I agree with another post elsewhere in this forum that they should have had different people work on this.

If the game was still running by BI, I don't think they would have close the line at this stage (no point to say: "they have closed it even earlier"). I feel WFRP2 could have been developed a bit more.

I think that if BI were still running the show, we would have seen the third edition next year instead of this one. The new edition would not have been anything like 3E though, probably closer to Dark Heresy.

Concerning the 3ed, I don't like the heroic turn out the game seem to take. Is there still going to have places for career such as the Bonepicker and the Dung Collector? After watching the videos, I doubt this "trashy" aspect will be as present as in WFRP2.

I think people are making too much of the 'heroic' thing. Jay mentioned several times that there are plenty of characters who have heroism thrust upon them. Basically he was saying that these people are PCs, so weird **** happens to them. This has been the case since v1. In fact that was the entire point of Fate Points - you may be scum, but you are going to survive long enough to have weird **** happen to you. I don't know about the Bonepicker, but the Rat Catcher career will be in the Adventurers Toolkit, so I'm sure there'll be planty of scum-of-the-earth careers.

Like with D&D 4th, in this case, I think i'll wait to get WFRP4 or 5 before switching from one system to another. The industry seem to consider one line obsolete after 5 years or so. They seem to have no commitment toward a line and the players who have bought it.

Correct. Once a game is no longer bringing in enough money to justify further investment in it, the company moves on. This typically means a new or revised edition every 4-6 years.

macd21 said:

But how do they compare with other characters in the world? In WHFRP you could always expect to meet someone on the street who was better at you than things you assumed you were pretty good at.

Think about it, in D&D you can walk into a bar and hand everyone's ass to them. In WHFRP, the barkeep is more advanced than you and can show you by how much the painful way.

We are slightly worried that the new characters will stand slightly too high above their fellow man.

At least I think we are, right guys????

Crazy Aido said:

That's one issue. Although such a thing can be house-ruled, it is sometimes more difficult to do it when the rest of the game is balanced around the assumption of more powerful characters. I like the idea that in Warhammer FRPG the characters aren't so much a cut above. They are rather ordinary but have the opportunity to transform themselves into hero (or to die ignominiously). It will be interesting to see just how far 'above' ordinary characters are when they first start out in the new edition.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I don't think PCs will be better than normal people (except possibly for fortune points). I think it's been confirmed that we'll have Rat Catchers, Apprentice Wizards and Coachman careers - hardly the most powerful examples of the warhammer world. Sure, there'll be wardancer and swordmaster careers - just as there were veteran and champion careers for 2E.

As Mr. Little said in at Gen Con, the ratcatcher will be in the Adventurer's Toolkit, together with other 9 careers.

The fact is that we still do not know what the career progression will be... will we have basic careers and advanced careers? will there be multiple "levels" for every career?

It seems that you can jump from one to another, as Mr. Little explained somewhere (can't remember if it was in the gen con videos or where) based on you present career's "keywords" but it reamains to be seen how this will be handled...

Also it seems characteristic will go from the 100 basis to 10 basis, in relation to the dice system...

I'm still very curious about this game, but some things sound a little strange to me...

As a lot of ppl said... Wait and see!

Dreary_Angel said:

That's the point!

First I was shocked (What have they (FFG) done to my game ) and I was disappointed because of the fear, that there won't be any new material on things not covered yet so soon. But after reading the many posts, posting opinions and questions myself and reading the answers I now calm down. And if the game does nothing else but bringing new aspects to my manner of roleplaying.

And I must say, that I'm a lucky one. My GM will definitely be one of the first buying the box when it is out. So I will have a look at it very soon!!

Dreary_Angel said:

Take a look at the Trollslayer career card. One of the keywords is "basic". I suppose this means there will be basic and advenced careers.

Wow - I take a few days vacation, and now this! I needed the whole day to read all the posts and check out the movies of Jay Little.

So, being an WFRP Grognard from the first hour on (played my first game with the hardcover-v1-rulebook), I have to say, I'm impressed. v3 looks like exactly what I always wanted: Not a lot of books, but rules on variable cards, undefinitely expandable without having to reference three different sources. I do not know the rules in detail by now, but, how bad can they be? I'm sure they are fine, and we GMs do tend to bend the rules, if we don't like them. So, I'm sure the rules are not a problem.

Nowadays you have to please the broad masses to be successful with an RPG (read "D&D"), but I think (or hope) that FFG (or Jay) managed to do the trick for both of us: the mini-players, the D&D'ers, and the old grognards. And with that huge box, I'm sure they can also attract a lot more of the tabletop players. And, using special dice, cards, and all that stuff, it's a little harder for the pirates to make electronic copies of the game. So, more sales, more expansions, more support.

