The FAQ extends a hand to the v2 crowd?

By donbaloo2, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Posted at

Hellebore said:

One is the fact that the dice also have failures on them as well as successes. Which means the more of those dice you roll, the higher chance you have of rolling successes as well as failures. Unlike a dice pool system like WoD where you simply roll dice and must equal or beat a specific value. Each additional die simply increases the chances of success. I don't think that the better you get the worse you get, really works.
Posted at

I didn't think the FAQ really gave us anything new, rather it was a compilation of lots of information that we've already seen, either here or elsewhere. We still have no real idea how the game actually works, presumably that will be forthcoming in future designer's diaries (though I thought diaries were meant to be written as you're going along, not after the fact).

That said, there are a couple of things in the FAQ that really worry me:

The use of components and cards allow the GM and the players to "interface" with the game mechanics and their story in new and interesting ways.

The word "interface" just smacks of marketing/business jargon to me, the fact that it's in quotes when it really doesn't need to be just reinforces this impression. Was the FAQ written by the designer(s) or by some marketing guys trying to head off the storm of bad publicity they seem to have unleashed? Either way it's worrying for the implications about how the game design has been approached, are the changes really in the name of creating the best game possible or just the most marketable one?

The component list worries me, that's alot of stuff for an RPG and a lot of stuff that's just asking to get mislaid or damaged. Though at least we now know exactly what we're getting for the high cost.

30 career ability cards, ... 30 career sheets,

Looks like there's only going to be 30 careers in the basic box, not the 40 I've seen quoted elsewhere. Assuming that this includes both basic and advanced careers (as seems to be the case) then that's a pittance compared to what was available in just the core book for WFRP2. Even with 10 more from the toolkit it's still a pittance.

So not much new information. But what we did get just reinforced my initial impression that I don't want this game.

Posted at

ChaosChild said:

The word "interface" just smacks of marketing/business jargon to me, the fact that it's in quotes when it really doesn't need to be just reinforces this impression. Was the FAQ written by the designer(s) or by some marketing guys trying to head off the storm of bad publicity they seem to have unleashed? Either way it's worrying for the implications about how the game design has been approached, are the changes really in the name of creating the best game possible or just the most marketable one?

The term "interface" is used because whoever wrote it couldn't think of a better term for what he was trying to describe, but interface doesn't exactly fit the bill. "Use" or "work with" might have been good alternatives, but again not exactly spot on.

Posted at

I think that's the problem, it's a trendy marketing term being applied to a situation where it just shouldn't be used and it made me cringe just reading it. The problem is, some of the stuff Jay said in the videos makes me think it's not the marketing team who wrote this...

Posted at

ChaosChild said:

I think that's the problem, it's a trendy marketing term being applied to a situation where it just shouldn't be used and it made me cringe just reading it. The problem is, some of the stuff Jay said in the videos makes me think it's not the marketing team who wrote this...

Erm.... how is it a trendy marketing term?

Posted at

If I wanted to "interface" with anything, I'd go play WoW.

Posted at

macd21 said:

ChaosChild said:

I think that's the problem, it's a trendy marketing term being applied to a situation where it just shouldn't be used and it made me cringe just reading it. The problem is, some of the stuff Jay said in the videos makes me think it's not the marketing team who wrote this...

Erm.... how is it a trendy marketing term?

Because it sounds computer related, thus related to video gamers, thus a marketing term used to attract/catch/appeal to video gamers, making the game seem trendy to a market of prospective buyers who normally dont play pen and paper RPGs or WFRP in particular.

Its like in the "what is role playing" section of most role playing rule books where the say "its like make believe, or cowboys and indians", using commom terms to make the game more approachable or acceptable or even attractive to the reader/new player.

Posted at

Peacekeeper_b said:

macd21 said:

ChaosChild said:

I think that's the problem, it's a trendy marketing term being applied to a situation where it just shouldn't be used and it made me cringe just reading it. The problem is, some of the stuff Jay said in the videos makes me think it's not the marketing team who wrote this...

Erm.... how is it a trendy marketing term?

Because it sounds computer related, thus related to video gamers, thus a marketing term used to attract/catch/appeal to video gamers, making the game seem trendy to a market of prospective buyers who normally dont play pen and paper RPGs or WFRP in particular.

Its like in the "what is role playing" section of most role playing rule books where the say "its like make believe, or cowboys and indians", using commom terms to make the game more approachable or acceptable or even attractive to the reader/new player.

Not quite what I was getting at. It's just one of the stereotypical buzzwords used by marketing and management types when they want to spice up whatever it is they're telling you about. You never "use" anything any more, you "interface" with it. I'm surprised nobody's referred to this revolutionary new type of RPG as a "paradigm shift" in gaming.

Posted at

It's been a long time since I was last on your Island. There are days I wish I could have stayed.