The Future of WFRP 3ed

By ffgfan, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Posted at

Foolishboy said:

A lot of D&D 1-3.5 fans say that the best thing to come from D&D4 will be D&D5. For everyone who has a go at the ranters, I understand why they are so upset, they do love WFRP that's the problem, because as they see it the new game is not WFRP, it is some random ruleset with a recognisible name stuck to it. I can understand why WFRP 1&2 fans will say the best thing that could happen to WFRPv3 is failure and then move on to WFRPv4. I have not passed judgement on this game yet, there are elements that concern me and I am already planning on houseruling out several of what I see as the kiddies aids, in spite of this I will most likely buy the game and give it chance, if I don't like it I'll sell it on ebay or pop it on the shelf.

Yes, I realize what I said is probably harsh, but you understand my thinking as to why I'd like to see it fail. I want to see a 4E by another company that are true fans of the original game that has some cross over with 1&2. Typically with new editions there is some crossover, but this is truly a new game. I really had wanted a 3E originally and I wanted to support the game when I heard about it, but how they've marketed the game, by splitting up player content into multiple supplements and darn near require all these playing pieces to manage your character I can't support it on principle alone. I've gone on a rant today after reading the FAQ section and about how to make a character in this new edition. I come to this site occasionally still hoping to read more about the new edition, hoping all my fears are wrong, but the more I read the more I'm repulsed by it. I swear I'd rather see another WFRP Dark Age then this.

Posted at

lordsneek said:

onlinechaos said:

I'm hoping 3E fails.

So much for you being a "true" fan of warhammer. I am not saying you have to buy the game to be fan but at least try and support it. This is 3rd edtion WFRP after all. I thought WFRP was a well loved game that had a good fan base. Well, I guess I was wrong because people are so quick to hate the game they used to love so much. This is still WFRP and it's not a board game.

I can understand his hoping it will fail - I've had bouts of it myself. And it is possible to be a fan of WFRP without being a fan of the setting. I like WFRP 1e and 2e because of the game mechanics, not the setting. So yeah, I don't give a rat's crap about the new edition, because the game mechanics are too far removed from what I liked about WFRP.

I don't really want it to fail completely, because that's bad overall. I guess what I'm really hoping though is that 3e isn't so succesful that Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader get converted to it the same mechanics. Because I like DH as it is. Other than that, I think I've come to terms with 2e being abandoned, knowing that it will be no worse than the days of 1e before 2e came along.

Posted at

The future? Here is the future:

On this and other internet forums conservative reactionaries are going to whine and moan about the game while knowing very little about it and call themselves "true fans" and argue with people who want to at least see the game before deciding if it sucks.

Then it will come out. At this point it will be:

1) Awesome

2) Fairly good

3) Suck

4) Truly awful.

If it is widely recognized as 1) or 2) (and this could take some time) then it'll become the standard. Holdouts will continue to play v2 or (god help them) v1, but they'll represent a minority that will dwindle into a tiny group.

If widely recognized to be 3) or 4) then a lot of people will continue playing v2.

Posted at

cogollo said:

Some examples of what I said about adventures and campaigns:

1. Instead of a book about Orcs, why not a campaign that features an Orc invasion or Goblinoid attacks? Maybe the Orcs are attacking at the behest of one Noble that wishes to destroy an enemy or get more funds from the Empire to defend against the "invasion". During the different scenarios, lots of lore about Orcs and Goblinoids could be introduced in the books "à la Enemy WIthin".

2. Instead of a book about Undead, how about a campaign where the players are Vampire Hunters? It may start when their village is attacked by Zombies and they decide to avenge themselves. Scenario after scenario, the players would get involved with more powerful Undead and a lot of lore could be introduced.

3. Same thing with the Skavens. Here there could be a nasty plague or strange experiments, or simply trying to prove to the world that Skavens do exist (and some powerful Noble will oppose this for reasons of his own).

4. Chaos, cultists, thieves' guilds, .... the possibilities are endless.

I prefer the above: it gives more information and possibilities than just one lore book. Actually focusing too much in lorebooks and not enough on adventures+campaigns is, in my opinion, the reason why many very nice games don't have success... people get bored of buying lorebooks and completing a sort of "encyclopedia". Also, it gives more chances for FFG to keep selling books, thus augmenting the time they could keep publishing for the same edition (again, and sorry for repeating myself, look at Paizo's example with D&D 3.5).

In my case, I am very excited about WFRP so I'll buy all books that come out (as I did with 2nd edition) though I would prefer to see a bigger weight given to adventures and campaigns.

... and that would turn me off buying them. If it's a campaign book, then it perhaps introduces a few extra bits here and there, but there needs to be a focus on the lore. The reason it works with Path of the Damned was that a city only needs so much coverage to work - whereas when you are covering a RACE then you need a lot more detail.

YMMV.

Posted at

phobiandarkmoon said:

... and that would turn me off buying them. If it's a campaign book, then it perhaps introduces a few extra bits here and there, but there needs to be a focus on the lore. The reason it works with Path of the Damned was that a city only needs so much coverage to work - whereas when you are covering a RACE then you need a lot more detail.

YMMV.

I'm wondering if this is where FFG will see their biggest divide in consumer opinion. For example, I'm with cogollo, I'd like to see world information and supplemental expansion tied in with published adventures. Ten years ago, I wouldn't have. But now I want a total package to maximize my time. The gazetteer approach, with a new book spouting reams of encyclopedic information for each race, country and oddity will not interest me. Tie the crux of the information to a good adventure and I'm hooked.

Posted at

donbaloo said:

phobiandarkmoon said:

... and that would turn me off buying them. If it's a campaign book, then it perhaps introduces a few extra bits here and there, but there needs to be a focus on the lore. The reason it works with Path of the Damned was that a city only needs so much coverage to work - whereas when you are covering a RACE then you need a lot more detail.

YMMV.

I'm wondering if this is where FFG will see their biggest divide in consumer opinion. For example, I'm with cogollo, I'd like to see world information and supplemental expansion tied in with published adventures. Ten years ago, I wouldn't have. But now I want a total package to maximize my time. The gazetteer approach, with a new book spouting reams of encyclopedic information for each race, country and oddity will not interest me. Tie the crux of the information to a good adventure and I'm hooked.

I think that the two groups has always existed. I'm sure there has always been people who prefer adventures/campaign books and people who prefer lore/gazetteer books. I think it comes from the style of play.

Those who like more to stick to a straight story (and dont have time to write stories of their own) want adventures from books. Just like you said. Time is mostly the matter. Players who never GM dont see the effort GM has to put in, so adventures are a nice short cut.

Those who want to play in a free world, where the player can hugely alter the story heading to any random direction want lore from the books. They need to fill their mind with ready (and in some groups canon). Also those who want to write their own stories needs lore too.

I guess most groups play somewhere in between of a straight story and a freeform. This is the first time I hear people talking of "killing" lore books. There has been many people wishing that. I find that a bit offensive. I've never had any trouble with adventure books, although I very rarely buy or need one. I know that many people do. I also know that I'm not only one fond of lore books and would be sad if they would be gone.

So there is only division in consumers if FFG makes it so. Bring in adventures AND the lore books, just like before and I see no trouble. Because with lore it doesnt matter what the mechanic is. I use lore from the Fantasy Battle books or sometimes if it suits me *gasp* from the WAR MMO! This way the 3rd ed players can play the 3rd ed and the rest can play what ever the grognards play (mutated versions of 2nd/1st)...