I think this will be my third and last edition of WFRP, but I have the feeling it will be the best version ever. Can't wait to get my hands on it!

Time to end my needless lurking and get involved. There have been many excellent points made about 3rd edition here, and my gaming group have had time to mull over the news and discuss it a little. Like many of you we have fluctuated between bouts of excitement and despair, and here lies the most disheartening thing. I can see what the designers have tried to do, for all the right reasons, but I think it will be fundamentally flawed, and that this will only have a detrimental effect in the long run on WFRP as a system and a setting.

There are so many things that FFG do well - namely, the quality of the resources and the care that goes into the product, and there are features of the new game that I think will be interesting and even innovative - I think the party profile, although a little ham fisted in the tension between players idea, still looks good in terms of more of a group dynamic. The cards and the character sheets actually look and sound quite a good idea (albeit taking up a lot of space), and I think that the introduction of more background and differences between the two Elven races sounds intriguing and colourful.

However, I agree totally with the point made about the two dimensional nature of having ALL Dwarf characters come from the same hold, and the role of the GM I feel has been needlessly dumbed down. The GM should not, and never has been an 'opponent' in a role-play setting. The new dice remove the interpretation of combat that the GM can provide, and the game comes to rest more in the hands of the players, using the mechanics and resources to craft their own story, rather than the GM being the prime mover and shaker. I might be wrong here, and would welcome other opinions, but this is the way I see it.

As a player and owner of both 1st and 2nd edition materials, I have a long history with this game - one of the things I mind the most is the lost potential of 2nd edition ending here. It looked that FFG, unlike BI (who admittedly made a really good go at it) and GW before that, would actually expand the setting to new areas. Now, it looks more likely that the same material will simply be rehashed and that when this material has been more or less reproduced a new edition will come out. Why not stay with the 2nd ed line as well, and release a Lustria supplement, or an Dwarf / Elf supplement or more scenarios etc?

The advantage, as I've said before, of some systems like CoC, and their endurance, has been that the main system does not change, but becomes more enhanced with each new edition, so that the RPG is actually backwards compatible, and that you can develop and enrich the franchise rather than estrange your customer base. I am not ready to give up completely on 3rd edition - as a board games player as well, there is stuff to recomend this. But I cannot imagine as some others have already, that the target market are going to buy into this one - while established gamers seem, in the main, to be at least bemused if not hostile to this change.

I agree that in Jay's description of GM role he was basically saying things that all the already established RPGers know already. That's why I wonder if he was talking more to a new crowd with those statements, in specifically some of FFG's established customers that already play something like Descent where the "GM" is most assuredly playing against the players. Our opinions differ RedMike on the notion of v3 taking authority out of the hands of the GM though. I honestly didn't see anything in the presentation that hinted at changing the GM's role as I and gamers I know I see it. We may see some mechanics that offer players a bit more narrative authority from moment to moment, which is simply a taste of some of the more narrative focused indie influence that may be creeping into WFRP, but nothing that fundamentally changes the GMs role.

My impression of folks opinion of v3 thus far differs with yours as well. Though I'm still not sure of what they're target market may be, though I expect it to be new WFRP gamers, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the established gamers are bemused or hostile. I have a couple decades of gaming in my past and I'm rather excited about seeing more of this design. My impression is, as always on the internet, we're seeing a very vocal minority sounding they're displeasure with the change. And not unexpectedly. I guess there's no way to know for sure whether its gonna bomb or not at this point, but I get the impression that folks are interested and open to seeing v3.

RedMike said:

And I'd be interested in all of those, IF they weren't changing an existing RPG system. I'd be far more interested in this rule system if it were tied to a popular property that didn't currently have an RPG.

To put my concerns to rest I really need to havea look at the career system. Already the number of careers are far less then we're used to and with plenty of race specific careers such as the blade master and troll slayer we may have even less careers to choose from once we have chosen a race. Also, if all the careers are heroic, well, that's another step in the wrong direction for me.

We'll just have to wait and see!

Foolishboy said:

This is basically where I am, though the final point is not something I think about all that much.

After seeing the infoclips, I have a more concerns about the implied constraints alot of the new things add.

Not that it matters realy, since I cant see me getting this edition (unless I find it really cheap), though would try it at least once.

As far as I can see it isn't WHFRP as we know it and love it. One thing I like most about wh is that combat is so dangerous - it makes people think and avoid it where possible. Is that the same for this game? Is this game as realistic? (What they did with criticals makes me doubt it to be honest.) So I think I will prefer 2e as an RPG (and hope to be proved wrong).

However: If this is the only way that we'll get great new source material and adventures released then fair enough. At the moment my most likely approach will be to get 3E and look at what improvements they have made then reverse engineer them into 2E.

So, good points: Maybe it'll keep the world alive and mean that they release new stuff for it. Maybe it'll have great adventure ideas. (I still take a lot of 1E stuff, and even some of the more 'intellectual' (i.e. less combat oriented) ideas from things like 3E D&D.

Bad points: As it stands it looks like a cross between WHFRP and descent (skill, feat cards anyone?). E.g. the character sheet seems a little in your face in my opinion. Maybe it's just the way we play but combat is rare, and we definitely have no need to constantly refer to the character sheets (most of the important stats are on the DM cheat-sheet anyway - for quick reference without asking the players). Is it just me or is this overkill? How often do you need to refer to your character sheets in play? How often do you resort to combat? (In DnD combat was very common - but the WHFRP focus on story is why we play it - for combat we go DnD anyway.)

My main question is: Is what we love about WHFRP, and the only reason we play this instead of other systems, still there in 3E? (My bad suspicion is not.) Basically it's that the focus is on role-play, story and not combat. (Most of the demo seemed to be about simplifying it for people who can't use a pen (i.e. fill in a character sheet) or adding combat options (e.g. stance) - which wasn't promising.)

What I'll do depends on the price in the UK. If it's reasonable (e.g. buying online) then I'll probably get the basic set and see whether it's worth taking things from to put back into 2E, and see whether the theme is still sensible. If it still has the WHFRP feel then I may even give it a go.

I'll also probably get any expansions that don't just mirror the 2E material - useful source material and interesting adventure ideas to utilise is never a bad thing, and if the only way they will release them is under a new version then it's something I'll have to live with.

What I would like to know from people is:

Why do you play 2E?

What do you like about it?

How often do you have combats?

How often do you need to refer to the character sheets?

Then I'll know whether I'm just the odd one out.

My worry is that 3E is designed on a falacy - to promote roleplay you need more rules to aid. I'd suggest that the converse is the case in my experience.

I actually prefer 2E to 1E. I thought the rules were better and more streamlined/consistent. I'm definitely not afraid to change and my immediate thoughts on hearing of a new version were actually positive. Until I saw the videos I love descent (especially for 2 players where 1 takes 4 heroes, and have all the boxes). I love WHFRP (and have virtually all the books). But for different reasons and they are very different games (e.g. plentiful combat vs little combat and lots of RP and problem solving/intrigue) and serve different purposes. Why hybridise?

fransys said:

1) Everyone in the group agrees its better in terms of rules than the 1 edition. Its essentially much quicker to run. If you mean why plat WFRP in the first place, we like the 'realism' it offers rather than D&D's fantasy super-heros approach.

2) The way you can effortlessly create a world with real depth and for want of a better term, grit.

3) As a rule of thub I aim to have a combat 1 out of 3 sessions in an RPG, with WFRP I have dropped that to around 1 in 5.

4) Pretty commonly, I tend to modify the success of the player's role-play with their stats. Dice rolls are pretty uncommon though.

Thanks, yes I meant why play WHFRP, and what do you like about it.

I agree about modifying success by stats - hence the GM cheat sheet to avoid having to ask players all the times. This avoids lots of looking at sheets - so do we really want them laid out on the table all of the time. At least I'm not unique in having few combats. Thx

On the other hand, playing DnD we have lots of combat, comparatively, but it's a lot safer. And for the real combat fests we play LAN Neverwinter nights because it handles the combat for us.

So, does new WHFRP risk losing the traits that make people play it? (The videos worried me about this, but maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.)

@ fransys:

(using jadrax's numbers)

1. Because, while not perfect, it's much improved over 1e, and until recently, better availability than 1e. The Career Compendium alone makes it better than 1e, simply because it's one stop shopping for careers.

2. Everything I like about 2e is pretty much the same things about 1e. Combat is deadly, which makes players think twice before entering combat, even if it is a lowly goblin. Despite not having heroic stats, PCs feel more heroic for the things they manage to accomplish simply because they know that they could be taken out at any time by a sneaky backstabbing goblin (or barmaid) with a knife. Another factor as a player - though I've had more than 1 WFRP character die, I've never felt like it was either because the GM was out to get me or that he made a mistake and over estimated the party's capabilities. In D&D, however, I've actually resented a few PC deaths, because they only way they could happen was for the GM to make the situation overkill. Interesting, isn't it, how PC deaths in a system where you can die quickly from a fluke of the dice is more acceptable than in a system where you can't die easily, and if you happen to, you can get resurrected?

3. I try to have at least a small combat every other session, but this isn't a hard and fast rule. Generally, as a GM, I'll only "force" a combat every 5-6 sessions - the rest of the time, it's up to the players to push something to combat or not. As a player, I try and avoid combat unless I'm absolutely sure the party can win.

4. Not often. As a player, by the time you're a few sessions in, you tend have a pretty good feel for your abilities. I rarely have to refer to my PC sheet during combat, save to track wounds. As a GM, I use a GM info sheet I have the players fill out every session, and I'll refer to that several times a session.

1 & 2: I play WFRP for a number of reasons. I love the Warhammer background, I've been playing WFB for almost 20 years, and WFRP is a take on it that you just don't get in WFB. On top of this, it's one of the best rules systems I've ever come across. Sure there are a few niggly things wrong (nothing's perfect after all) but for the most part I've always found the rules to be straightforward and largely intuitive.

Add to that the fact that combat can be extremely deadly if you don't apply some real thought to it and that your heroes are not really that much more powerful than the people around them and you wind up with a game where the system rewards players who actually put some thought into the situations presented to them, rather than just running off to kill the monster and steal his stuff.

3: Depends which of my players you ask; some would say not enough while others would say too much. I try to throw in a reasonably serious combat every 2-3 sessions, otherwise the more combat-oriented players start getting angsty.

4: Reasonably often, generally when I ask for a more obscure skill check. Everyone tends to know the more common stuff (combat stats, gossip checks, magic) off the top of their heads anyway.

The more I read/hear about v3 the more I am realizing that I'll probably stick with v2. Not out of any malice or hatred towards FFG, but I just like the system of v2 and the ease of v1 conversions. That and my regular WFRP group struggles in learning new things and the new dice pool mechanics would be enough to send them over the edge and force me into a straight jacket after explaining it to them for the umpteenth time. What I will do is pick up any splat books they release for geography and races. If they fail at fluff then I suppose I won't buy anything in the new edition but v2 will destroy player characters for years to come in my house regardless.

What would get me to flat out buy v3 and test it in a serious way is if they take on the monstrous and heretical task of converting Enemy Within as an official v3 release. If they could pull it off it would tell me a lot about FFG's dedication to the continuation of the line. If they could capture every awesome nuance and delightful aspect of that campaign...It would prove to me that Jay and his crew don't mess around when they say they like this game. It would show that v3 isn't as far off the mark as I may think. It would validate the new mechanics. And it would give new players/gm's a chance to embark on a whip-arse ride through the Old World. Conversely if they did it badly then it would just give me cause to issue a sad smile and steer clear of the new WFRP shelf at my game store and retreat to the internet for v1/v2 as we're all used to doing in bad times.

As ever, I'm in the audience with my popcorn and my lynching rope...waiting to decide which to go for.

I'm still very excited. I've played both incarnations of WFRP from way back in 86 and while each incarnation had it's problems the rich world was always what drew me back, at one time I actually tried using the Deadlands system but the Warhammer world.

So with this third edition I like some of the innovations that they're planning on using. Though some of my more indie based friends would say these aren't entirely new ideas.

Looking forward to it and I will be purchasing the game with out hesitation.

I don't see myself switching to 3rd edition. I don't doubt it will be a good system, FFG do produce good stuff

But ..

I have a system that works and loads of material for it. More material for 2nd edition was what I was looking for. The crux of the matter is that I do not NEED a new WFRP system. The boxed set system will also push up the price i.e. in countries like the U.K. that means now, that it is not in purely book format, V.A.T. is applicable which will push the price up again. I reckon it will be near £70 in the U.K. which is a hell of a amount. Yes there will be loads in the box and in that regard good value for money but that's a sizable sum in one hit. What other rpg costs that much and bearing in mind we are in tough economic times - can't see it

The switch to dice pool. I don't see anything that difficulty modifiers could'nt take care off. How successful? use degrees of success, how much lower you roll compared to the target number can give you that.

Reduced careers - nuff said

Ratcatcher in Player's Toolkit - sounds a bit of a cynical marketing ploy

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the lack of communication I think helped fan the flames of dissent. Compare it to Paizo, who said they were going to modify 3.5 into their Pathfinder system - huge communication with the fans, I have even exchanged tips with those guys about music on their forums

I understand the business need for a 3rd edition. RPG lines sell with a new corebook. As to the physical components of the new edition, on other forums it has been suggested this could be meant as a counter illegal pdf mechanism. I think also seeing as "Shades of Empire", a wholly FFG product unless I am mistaken, still had a Green Ronin credit on the back, I suspect the new edition had to be sufficiently different so that the only parties involved are FFG and GW. Again a business decision, not always what a fan wants (Black Industries a case in point)

3rd edition strikes as probably a great system for new players. Not convinced it can give anything new to a decent GM and players already familiar with WFRP. I do know someone who will be buying it, so I will at least play it at some point, just can't see me running (that guy lives halfway up the country) as I can see myself forking out that kind of cash